With the right kids with a right place address time those kids dont have this you have to instill they can do it theyre good enough now to finding out figure out and find the future for good afternoon, everyone were going to get started the meeting will come to order. This is the crisis intervention this is the regular meeting of the land use and transportation im supervisor cowen chair of this committee to my right is supervisor wiener and my left is supervisor peskin our clerk is the crisis intervention lovely andrea ashbury and i like to recognize lee and phil jackson from sophisticating helping us by broadcasting this meanwhile madam clerk, any announcements . Yes. Completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the april 16th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Item one a resolution authorizing the Municipal Transportation Agency to that compete the application more Affordable Housing for Sustainable Communities Program at eddy street and item 2 a resolution 30 years the crisis intervention Municipal Transportation Agency to compete a grant for Affordable Housing as a Sustainable Community project ever project on bell. Colleagues the sponsor of this item theyve informed me additional requirements needed in order to finalize these recessess and applications and they have requested a continuance to the crisis intervention june 27th land use and transportation and before we take Public Comment theres staff and the crisis intervention Mayors Office of housing that is here is their anything to add no seeing none, no other comments lets go ahead and take open up for Public Comment on this two members of the public on items one and two youll have two minutes here at the platinum please come up seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Thank you very much colleagues can i have a motion to continue this to the june 27th seconded by r motion by supervisor peskin and without objection that motion carries anonymously thank you madam clerk item 3 an ordinance amending the transportation code for the crisis intervention evasion and passenger conduct regulations. Great go colleagues my office received a request from the sponsor of this item supervisor mar that we continue this to the next meeting on june 20th Public Comment on item 3 coming up all right. Public comment is closed. At this time thank you colleagues, can i have a motion to continue to june 20th thank you motion by supervisor wiener without objection that item passes unanimously thank you could you please madam clerk items 4 and 5. Yes. Item 4 amending the planning code to create Affordable HousingBonus Program and item 5 the gunmen plan for the crisis intervention legislation creating the Affordable HousingBonus Program. Supervisor tang will be joining us shortly and perhaps start with the Planning Commission until supervisor tang gets her our good afternoon director rahaim ill kickoff this item briefly and introduce my colleagues who will give most of presentation no secret that Affordable Housing is probable the crisis intervention issue of our time and this is an issue that is being a crisis not only in San Francisco but in any cities across the country especially cities that be walkable and attractive to a large percentage of the crisis intervention population we were charged when we developed grasping with the crisis Intervention Development of a local program to implement that the crisis intervention law requires us to do in lui of the developers have the crisis intervention option or using the state law as written we worked with the Affordable Housing developers and the crisis intervention Mayors Office of housing to make the entitlement of 100 percent easier to make the city dollars easily and obviously securing land is an obstacle the crisis intervention costs are related to Housing Construction when we scurvy lands this Program Allows the housing to be arbitrate easier we are work hard in support of Affordable Housing programs and we are looking forward to continuing working on that with mohcd and the board the department is honored to lead this work were whether that go forward just the Affordable Housing program or the crisis intervention mixed use we believe in the importance of this program that will lead to the development of significantly larger number of affordable units i want to thank the staff when worked on this occurring ton that led the effort and monique and paul and other structure departments Sophie Hayward and Mayors Office of housing obviously commissioner chung and her staff and michael and corey teague and others an important effort were grateful for your moving ahead and happy to present and answer questions he know that supervisor tang wants to make a few comments but my staff will make the bulk of the presentation thank you. Id like to welcome supervisor tang who is the crisis intervention author of this legislation to lucrative commissioner chung the floor is yours. Thank you for the staff for working tirelessly on this program im not going to into the history of the development of the protective except to say that really we had worked for about two years Planning Department staff about two years with technical consultants to figure out what is the crisis intervention best way for encouragement of Affordable Housing in San Francisco and insuring were not so fluid with the restrictions under the Affordable Housing bonus plan law there have been concerns about the crisis intervention lack of Community Outreach on this this program i have never seen the crisis intervention Planning Department staff work to go out to every single supervisorial district some more than once to discuss the program through those outreach meeting weve fine tuned and continued to finetune what we want to see in the Affordable HousingBonus Program and so with that said i think we are heard. Of you loud and clear but in terms of my goals for the most part ill like to see better tools to support middleincome families in San Francisco we certainly do not 0 did he clarify given some of the comments from various Community Members just to make sure there is an understanding we have a mixed use program a marketrate supported by the marketrate housing develops and 100 Percent Program which i understand that supervisor cowen has his version of that he introduced lasweek as well given the crisis intervention realms of Community Outreach meetings weve held there are a couple of amendments ill be making today and i want to clarify that many of those amendments are actually to the mixed Income Program i have a couple of copies just a highlevel summary of those amendments ill share those with the Committee Members again, this is for the mixed Income Program i will be amending to prohibit the crisis intervention demolition of residential unit with the rentcontrolled unit this is something that supervisor president london breed had announced several months ago im simplyutting that into the actual legislation today need more secondly, we actually going to be requiring a conditional use authorization process the crisis intervention mixed Income Program we have heard loud and clear that our Community Members want to voice when it comes to the approval process wools require a cu for the crisis intervention mixed Income Program thirdworld wiring direct the city to closer a small go relocation fee and the crisis intervention first right of refusal and certainly not want not to support them other things for example, we would like to close the idea of maintaining the same Square Footage not discouraging retail use from that coming in we need more time to sort out legally well directing the city to closer those things here and fourth were requiring that the early notifications for commercial tenants we had in the legislation be no longer 18 months to the tenants and the office of Economic Workforce Development how to better support them with a project that effects theyre building and next including in the finding a reference to the tools and support for the Small Business tenants as i said i think that really the budget of work focused on though to preserve the crisis intervention Small Businesses and trying to executive more Affordable Housing in our neighborhood and then to be 100 percent Affordable Program a couple of amendments id like to make today because that many of the concepts that were in supervisor peskin legislation are actually in ours but two major things we want to point out one is that we do want to again prohibit find demolition of residential units thats a concept for both programs and highlight the projects under the 100 Percent Program are all right. Prohibited on parcels that are rh1 and rh2 those are the changes id like to make and at this time then i will throw it back the Planning Department staff theyll be able to explain the crisis intervention rational today thank you good afternoon, supervisors again gil kelly im sorry sdmooenz was on the crisis intervention roster i want to make sure he is heard intent. Thank you, madam chair and ill be brief and well hold a bunch of my comments for later in the meeting i want to acknowledge the work of supervisor tang her staff as well as the Planning Department staff and the Mayors Office of Economic Workforce Development as well as the crisis intervention many hundreds of individuals who have been involved in workshops and contacted all the crisis intervention offices quite frankly very controversial they important piece of legislation i hope we get right as a preliminary comment there are two items before us one supervisor tangs piece of legislation the crisis intervention second is a general plan all the time i have together with supervisor mar introduced a separate piece of legislation that is not technically in front of that committee yet although later on in this hearing he will duplicate commissioner sanchez legislation and use that has a vehicle to amend in supervisor mar and my density done right proposal step back and is an, an overarching matter the general plan before this body i think has been done in a way that is too broad and needs to be more narrowly trader i believe that planning has the crisis intervention ability to tailor it more than that set of asterisks that to my mind is not the way of going about it id like later on in the meeting after Public Comment suggest that we forward the general plan amendment to the for action and let me say at the outset that because of the way that the crisis intervention law works general plan amendments go into effect 90 days after this body receives if it from the action by the commission selfwe dont actor in that 90 days it as a matter of law is approved we need to take action prior to july 6th but that action where in i believe we need to turn down the plan as written and not construed as a desire not to move forward with a h s d legislation more, more narrowly crafted ill be suggesting in the meeting we forward the general plan amendment to the full board with a recommendation not to pass it as this body deliberates supervisor tangs legislation with the amendments that shes proposed i appreciate as well as the crisis intervention duplicated file that will be reflective supervisor mar and my density done right legislation we introduced last week. Thank you very much all right. Gil were ready for you. Again good afternoon, supervisors gil kelly director of citywide planning in the Planning Department i have a presentation that is highlevel and brief so the crisis intervention best use of your time we respond to a particular question subsequent to the presentation so just so you know sort of what is in this presentation and what is the item before you that is summarized i want to begin by stepping back briefly to frame what this is all about and then to talk about the crisis intervention two components of the program and then the crisis intervention suggestion that we both made by the crisis intervention Planning Commission and supporting supervisor that we continue to refine some parts of the mishgd program in particular and then describe the crisis intervention proposed action for you today again so that will zero in primarily on the crisis intervention 100 percent affordable piece just wanted to step back and say that there are some key facts that we all need to be aware that selfis easy to get into the details of this debate overprogram details and to assert that right now about 43 percent of San Francisco households pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing this is astonishing finger 22 percent pay more than 50 percent of their housing and thats an enormous number and what is concurring as San Francisco grows and adds population an enormous churn of the population underneath that whereas weve added 10 thousand people over the years in San Francisco and at least a couple of the recent years 70 thousand people have moved in 60 thousand have left of the people left the crisis intervention income bias theres a higher income of individuals moving into San Francisco and protecting income moving out so those are to hes e key realties that have some is directives behind them and the second piece on the crisis intervention page is really to sort of crisis lists those big moving pieces the crisis intervention debate is much bigger than were having today first of all, we are seeing a reserveal in many decades of move of families to inner that is reserveing that pressure of people moving to the core which are driving prices and rents up and displacement comes with that for the crisis intervention locking People Living in the core of the city and also it is true whereas the crisis intervention High Technology sector is driving in the bay area as a whole those workers tend to have higher incomes and more choice in the market where to locate than the crisis intervention existing residents additional pressure size from the crisis intervention pure growth and also true that the crisis intervention bay area has a hole in San Francisco and San Francisco has been under producing new housing relative to the increase in the number of jobs and it is important to noted that is a bay area wide phenomenon weve added 6 hundred thousand jobs since the crisis intervention post recession since 2010 and only 55 affordable units so if you figure two people per household we should have adam Something Like three hundred thousand household were vastly under producing thats true in the city as well the other fact that is really i will say driving the angst in San Francisco the crisis intervention erosion of rent control program and the crisis intervention control of stock important to know that 46 percent of the housing supply falls under rent control but with the crisis intervention vacancy decontrol if particular youre seeing rents rise enormously as tenants move and off their have litigation or not and increased owner moveins that is eroding the existing Housing Stock within an accelerated pace over the last years and some other deductions to the housing supply that is minor in numbers of shortterm rentals and absentee owners those are relatively small but all combined are placing enormous pressure on the crisis intervention housing supply and 43 percent of households are paying more than the crisis intervention sort of accepted industry standard, if you will, in terms of for rent and heres how it plays out in San Francisco in the case were looking a one bedroom units to the left hand and two bedrooms on the read side those are rents the crisis intervention average rent in San Francisco and i think are from earlier this year in january so probably higher now 035 hundreds for a one bedroom and blow in the crisis intervention lefthand side column had is household can actually afford and you can see all the way to middleincome families theres a quite a gap what we can afford the thirty percent level of income in terms of the marketrate of rentals and in the next column thank you two bedroom again an enormous gap 2,800 the crisis intervention middle versus 36 hundred in the rents charged were producing new housing and with stableing the existing be stock you know that that is important to remember what were talking about one slice of pie so we have inclusionary requirements with the crisis intervention recent ballot measure so paying for some share of new affordable units and we have underway a number of 100 percent affordable units in the pipeline we have prongs that are supported by tax increments financing through occ but those are limited in number of finite because the crisis intervention authority has end were playing out and going back and mention the crisis intervention 100 percent affordable projects are highly dependent on tax credits with larger federal tax credits to make those feasible theres an argument that increasing the marketrate housing will take pressure off the crisis intervention accountable market but this is something we cant pull two many eggs in that basket and finally, the state has on the crisis intervention books for several provisions the crisis intervention City Attorney says that applies to San Francisco and this proposal in a moment is a response to making it more locally acceptable and workable on the crisis intervention existing supply were not doing a good cyber the rent control is eroding quickly it serves the crisis intervention moderate to middle folks and through the Mission District increasing the suit of tenants protections those are starving off evictions and trying to save the crisis intervention occupant in their units if answer the supply and a modest amount of units going on through the Community Land trust. Small piece of the tilt one that is important to look forward to so heres how they play auto some of those in production numbers so again, this is not the preservation this the new unit side and how those play out in terms of incomes so we have an existing permanent affordable base through those close to 40 thousand units in the city youll hear a little bit later from the crisis intervention Mayors Office of housing and they have between be themselves and ocii about 8 thousand i think that number has increased in the next 10 years 48 or 49 thousand this program is do not the individual transactions and this developers 5 thousand total affordable units they straddle a couple of income at the top because it is ownership and rentals this mirrors overseeing income levels 5 thousand predicted on the crisis intervention soft sites to take advantage and this is the whole program mixed as well as the crisis intervention 100 percent so you kind see the total numbers if were successful with those programs probably in the neighborhood of 52 or 53 units over the next 10 to 20 years so even that is just a dent in the Affordable Housing supply need supervisor peskin mentioned the crisis intervention general plan amendment this amendment will authorize subsequent planning code amendments by making it clear there is a derivatives to do so it is simply through the meat of that saying that it is policy of the city to encourage greater levels of affordable on site and the city any adopt the crisis intervention permits height increases and building mass increases those will be needing to be revised this is to create more housing in general and more Affordable Housing in particular up to 5 thousand units and one of my programs we have that can produce some middleIncome Housing along with low to moderate housing quickly just so the audience what follow 3 slices of this program altogether one is on the crisis intervention left the crisis intervention state density bonus for providing depending on the rental ownership between 13 and 20 percent affordable they get a 35 density bonus and other incentives to determine if their needed and the local program were talking about talking about for mishgd projects will require thirty percent accountable and would offer two stories of height increase and really from density controls that are on based on the crisis intervention lot area again that is the focus of todays conversation is 100 percent housing so here again a little bit of detail that is allowed under the two local options this is an image one of many we showed with the neighborhoods and district here is a typical sort of commercial corridor with a height limit of i think 45 feet in this case with that is loud that corner building under the existing zoning that will be allowed if were provided the crisis intervention thirty percent of affordable units and again, the one hundred affordable will allow 30 stories and their density will be controlled by the building envelope by the crisis Intervention Forum in terms of and not applying to rh1 or rh2 districts the crisis intervention Planning Commission didnt vote as a whole to take action on the Crisis Intervention Program details they did vote on the general plan amendments to approve that that is before you theyve made no modifications and in terms of the 100 percent Affordable Program they felt no modifications were needed from the staff proposal on that and then finally with the crisis intervention mixed Income Program as supervisor tang referred to a number of recommendations that the Planning Commission made and they vote on those individually as opposed to the whole of the package know that is subject to great debate amongst you are yourselves heres the ones referred to earlier which would be become part of the boards deliberations this will be in the mixed Income Housing paralyze with residential unit are rent control not eligible and the project notes a conditional use permit and other measures to preserve Small Business and neighborhood commercial corridors that are detailed and staff can answer the details if you like a series of other recommendations that the Planning Commission made which the crisis intervention legislation sponsor building will take additional work to study and to refine and those are the crisis intervention geography of the local Housing Program establishing a Small Business relocation fee perhaps and whether or not to pursue sort of individual neighborhoods level adjustments to the crisis intervention memoranda inflicting income has part of criteria we say this knowing the conditions are changing in terms of policy and legislation the pending i think not yet certified on the crisis intervention inclusionary legislation at the ballot the Controllers Office is doing a study regarding that legislation which will look at the feasibility of projects with those inclusionary income levels and that report and study we feel heard will be ready in the late july or early august and then there are requests for changes from the board from Board Members anyway and from members of the community as well as the crisis intervention Small Business commission i believe so this is the overview and the proposed action and the crisis intervention general plan amendment to which supervisor peskin alluded and again, this is the crisis intervention principle wording of principle section and there are details to it some asterisks and the crisis intervention 100 percent Affordable Housing we understand the sponsoring supervisors will like to move forward and again, the critical piece is these would be 100 percent affordable units that would be eligible for up to three storys and theyre in density to say the number of units will be controlled by the former of the building as opposed to a lot per square feet of land ratio so with that, im going to turn it over to Sophie Hayward who will talk about how the 100 percent affordable piece of this plays into their Current Work Program and projects they have. Good afternoon thank you very much im Sophie Hayward from the crisis intervention Mayors Office of Economic Workforce Development and as i can reiterate what mr. Kelly stressed were in a housing crisis at mohcd we create solutions for bringing Solutions Online and faster were chars of dollars the first two items are related to keep that in mind more Affordable Housing we we want to like everyone want to drive down the costs for us that means maximizing the opportunities of driving down the per unit costs will help us to spread our dollars further the proposal to create a Affordable HousingBonus Program for the 100 percent affordable units is an opportunity that allowed United States us to maximize on appropriate sites quickly efficiently in a manner that respect the crisis intervention fabric of our communities this is on shot well street from the local Bonus Program styling this for shot well under the current zoning c interest it accommodates a work building this site accommodates 3 stories and 33 more affordable units for a total of 96 affordable units in this case for seniors without the local Bonus Program well have to pursue other rezoning we know that a lengthy process or utility the state dense bonus that didnt carry the crisis intervention specific perimeters that are proposed by commissioner chung and the mayor and frankly by supervisor mar and supervisor peskin in the legislation as well and the second bite similarly the pub zoned sites on fulsome street is the crisis intervention streamlined to add the density and the crisis intervention surrounded this is zones for public but the surrounding area is height and bulk district and our plan to develop the site with a maximum of 85 feet in height with the stories and one and 34100 percent affordable units without a local program well have to pursue a new zoning through the crisis intervention legislation and precede with the entitlements with the local Bonus Program for the crisis intervention 100 percent units the crisis intervention entitlement timeline will be shorter and at the same time the process will provide added certainly and predicament in the neighborhood shareholders mohcd is supportive and enthusiastic about the 100 percent Affordable HousingBonus Program that incorporates the best practices for our projects by activate the crisis intervention ground floor of 100 percent affordable buildings in the neighborhood and Community Serving use as weve always done those uses are nonprofit and clinics and Neighborhoods Services we also are very supportive of efforts to assure that no residential unit will be adapted by not containing existing rentcontrolled unit and restricting to more dense than rh2 i should say that has not allowing the crisis intervention rh1 and rh2 districts and then building on the crisis intervention message and momentum started the crisis Intervention Board amazing passed the crisis intervention legislation exempting waterproofs of projects for the seeking of conditional use authorization so we thank supervisor tang and the mayor for addressing the portfolio and look forward to coming to an agreement on a program that advances the crisis intervention goals we share to produce more Affordable Housing faster thank you. All right. Thank you. Is that it the staff presentation okay commissioner chung any remarks before Public Comment. Id like say that well, actually restore or reserved my comments im interested in hearing the crisis intervention concerns raised by the crisis intervention. Well go to Public Comment and a stack of Public Comment cards first is calling names and youll hear a soft chime i so have 30 seconds ill marla of north Beach Committee and we urge you to vote down the general plan amendment and support supervisor peskin and supervisor mars density done right that includes and assures good selection no displacement of residential or commercial tenants and very importantly we see this in north beach in other things that have been instituted this legislation will maintain public process requirements we in the committee are happy about the 100 percent Affordable Housing and we feel this legislation needs to be refined thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Thank you, supervisors in the Planning Department im from the San FranciscoTenants Union and frankly im really surprised were here again weve been here multiple times with multiple meetings and hundreds of people have come out to speak about a you call it mixed income we call it a displacement plan a density plan that was not discussed broadly across the community and decided on within it was clarity and were there was an opportunity to participate this is the first weve heard about it operationally is today we believe there is only a dozens of so instead of a one hundred we thought we were talking about 100 percent affordable and those are the one hundred and i understand the mayor likes the idea and supervisor tang i like the fact that everyone likes the idea we thought weed come together tow to talk about those plans and pass something that is more Affordable Housing in the city but instead we have this out of no where this new idea and it is totally confusing we dont know what is going on and not heard about what is going on i dont understand so i think we need to back to the drawing board and meanwhile think about tenant and merchant and neighborhood and include us. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon my name is a kathy im a member of the senior action and disability action on the board was a huge outcry that the east and west parts of city when the general plan or the Affordable Housing bonus plan surfaced last year the tenants and Small Businesses got together and supervisor peskin and supervisor mar with lots of communities input came forward with the density done right alternative that must survive now with jurisdiction and displacement galloping forward in large parts of city that is urgent the 100 percent element becomes a reality real affordability must be connected to neighborhood memoranda income and tenants in the unions looked at the Planning Commission available 200 and 41 sites their got apartment buildings and businesses they must not dont worry about the Community Input and conditional use must be the Democratic Foundation of any density Bonus Program thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Im lauren im a lifelong voter in district 5 im but im also a member of San Francisco senior population were more than one hundred and 80 thousand strong sometimes not so strong we need to keep the residential units and the reasonably priced housing we have to need to keep that and if we get new Affordable Housing we need to be able to accommodate our mixed income im here to speak about the prbldz of supervisor mar and supervisor peskin proposal i speak in opposition to the density bonus developed by the Planning Department staff and the general plan amendment that was elected 24 plan will cover thirty thousand sites and disruptive and allow demolition and displacement and create marketrate and two limit Affordable Housing the supervisor peskin resolution was to all itself pubically expressed needs of the tenant groups and Small Businesses groups, and Affordable Housing groups plus the recommendations that the Planning Commissioners at that january 25th full meeting the Planning Commission the contents was clear 100 percent Affordable Housing based on the neighborhood standards with the Planning Commissioners paramount with the cuffing no demolition no displacement limit the density bonus sites to verified the soft sites that are abandoned i call those the neighborhood principles to build by. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Im teresa from north beach also representing senior disability action and no displacement and no demolition i also support the density done right and again, it is thinking of what the incomes our seniors have in 2010 when the number of elder agencies created the senior tsunami it was called and thats; right when we saw incomes in my sdwrikts of 33 thousand as the medium income and for seniors that income has not risen yes newcomers that have much, much higher income that skews everything, however, the reality that is as lauren said when 20 percent of population make less than 14 thousand a year make sure we have housing ti percent of evictions have been seniors or people with disabilities so again, it is thinking very careful very slowly about what is the best for the neighborhoods and our input so thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, my name is george im president of the coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods and i too want to reiterate what was said earlier regarding we have not seen any of the amendments and some of us came here for a little bit different hearing a broad consensus from a coalition of tenants and neighborhoods and Small Businesses and Affordable Housing organizations have helped to Work Together to create density done right the major tenants are Affordable Housing proposals and to insure the affordable units are affordable up to a neighborhood medium income the area where theyre located select sites not diminished among existing housing conditional use does not displace neighborhoods and mitigate the impacts if any on pdr employment or Nonprofit Services that maybe on such sites and provide Planning Commission approval this is conditional use but we want to thank you for the changes and effort of the Planning Commission and welcome working with you and we want to thank you for we think were headed to a much better bunch of legislation so thank you. Thank you, sir. I have a couple of more speaker cards please come on up. calling names please come on up. Make can i speak for henry he spoke to him hes on his way he said he would be here in perhaps 20 minutes. Please proceed. Well, actually i wanted to let you know. He can speak when he comes thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors katherine coalition for eastern neighborhoods and first, i suggest you forward the general plan to the with a negative recommendation to the full board to vote down, and, secondly, i support of zions e supervisor peskin done right 100 percent affordable legislation so theyre affordable and protects the existing housing does not displace the neighborhoods serving businesses those key requirements are important we are buildings more than housing were Building Communities and the type of housing and its impact on the surrounding communities are issues that deserve public input and lastly in addition, i appreciate supervisor tangs efforts to introduce amendments to her own legislation, however, those amendments are new to us and need to be reviewed in the context of the full legislation before the public can understand their impacts and know what the result of the legislation would be beneficial to the community until this has been done he recommend that legislation and the amendments not be approved today for now every effort placed and only passed the supervisor cohens one hundred Affordable Housing legislation thank you. Thank you. Next speaker,. Ill call up a few more speaker cards calling names . Good afternoon my name is tony rob less with senior disabilities action to reiterate what was said earlier this is important for the people that we serve seniors and people with disabilities and the Overall Community no displacement and no demolition and no displacement of tenants and no displacement of businesses we do support the density done right proposal that is property by supervisor peskin and supervisor mar that made one hundred affordable for the neighborhood income that is important we see the disparity of income that is striking between different districts in different neighborhoods and very, very striking especially our seniors make very, very little money that is very much on the lower ended of spectrum that made lower by the influx of bigger money that is come in and skewed the numbers in severe way yes. The density done right by supervisor peskin and supervisor mar thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon gym Lazarus Chamber of commerce thank you supervisor tang for taking on a difficult issue some of us have been around to remember when the city was perhaps nfl down zoned in the early 19 san jose and the Housing Development in all neighborhoods have suffered from that downturn and smart growth is needed not only on transit corridors in the eastbound but smart growth is needs on commercial district 90 in San Francisco the legislation are before you doesnt demolish any housing and not impact existing commercial uses but it brings a variety of housing stomp for working families as well as protecting residents by adding an increment in the different corners of city throughout San Francisco as i listen to the opponents speaking phenomenally of an alternative piece of legislation how many housing and units can be built with the alternative legislation if we are going to build housing for marketrate housing we need to side 2 in all parts of San Francisco where that make sense not just downtown and south of market we need to identify locations throughout the city that allows a mix of housing be built and the legislation introduced by supervisor tang is the first step and we support that legislation thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi john winston i sit on a couple of cacs i come as a Family Member who is living in the city a working class a printer i print youll our Campaign Materials and over the years definitely an important business in this town laughter i live in an rh1 neighborhood my kids go to Mission High School i live in the west side of town and pay much more than 50 percent of income on housing this legislation especially with today is amendment will be really moving in the right direction id like to see as much housing built as possible with considerations to the neighborhood character anything can happen we working on this in my neighborhood we can build housing in the west side of how soon and e town and the east side of town in a way to respective neighborhood character im depending on this housing to make the contribution ill making to my family and political work and to my work and i also want to make sure my kids have a chance to stay here in a city they love and grew up in thank you. Hello supervisors christie if spur the Community Director thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of the avenues we applauded the Planning Department and katie tang to make the amendments in response to the concerns about residential and commercial displacement we urge you in support of Affordable HousingBonus Program for the many reasons for in addition to increasing the overall supply of marketrate housing and enabling the density spreading out housing across the city and creating a much need Housing Program for vacant sites and thats all about public subsidy we understand that supervisor mar and supervisor peskin have a competing proposal that offers 100 percent were concerned by the limited aau mriktd and didnt address the states requirement for the states density Bonus Program will only create hundreds of affordable units and not take advantage of the construction of more Affordable Housing without density we urge to recommend this for approval like all Housing Solution this is not a magic bullet we hope youve move forward thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon andy west side neighbor my wife and i rent we rented for thirty years we need more housing in that city my wife and i have been evicted in this century twice over educated noisy people like three and four get evicted theres a Housing Program i support this this is the 5 or 6 hearing ive been talking with people if we adopt the full Affordable HousingBonus Program we will be complying with state law thats a good thing ill pouted it will not create housing for my household i make two of money to benefit but maybe a little bit less pressure on the housing we have and maybe ill not get evicted for the third time it is critical we build housing it relieves the pressure and build horsz for the workforce and build affordable lets make sure we build housing for teachers and cops and firefighters we aau belligerent the folks to live in the city we cant afford to live in the city if youre a cop and firefighter not if youre a young cop next disaster i want to know theres cops in the city we need to build housing for them and everybody thank you. It was actually a function of a federal Supreme Court decision that said that cities could not require their employees to live within their jurisdictions. Thank you supervisor peskin ill call up a few more speaker cards. calling names good afternoon. Im patrick im here as a president of the south Beach Mission bay and an attorney my day job i think that im here supporting supervisor tangs Affordable HousingBonus Program as amended i grew up mixing and recalling the building that has obesity inclusionary housing had 3 class units up for rents he shared it on facebook and within hours dozens of friends were calling and asking asking about it we dont hear about the demand for less housing we know how too well the number of people that make over that amount but under the this program is needed the time is right to prioritize the production of housing every analysis talks about the supply were talking about middleIncome Housing and so weve got to get this done it is very important for the community and the middleincome to stay here weve heard over and over it is time to support commissioner sanchez legislation as amended thank you very much. Thank next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors tim colen, San FranciscoHousing Action coalition. On three hundred members representation we stress our strongest supports for the ahbp proposal and want to also commend the Mayors Office of housing and the Planning Department in the highest terms for the incredible research and analysis theyve conducted to bring this policy forward it is is its been a Long Time Coming and Solid Research that backs 2 we think that is the citys best change to craft the proposal that will bring us in compliance with the stated density bonus law the number of projects that have been submitted to the Planning Department understates rules need clarification that is one not sure we can support conditional use for housing in particular conditional use for one hundred affordable it puts the pressure on the developer to say that housing is necessary and desirable in a city that hires attorneys to stop projects we cant say were not convinced the density done right is seems more limited than the very, very modest program is it so hard to imagine more than 1 hundred and 50 units in the next decade we can do more i say that the ahbp peers to be precedent it anticipates the direction governor jerry brown is going the state has got to implement the principles and build for marketrate housing and use that tool to subsidies Affordable Housing as the governor says im not interested in state fund to pay for the housing this comes to us what we thank you. Next speaker, please. Gamechanger supervisors my name is ferdinand request the council of the housing im happy today last week, we won prop c i believe was endorsed by every one of you with 67 percent of vote that mandated 25 percent of our housing hobo accountable in every marketrate Development Im a little bit confused why were arguing over something that is going to get us thirty percent in exchange for some Pretty Amazing bonuses because we work for parents for this discussion we thought well be talking about waterfall affordable but i want to talk about this this is where some of the most amazing bonuses the rhd on the slope Garden Center and the irish hall theyll give a 5 hundred and 70 percent bonus to those Property Owners irving and terryville the theyll get a one hundred and thirty percent bonus to the Property Owners by signing a piece of paper right here on the other hand, mr. Collin talked about the bonus and part of reason why the Planning Commission did not recommend moving forward with the whole ahbp they understood that the Feasibility Study was complicate and frankly go i am measure random sites like slope boulevard or irving were not analyzed it is important that only the 100 percent affordable which i understand you all have been working on diligently be moved forward thank you. Next speaker, please. Supervisors im dennis i want to address the ahbp that cameo i from the Planning Commission without a vote or recommendation and only amended with without Public Notice it is to the Planning Commission recommendations given oh, on february 25th it is arrogant this ahbp is mandatory Demolition Program and targets thirty thousand plus parcels so far as i know for displacement it is redevelopment under a cover of Affordable Housing im strongly in charge of Affordable Housing in their place will be 70 percent unaffordable marketrate housing and more for folks aribnb more than waterproofs ami and mostly affordable to Corporate Retail 88 percent of units and gardeners im a union guy automobile mechanics and clerical and cab driver and hotel and carpenters and more teachers cant afford the marketrate based program is not good policy if stabilize it disrupts and this proposal should be rejected until Development Without displacement was introduced so we can be heard here the density done right is good policy and a tool to create Affordable Housing it is are supported by a broad consensus of tenants and Small Businesses and organizations and retail use and incorporates that prized the medium income and requires the Planning Commission for projects to insure those preconditions are followed finally unlike ahbp that represents the residents thank you and by the way, the general plan should be voted. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors henry with the San Francisco counsel of the merchants associations were concerned in the Small Business world about the development we dont have rent protection and residential rule that people have and the evidence most have regular clients they come in here the displacement that is pretty much matt haney the business will be gone we should rethink the effect on displacements ill urge to look at this and consider the proposals by supervisor peskin so thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Eileen a long time district 4 resilient here in opposition to the general plan amendments they dont rebuttal the amendments aurl under a consideration ill urge the committee toe move forward with a negative recommendation the density Bonus Program urge the supervisors to continue to stick to commissioner sanchez legislation with supervisor mar and supervisor peskin with the density dissolution right with the Affordable Housing component for the mixed Income Program to move forward well revisit the scenarios from last year like the Community Meeting at the Ortega Library the mixed income components needs to be served severed from the 8 hundred components and not move forward thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. This is testing wells fargo born with the 5 action and thank you supervisor tang for putting in no demolition of the existing housing in both of those this is great. Thank you for hearing it. Yeah. Ill encourage this committee to sever the two things the Affordable Housing and the mixed Income Housing and go ahead with talking about the affordable how we can get that we have enough money in the city with the housing bond and other source of money to build macro maybe 5 thousand units of Affordable Housing so by working together you supervisors a ca can make that happen id like to call your attention if you havent seen it the institute of government studies in berkley may published a study Housing Production and frirlts and they found was that in order to reduce the displacement pressure you have to build twice as many subtracted unit as marketrate and that in addition in areas like San Francisco we have a great deal of income differences and displacement that we cannot rely frirgs that more units will be affordable we have to do aggressive retention of Housing Stock and there are many other steps we have to take so lets work on getting your legislation and the other supervisors together and do a few more things get the general plan amendment begun so we can refine it thank you. Thank you and any other members that didnt turn in a speaker card line up by the window. Good afternoon, supervisors im kathy the proposed general plan amendment is overly broad and drafted to support all 4 version of the mayors proposed programs but i understand that all 4 may not be advanced the general plan should be rejected in its current form and trader to compromiseed version the local program the environmental officer that a local project didnt cause a Significant Impact but the state law is the fair argument standard to determines under ceqa and in addition the proposed general plan amendment has Significant Impacts that must be analyzed in an eir and otherwise objectionable for many my february letter and acts at a risk if you approve the amendment and the mayors projects soon by rely on the i went for the 2009 Housing Element and the illegal eir is considered by the California Court of appeal and it will substantially weaken the policies to avoid the impact into the neighborhoods character including policies and afternoon units per next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors rose and was going to talk about what was posted on the website i see a change of part of what ill read the original rhd back in 20156 categories and forwarded to the board with no recommendation even though i understand that planning was working on it for two years im part of coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods Land Use Committee and didnt hear it until close to the timeline it was sweet spot to be adopted so with this new middleincome Housing Program proposal i dont see any new text and getting concerned that day today is the same process and if we do that again, im afraid 0 theyll get rail rooted down the way i see issues no cu for the Affordable Housing only the mixed Income Housing and the sdebts on form rather than Square Footage of lot basically the zoning of lots and the ami needs to be refined and the general plan as written didnt incorporate the latest changes might as well forward to the full board with no recommendation no kumbaya and look at it both sides with the people that spoke earlier as well, thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors my name i first please send the general plan with to the full board with a negative recommendation that is gratifying to hear supervisor tang talk about the Affordable Housing bonus plan the marketrate housing plan pro bono the demolition of all housing with the conditional use process but disstressing we are hearing about the amendments not seen the public outrage by the Planning Department occurred only after a huge displaced after we learned that the plan was rezoning the whole city over the holidays and today sadly this process failure is repeated according to kathleen in the sunday chronicle we are over producing marketrate but rents are not down in construction in rare case theres far out of reach below the reach of the population we dont need more marketrate if i understand the amendments offered to the marketrate plan not addressing many of the problems raised with that proposal by the public and the members of the Planning Commission to continues to target directly demolition of neighborhoods serving businesses the very businesses that make San Francisco a liveable walkable city we need a 100 percent affordable Promissory Note Program and density done right by supervisor peskin and supervisor mar and 100 percent Affordable Housing with a density bonus needs and warrant a conditional use it is different from waving a cu with the local zoning thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. And again, if any other speakers wish to comment line up by the window. Im koreay smith with the Housing Action coalition im speaking on behalf of the three hundred members we support of Affordable HousingBonus Program as is our organization has been involved in the legislation since 2014 both are business members had the opportunity to provide input and fully endorse that note just the two members of the organization speaking today that support we have additional 8 hundred signatures as well as 25 video submits to individual supervisors that were sent to the individual supervisors from supporters at work weve heard concerns of the avenues and think those are being addressed through not only the amendment today but looking back to my communication from february supervisor president london breed introduced her rentcontrolled amendment before the 25 hearing theyve been online the hours Actions Coalition likes it im a fan of housing density i like the fact that 40ers of the units will be two bedrooms or more a agency a city id like to have a family some day and further that is a complete fungal inspection it is low and marketrate and associating economically city that i want to live in and additionally the marketrate housing will be able to subsidize that low and middleincome in a city not enough money more Affordable Housing lastly as repeated not one answer to the hicks but beg of you this is one of the pieces that helps not for answer it is really thank you thank you dennis san franciscans for Community Planning i want to concentrate on the service of businesses not adequately dealt with in the underlying issue the underlying program one is reminded the San Francisco redevelopment projects in the western edition there were promises of the retention and preservation of Small Businesses that totally and completely failed no businesses survived during that process hundreds of Small Businesses were lost forever and as to this day really changed that community into one that is hardly a community not the basis of neighborhoods serving businesses available to them the idea that somehow we will put off the question for future study didnt really make sense to me it is too important an issue to put off and find ways to preserve businesses a suggestion by staff was that we adopt the federal standards for relocation in cases where federal government takes over properties the Small Business commission looked at this question and be conducted lucked weve lost visually all the Small Businesses it will take a big, big amount to preserve and retain businesses that needs to be dealt would go things before not afterwards thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im shawn this proposal will benefit me but towards making San Francisco a better place to live i sort of feel about the amendments that the alternative transportation represent status quo its not good enough i dont understand how the status quo will help working people in the city especially those who dont live here yet but will i dont understand how this status quo will help Small Businesses so in my opinion is that you know this sounds like a reasonable modest approach i hope youll approve 2 thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And good afternoon members of the board peter cohen, San Francisco council of Community Housing organizations. You know we have an opportunity moment today after months of contiguous process going back to september of last year and really a proposal that was much two complex and big to be coming out of Planning Commission to you and what we can do is focus on what everyone agrees to a first step 100 percent affordable projects not a small thing about creating certainties more Affordable Housing throughout the neighborhoods as you may know most of the projects are on the east side and a 3rd of city and difficult to have that certify certainty for projects in the neighborhoods that is a road map for that to happy in more places and take advantage of that over time this is what this program does that builds the trusted and use 100 percent affordable as a test its a case and thank supervisor tang for introducing the amendments today and for hearing some of the recommendations that came out of the Planning Commission but some of the recommendations came out a number of things theyve suggested advocating for and 100 percent affordability is the kind of test case to do that and were suggesting focusing on that and coming back in several weeks time and marrying those together and were choking that weve committed to expanding the Affordable Housing and density bonus this is the right tool we suggest you move forward thank you. Thank you any Public Comment on items 4 and 5 please coming up seeing none, madam chair can we close Public Comment thank you. Public comment is closed. At this time supervisor tang excuse me supervisor cowen i see your name. Im happy i mean im happy to defer to the sponsor of the measure that is in front of us ill reverse my comments if i want to proceed. Thank you. I presenter all the Public Comment and couple of points i want to address first of all, ill repeat one more time one of the major amendments im making in the program were pro bono the demolition of existing residential unit that includes rentcontrolled unit and the Affordable Housing bonus plan that is an amendment that again supervisor president london breed announce were putting it into the legislation today hopefully and in terms of demolition concern i hope that easy it were prohibiting the demolition of residential unit for the mixed income and the 100 Percent Program a secondly, i know that some folks have been mccomments about not knowing about the full ahbp and feeling like the information was actually our ahbp had both component waterproofs Program Since 2013 when we first explored it second thing i want to bring up that all of the amendments ive property were discussed at the Planning Commission so were also not trying to pull anything over one oman those were recommended and discussed we agreed to make as many as we possibly could i know that more can be done in the preservation and were not trying to punt this off to future studies we cant draft it legally with the supervisor peskin density done right we cant draft were not trying to delay this and in terms of the timing of this i know that the last one of the comments were not try to jam so quickly we were perfectly willing to wait for the faerld and until moving with any part of ahbp given there is a 100 Percent Program that is introduced weve triggered the conversations otherwise we were perfectly willing to look at the faerld in terms of the parcels being able to build more affordable units and move forward with a map of those eligibility sites lastly ill say that in terms of the alternative density done right many elements similar we had a 100 Percent Program in our component i know that is the focus of supervisor peskin and supervisor mars version, however, ill say that dont believe that anyone can truly say they support Affordable Housing if we put more restrictions on Affordable Housing and one of the things unfortunately, i disagree requiring a 100 percent affordable i have no problem with mixed income but for 100 percent i cant agree to, and, secondly, not agree to restrict parcels for were eligible to build one hundred projects on yes for mixed income im going to consider for restrictions but for the 100 percent that is a reminder we build one or two each year why should we put more restrictions on the program that is a few of the things two points i disagree with but for example, preservation of businesses all that that that supervisor peskin said we didnt want to include with that said, colleagues ill ask you adopt the amendments i have proposed today all that were discussed at full public hearings and what ill like to suggest then we duplicate the file and we move forward to the full board 100 Percent Program as a slightly amend that was prohibiting the demolition of residential units to the full board. Thank you very much i see weve got some remarks from supervisor wiener. Excuse me supervisor peskin. Im happy to jump in at this point so first of all, let me agree with many of the speakers from both sides i agree to expand the toolbox particular more Affordable Housing were doing that either accessoriesy dwelling unit originally appear in other words, by supervisor peskin and contrasted by the institutions of individuals that have taken hundreds of units off the market where the shortterm rentals or prop c embraced by the members or the Affordable Housing bonus plan which by the way, has been on the books in the state of california since 1979 and accommodated through the use of suds over time and i agree we need to get our hands around and with all due respect to chamber of commerce and spur and with all due respect our Planning Department a much more enlightened Planning Department in the days of Justin Justin herman weve made terrible mistakes that have ripped communities and we need to rather than do this in a ivory tower figure out ways to increase our production of housing particular Affordable Housing and make sure that we have communities that stay intact and not evacuee people im delighted the Planning Commission made that recommendation and delighted that supervisor president london breed didnt to the gentleman of the action Housing Coalition didnt introduce those amendments but their before us quite frankly not saying this in a bad fashion our eiry tower smart educated people came up with a plan that actually did not have those safeguard and if not for this robust conversation over months we would not have come to that conclusion we need to get it right for Small Businesses as well i hear people speak to the fact that the Planning Commission made those recommendations and while it is true that the version of this legislation that supervisor eric mar and i introduced incorporates more the Planning Commission recommendations particularly and in the study that the Planning Department staff did with david barker that produces 5 thousand approximately 5 thousand units of Affordable Housing in those locations without displacement or what have you i lost my train of thought for a second ahbp offering were under no obligation to accept the Planning Commission represents i dont want to come long and say the supervisor mar and supervisor peskin reflection requires cus and those are incorporated in the mar and peskin legislation but supervisors by a majority vote can choose to accept the recommendations or not i want to make that very clear what i would like to do is duplicate the file and amend in the density done right cute name and then then have to be referred to the Planning Department for Environmental Review it will not need to go back to the Planning Commission im keeping out the fee provision that would trigger another Planning Commission hearing thats the same advise ive received from Legal Counsel and want to make a motion and then to my colleagues that are member of the Land Use Committee, however, you want to do that i prefer to send that recommendation do not ask as to item 5 but send it without recommendation and accept supervisor tangs amendments so that when the Planning Department has reviewed the duplicated file for environmental determination well continue this conversation i think were moving together i think there is more to be done and i actually would like to get the representatives from the counsel of the Community Housing organizations together with supervisor tang and myself for on offline discussion negotiation in the days ahead so those would be my motioned. All right. Thank you very much supervisor wiener. Thank you, madam chair i dont think this legislation has nothing to do with with the ivory tower this legislation frankly about the reality that we face in San Francisco where we are in a deep housing crisis because we dont have enough housing we have 200 thousand more people than 1980 i know that supervisor peskin disputed those numbers last week at the board of supervisors if you look at the consensus 15 hundred and now 8 hundred plus next a million and in the bay area 2 million like 2. 5 Million People since 19 not an ivory tower we need more housing in the city and Affordable Housing we need more housing overall period and this program this Affordable Housing density Bonus Program is a very eloquent way of coming out of ivory tower and putting for housing on the ground in a sensitive way in a way well generate new housing spread across the city and not concentrated in a few neighborhoods and generate belowmarketrate subsidize Affordable Housing at zero cost to the taxpayers that is what this is about and it is very tangible and real and we need it you cant talk about reducing displacement without actually increasing housing we will never be able to address displacement in the city in a meaningful way unless and until we creating enough housing to house the population a part of displacement a lot of people want to live in a limited horticulturalist and you vw have competition for the heirs and people get pushed out and this program again as Planning Department noted it not a Silver Bullet will you helps us generate a significant amount of housing im appreciative of commissioner sanchez amendment particularly the amendment that prohibits the demolition of housing and city housing thats a concern that have mine as well as when it was first introduced thats been corrected im appreciative for that so i would to supportive of this entire program, of course, he support of 100 Percent Program but the 100 Percent Program it will produce Affordable Housing it will not produce anywhere near the Affordable Housing that we need let alone housing overall Affordable Housing subsidize Affordable Housing is incredible important we all support it and want more subtracted Affordable Housing by itself will not solve the housing crisis one piece of the puddles not solve the problem we have to have more hours of all types of that program will help us create that housing protecting hours and my mind hours and marketrate i support that the density done right program to me is absolutely shooting ourselves in the foot it is limiting to 100 percent affordable and then saying well make it extra hard to build Affordable Housing there are many roadblocks even to build 100 percent Affordable Housing and we this board just passed legislation earlier this year to remove conditional use requirement for 100 percent requirement why put obstacles in the way of creating 100 percent Affordable Housing so those colleagues my take on this legislation and i look forward to the continuing conversations today. Great, thank you my question is for the Planning Department and supervisor peskin let me know if you want to jump in one of the proposals ive heard from the supervisor peskin supervisor mar version of the legislation that new neighborhood basis the ami system based on the ami with an within the neighborhood so i dont know who can answer that the concern i have is that it seems well be getting away from a movement trying to get away from the old ways of thinking with the concentration of poverty let me back up so the details are not clear perhaps start there on what the ami levels will be and how youll will be defining the neighborhoods and the formula youll use to come up with a ami level and for like the Bayview Community there are low ami levels it make sense to keep something low perhaps arbitrarily low but t seems like it keeps the ami level low artificially and never allowing full fluid upward mobility in building a difference mix of housing opportunities you know available to the neighbors so help me reconcile i dont know if i love or hate it laughter . Good question. Now director rahaim the issue youre referring to say out the middleincome by the way, the income was too high relative to the medium income of certain parts of city the represents out of the Planning Commission to look at specifically at income levels to see if that level the program could be reduced to recognize the income and recognizing that housing costs in those parts of city are less because of land use that was really that discussion weve not developed the specification but consider in the next round. Have you start moving do you think that path. Weve not made conclusions. What exactly are you going to the analysis have you figured out your methodology that already exists to come up with this formula. Sure to our point a relatively new idea weve been working with the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development to understand our oufshz respect this idea of making sure the housing in each neighborhood is affordable so the people that live there for the so far to your point were concentrating poverty in each neighborhood this is scoping out the approach and look at the neighborhood ami and another thing that might are more compelling look at the fair market on the other hand, so we want to connect and develop those ideas and work with stakeholders to be insure were balancing the two competing policy objectives to move forward with that kind of policy. Have we identified which baseline youll be using to figure out the ami as the economies up and down to individual households income so are you bays it on a robust or maybe my assumes is incorrect with. The amis it would be easy. A question if a building is built does the ami change when year do you use are you going to be selecting from 1985 or 2000. Well use the previous year. And then every year updated correct. Ill imagine the bayview from the neighborhood has changed dramatically even in the last 6 years ive been on the board of supervisors there have been wealthy gentrifying versions with the ami youll use in the baseline i guess how do we reconcile and how do you get manage that the fair from what i understand not prices people out of the neighborhood is that why were using the ami. Thats the logic behind that idea. Which im baseline are do we use. Our first instinct the annual but the thinkibut takes summary to understand how to functions with the intended or unintended consequences of using that methodology would be. You mentioned about the costs of land did that mean youll use an annualized average for the cost of land like did boyfriend for example, to afford to factor into our ami formula. That would be a factor yes. So im going to be watching that closely naturally i can see both sides but im concerned because the experience on a daily basis what happens with you concentrate property it leads to a generational poverty i dont want to put forward a policy that has with dont tensions but end up hurting a neighborhood in the long term i understand this conversation is early hoped to be helpful in the discussion as we map out what exactly 2 will look like and how well go about the evaluation. Thank you supervisor tang has something to say. I appreciate your questions around the neighborhood ami i share the same concerns, however, we didnt propose the ami for the mixed Income Program in the density done right version a proposal for neighborhood ami system which to me didnt make sense for a 100 Percent Program i like to call up Sophie Hayward from the Mayors Office of housing to explain that. How it will even work. Thank you very much youre correct the proposal to use an up to 100 percent of the neighborhood zip code hiring were required when we use federal take credits to limit the affordability to 60 percent of citys im the majority the vast majority of neighborhood 60 percent ami users that high number is less than 100 percent of the neighborhood ami there are a limited number of neighborhoods very limited in which we would have to make the units less expensive than in the typical Affordable Housing projects pursuit that is very limited ill say 3 zip codes has an ami that is lower than the 100 percent project. Did you know the 3 zip codes. Supervisor peskin has a question as well. Sophie hayward for everybodys information do you want to let us know what the the 100 percent and one 20 percent and one hundred and 50 percent of a san franciscan. You can go ahead answer that question about the zip code. Kate had a rightly 2016 and 75 thousand for two people that is 86 thousand plus and for a household of 396 thousand plus thats one hundred of area memoranda income. At one 20 and one 40 is what one one percent 9 thousand plus and 3 people one hundred and 16 thousand and for one 40 is one and 550 two people is 26 hundred and one and 35 thousand for the 3 people as you may know the vast majority of housing we build is two hours at or blow 60 percent of area memoranda income within our development we include the set aside for homeless individual our average hovers 40 percent on average because we set as the target 50 percent of ami for most units but in some cases to a maximum of 50 now we have neighborhoods that have very, very low medium incomes those are the tenderloin, Treasure Island are. Do you know what can you call the numbers. The medium income for the tenderloin is thirty thousand plus dollars and so for a Family Household of 2 thats around 35 percent of area medium income Treasure Island is a special case, of course, because a transitional population, chinatown the medium income 28,000 and for a household of 2 that again is around 35 percent of area medium income have to small universe of neighborhoods that have very stealing protecting 40ur8dz those are development with a high number of sros and my office is working on a sro acquisition Rehab Program to take our resources and target those special cases because in those developments it is very hard to finance an acquisition under any circumstances. Have you considered Public Housing as well. I dont know if you know the numbers you mentioned the tenderloin, you mentioned chinatown. So the tenderloin and chinatown virtually every neighborhood has Public Housing we are go rehabilitating 35 hundred units of Public Housing the average ami for the Public Housing residents is actually less than 20,000 a year so those households are at the 20 percent of ami level and we have putting enormous amount of resources to protect those households and preserving that housing for the long term it was actually at risk of loss. Can you give me the im levels for the valley neighborhood Visitacion Valley medium Family Income is 50,000 and for a household of 2 thats about 60 percent of area medium income for households of 3 around 55 thank you those numbers reflect sunnyvale Public Housing. Yes. Thank you all right. Supervisor wiener our name is next no supervisor tang one thing i want to address regarding the demolition of existing affordable units ill take full responsibility for touching not included as a prohibition in the protective, however, the Planning Department staff didnt take into account the 5 thousand units were be demolishing arranged not part of their calculations lastly i know that we are going to talk about the inclusionary housing requirements and we have heard in previous hearings along overseeing debates that in order to achieve 25 percent or more Affordable Housing on the projects there is some sort of will public subtract that needs to be permitted i think that 3 ahbp it has has to do with with that conversation i think we should continue that conversation when our faerld is completed that concludes the comments for today and urge this committee to adopt the amendments and recommend we duplicate the file and send forth the 100 Percent Programming program there is a lot of interest and love to see us build 100 percent projects here in 0 San Francisco sooner than later so what well do well take action on the supervisor tangs amendment a series of amendment that were read into the record and the language is circulated were good to go no okay. John gibner, deputy City Attorney. You may be good to go ill suggest it so you would this Committee Supervisor tang and supervisor peskin are talking about 3 versions and supervisor tangs version the original go which will be amended to include the early notifications and prohibit the demolition of residential unit and excluded you have been been the 100 percent Affordable Program is that note right. I mean there are a couple of things requiring the conditional use. Thats in the marketrate. Yes. So the 100 percent yes. The prohibition of occasion of residential unit. Thats version one 100 percent but the occasion of residential unit and require an early notification and a member of the committee can duplicate the file and in the second version youll have supervisor tang other set of mixed Income Programs and in the third versions the second duplicate youll have if the Committee Adopts supervisor peskin amendment youll have basically striking out more or less all the text between pages 52 and 51 in the ordinance that is before you and replacing with the text of supervisor peskin and supervisor mars legislation without the fee waiver piece. Thank you all right. Thank you again well take supervisor tangs amendment first yes, we can would you like supervisor tang. I can read into the record first ill make the motion not make the emotion but read into the record the amendments to be made to the 100 Percent Program which is prohibition of the existing residential unit and early notifications for businesses which would take place no less than 18 months to the tenants and oewd. Okay. Ill move that amendment motion has been made to move the amendment can we take that without objection . Without objection those are accepted through the chair the records for the mixed Income Program number one prohibit demolition of existing residential units and number two require the conditional use authorization process thirdly, we direct the city to explore establishing a Small Business and frifrl as well as other Small Business preservation tools fourth to require early notifications for commercial tenants in response 18 months to the tenants and oewd and fifth a finding sections with the exists tools and support for the Small Business tenants and lastly i neglected to mention which i thought we were going to make looter is include at the ground floor level active uses any neighborhood commercial uses demolished. Excuse me do you want to duplicate the files first and ask for the changed amendments. No. I mean there are part of Different Things done before the divide the file. Were talking about 3 different pieces of legislation. Ill defer through the City Attorney but with an go mixed Income Program. No need to duplicate the file. Afterward. After the amendment. Right the amendments that you just made basically strike all the mixed income pieces out to include only the 100 percent affordable thats what i believe that commissioner chung was what ever happens that is pilot or all goes out if this was to proceed those amendments will be in the same legislation some from the same income id like to put the amendments in to have a discussion where to split things out or not. That works for me. Ill move the amendments with the mixed Income Program that supervisor tang articulated. All right. Can we take that without objection . Colleagues without objection move on now thank you supervisor tang for your amendments supervisor peskin you had a couple of motioned or one as stated by scombrib e john gibner, deputy City Attorney id like to duplicate the file and strike out the new text in section 2 and 3 which would be pages 2 to 41 and amend in the density done right ordinance that we introduced last tuesday and leave in supervisor tangs amendments to section 250 and 60 and not have the fee provision as state by mr. Gibner and like to have if those amendments are cemented to planning for an Environmental Review. Supervisor wiener a few thoughts. I dont support this motion supervisor peskin and supervisor eric mar can have their legislation i dont support this density done right it makes it harder to build Affordable Housing. Commissioner peskin can you tell us why you and supervisor eric mar didnt introduce the legislation. We did introduce this legislation was introduced last tuesday and in order to i think facilitate the conversation that is evolving amongst stakeholder and supervisor tang and the mayors piece of legislation as well as mine and supervisor mars that brings that conversation more together quickly if we dont it is referred to the Planning Commission for a hearing and take a lot longer to hear the legislation side by side and whatever problems to the forged. Well, we have the motion before us commissioner nakajo you have remarks. Okay. Lets roerpt. Supervisor peskin supervisor wiener no supervisor cowen no youre one i and two notices with supervisor wiener and yourself december inventing this motion fails thank you so much any other business. Wait item 5. All right. Any need on the item was on item number 4 would be two amendments that were accepted youd like to submit to the board with a recommendation. So through the chair id like to now that i believe i dont know if that motion is made to duplicate the fielgz but send forth the 100 Percent Program. No that most needs to be made. If i ask request the committee to make that motion. Motion to move supervisor peskin is that a motion from you. No okay. All right. Motion made to move forward that one hundred Program Supervisor wiener would you like to make that motion. So the file is now duplicated. No can i im confused. About what was proposed. Im sorry two proposals by. Can you talk louder. Two amendments by supervisor wiener the demo and early notification and the Income Program so wait weve not taken a motion whether or not it is a positive recommendation. Right for the full board with a recommendation or duplicating i know that failed the duplication. No recommendation to the full board. Thats the language of motion thats has anyone made a motion. No. Anyone has made a motion. Supervisor peskin has duplicated the file so right now you have two versions of file that are identical and supervisor peskin that amendment failed two versions of file now before you in the committee. Okay supervisor katie tang what were you asking. Thank you youve adopted the amendment for the 100 Percent Program and then id like to duplicate the file so one version that stays in Land Use Committee has all the components that both mixed income as amended and then one version has just one hundred program and that was forwarded to the full board. Even though ideally id like to see that move forward but at that moment in time move out the 100 percent to the full board. Supervisor peskin as you lets deal with political realty without the amendments ive offered this committee killed the version you want to send to the full board is not going to identify more is the general plan so well wasting time. Were making a record of this the discussion for faster generations to come back and review supervisor wiener. Yeah. So i would hope that once this comes to the full board that the board of supervisors will engage in a good debate about this and i dont know what will happen i can speculate but i also think that theres value to having a debate at the further be it resolved or members of the board of supervisors so they can go on record and say where they are and people want to make it easier are harder to create housing put more obstacles in the way of building Affordable Housing and do we want more housing to our kids and grandkids can live in San Francisco or make that has hard as possible to build hours so the average rent is 3,500 a month or people get evicted and have to leave San Francisco for anywhere to live im happy to have that debate and my view that had happy again but a worthwhile i prefer to move the legislation how the commissioner nakajo is the author and ill defer to her deserve my prefer to move the entire piece of legislation out both the mixed income and the 100 percent my understanding that supervisor tang is not moving both out it is a compromise so the conversation can moved in good faith additional showing shes interested in extra dialogue lets honor the makers desire and one of the id like to make a motion to put in the 100 percent and the demolition of existing units and also amended to reflect the amendments on rh1 and rh2. Yeah. You did. For density bonus supervisor wiener. Those motion for one of the duplicated files to strip out everybody with 100 Percent Program and then we will send that 100 percent to the full board and then take the other unamended file or the file that championships the complete program and continue to the to the call of the chair. Is that a motion. Yes thats my motion. Thank you very much comments. Thats for the 100 percent with positive recommendation to the full board of supervisors. So at the full board ill make a series of amendments with regard to the conditional use and other things that and so forth in the density bonus and take them in order next tuesday. Supervisor tang. Im fine with that if thats how you choose to move forward ive been open to working with everyone on the boards on the entire Affordable HousingBonus Program but if you you know folks choose to introduce their own legislation theyre entitled to do if thats how you want to negotiate thats fine im fine with Holding People to the record more obstacles to building 100 percent Affordable Housing projects lets do that that way then. I dont want quibble but the creations of suds and going to you krufs is responsible legislation that actually removes barriers in is an appropriate fashion it honors our neighborhoods and city and gives people a vices in the process. No more quibbling well do a roll call vote. The the motion moving forward to adopt the two amendments by a maid by supervisor tang and duplicate amending the 100 percent. The motion is madam chair if i may my motion to take one version the duplicated file and to remove the mixed Income Program so that it is limited to the 100 percent to forward that to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation and the other duplicated file that will contain the complete program to continue to the to the call of the chair. So lets breakdown into two votes okay. So first, lets remove the two files thats been duplicated remove the mixed Income Program and then i move forward i personally dont want to positive recommendation but move is forward supervisor wiener will you honor that. I prefer if ill prefer moving the entire program with a positive recommendation and move out the 100 percent only so that the conversation can continue around the mixed income ill prefer to move the 100 Percent Program out with a positive recommendation thats my preference. I understand your preference. Thats fine our preference i dont support that with a full recommendation lets do a roll call vote with the first what. Remove the mixed income without objection. Thats what well do move and recommend. Remove and recommend but the thing is im sorry. Why not. We can remove the mixed income and duplicate to the file and send it forward the 100 percent only with no recommendations as the chair is proposing i think that gets us to the conversation with we all want to have on the 21st to the board. Thats without objection. Just to be clear prefer with positive recommendation in the jirnt here for the motion to limit it to one version to 100 percent to put it out with no recommendation ill support that motion. All right. Madam clerk do you get all that. And condition through the chair. That motioned pass and it unanimous the second portion of that well need to do is take a i need a motion. Ill make a motion to send the general plan with a recommendation do not pass. Okay. Lets roll call vote. Supervisor peskin supervisor wiener oh, no, im sorry on the and on the general plan no. Supervisor wiener no supervisor cowen no you have one i and two notice with supervisor wiener and supervisor cowen. Any other motioned. On the general plan. Move forward did not move forward to supervisor wiener. Put it out of committee or table it. Well not table it but make a motion to send is to the full board without recommendation. I would motion made and i prefer we tackle this. Thank you okay roll call vote. And before discussion on that that just means it gets pulled pursuant to 3. 37 if thats what you want to waste another piece of paper we can do that. Roll call vote. Roerments supervisor peskin no supervisor wiener no supervisor cowen one i too notice with supervisor peskin and supervisor wiener dissenting motion passes. No, it fails. Ill make a motion i move we forward item 5 the general plan amendment we move item 5 to the full board with a positive recommendation. Roll call vote. Supervisor peskin no supervisor wiener supervisor cowen you have two is and one no with supervisor peskin december inventing. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we hope you enjoyed that democracy to the board of supervisors i believe you have to duplicated version of the ordinance. Ill make a motion to continue to the through the chair that passed amazing thank you, mr. City attorney madam clerk anything else. Theres no further business. Thank you very good morning and welcome to San Francisco board of supervises budget and finance Committee Meeting for may 25, 2016. Im mark farrell and clar and joined by