As i said many times before, 60 of the San Francisco residents qualify for Affordable Housing in the city. The board intended this program to apply to all units built, and explicitly stated that Group Housing was one of the types of housing which should apply under the inclusionary ordinance. It only became clear as supervisor avalos mentioned, to our office last year, that the Planning Department has been interpreting this ordinance differently because of a difference in how dwelling units are interpreted versus housesing units. And because Group Housing is not considered under the umbrella of dwelling units, the Zoning Administrator has therefore been interpreting our ordinance as excluding Group Housing from the policy. This cleanup legislation just explicitly makes clear that it is Group Housing as defined about under the housing code that is now included in inclusionary Housing Ordinance and not based on how we actually define dwelling units. 1178 folsom, two blocks within two blocks sorry two blocks away from one of our public schools, as well as two sites in the tenderloin as well. Again, this is just to clarify what the board expressly articulated back in 2002 and its just cleanup language. Supervisor christensen. Thank you, madame chair. I want to thank supervisors avalos and kim for this measure, and for their patience with some potential additions to it. At the same time, that they were working on this, my staff was also looking at some similar issues in commercial districts in the c3g and c3s zoning districts. The code gives additional floor area to projects in this district for providing onsites bmr units. Unlike the rest of the units around the city, these units are only required to be affordable for 20 years and they will also be for, as much as 150 ami, with no specifications on unit size, mix or rental versus ownership. So aligned with the intention of the avalos and kim ordinance is to clarify and provide technical cleanup, regarding Group Housing and inclusionary housing requirements. I move to make amendments that seek to do the same, regarding inclusionary housing in the c3 zoning districts. This amendment would require bmr units in the c3g and c3f zones to be permanent Affordable Housing at no more than 120 ami for rental creating permanent middleincome housing and further technical clarification is included to bring the units in the same process for approval as the rest of the Inclusionary Housing Program and to make them familysized units. The Planning Commission recommended that these additional unitss are subject also be subject to impact fees, which we have added. This is a good policy and a cleaner process for those projects, and we have been advised that the time to do it is to add it to this legislation, if the supervisors will accept that amendment . Thank you very much. Supervisor wiener. Thank you, madame chair. Well, the good thing about this discussion happening now is that were actually building Group Housing in a broader way in San Francisco. I think when the inclusionary Housing Ordinance and i actually checked with some people back when the inclusionary Housing Ordinance was first adopted and none of them could occur Group Housing ever coming up as a topic of discussion and i would assume at the time, the only Group Housing was probably 100 below market rate, Senior Housing or emancipating foster youth so forth. So the fact that were seeing a broader type of Group Housing produced to me is a good thing. In moving past this housing crisis we need to be building a lot of different kinds of housing and Group Housing both bmr Group Housing and nonbmr Group Housing in my view is a very important part of the mix. We need to make sure that were allowing various types to be built. I know at least one Group Housing project that was in the pipeline, when this legislation was introduced, converted to a more traditional apartment or condo building. They said it no longer penciled out for their financing and we lost a Group Housing project. I have heard from other Group Housing developers that it can pencil out. So i think its a little unclear here, but clearly having inclusionary Housing Ordinance apply to Group Housing does increase the costs of the projects. That is not to say that we shouldnt do it. I think the bmr program, our Inclusionary Housing Program is a very, very important one and one i support. What i would like to suggest, and after Public Comment i will make the motion to amend, that we have some additional flexibility in terms of ami. 50 of area Median Income and i would like to propose that the maximum Median Income for rental bmr be 90 , which is into the moderateincome range. And for ownership, up to 120 of area Median Income, which is at the top end of moderateincome. So taking Group Housing inclusionary program, and extending it into moderateincome. We know from a recent report that was issued and many reports over the years around the production of housing for different incomelevels, we produce a lot of housing for highend. We produce not enough, but a decent amount of housing for lowincome, although we need much more. And almost nothing for the middle. Very, very little of moderateincome housing. Group housing is more affordable, because of its size. And if we increase the ami to that moderateincome range, i think that would be helpful. 90 of ami as i understand it for a Single Person in Group Housing would often be single People Living in a units is 64,200 is the maximum income. For a household of two, its about 73,000. Household of three, 82,000 and how old households of four, 91,000. So i will make the motion at the conclusion of Public Comment. Supervisor kim. Thank you. I just wanted this is my first time hearing of this amendment. So i just want to clarify, with the author of the amendment, you would like to go up to 90 of ami, specifically just for the inclusionary requirement for Group Housing or for our Inclusion Program in general . Just for only Group Housing, up to 90 of ami per rental and 120 for ownership. So i just have a couple of comments on that. First of all, i want to agree with supervisor wiener, the reason this hasnt been an issue until now, because we havent seen proposals for Group Housing in our Piper Jaffray until recently. Our Housing Market is so hot now that micro housing micro units and Group Housing are now conceived as very profitable types of Housing Units and getting the financing that they never got before. That is something that we have been thinking a lot about and being that is the case, they should certainly be a part of our inclusionary housing requirement and part of our Affordable Housing solution as other Market Rate Developers are. To give an example how well these units are proposed to be doing, the two Group Housing proposals on 351 turk street and 141 leavenworth is proposing to market these units to individuals that make 150 ami. So these are marketrate sro rooms typically that have gone to workingclass, lowincome individuals and these units will be marketed to a single individual making at least 107,000 a year. So these are really highend micro units that they are proposing to build. For that reason, i think its important that they be able to include inclusionary housing in their projects. I think that we are all in agreement about that. On the second piece about raising the ami, specifically just for Group Housing i think is premature at this point. Well have a discussion on the concept called the dial, that we have been in discussioning with the mayors work group where were contemplating allowing developers to perhaps build more units at higher ami or to build less units than the 12 , if they are more heavily subsidized. I think this is a longterm conversation. If were going to raise the ami for one category of housing, we should be looking at it in the broad conversation of all of the types of housing proposals that we have. And that conversation i think is more appropriately had when the dial is introduced. If were going to allow a developer to raise ami from 55 which is the standard today, to 90 , we should have a conversation of whether had they should be supplying more units because they dont have to subsidize those, as much as they do with 55 ami one the policy discussion will occur in the future and so if were going to do that, we should examine whether we should require them to do more units at 95 ami. So i will not be supporting the amendment today. I do know that supervisor avalos has a number of amendments that came as recommendations from the Planning Commission. On the second set of amendments that supervisor christensen has introduced, i will be supporting those. I think it makes sense to close the loophole on that Affordable Housing program that is part of our c3 program, which allows greater density, in exchange for moderateincome units being part of the inclusionary program. I think it makes sense to close the loophole and ensure those units remain permanently affordable. So im glad that supervisor christensens office is examining that as including that in our legislationing. So i know that is not part of Group Housing, but they are both part of our inclusionary Affordable Housing program and so well be supporting those two sets of amendments. Guest no. 4. Thank you, that is me. Guest no. 4, supervisor avalos. My office was reaching out to supervisor wiener, your office, to hear about any concerns that you might have about this. So clearly you hadnt talked to staff about these amendments coming forward. This is the first time hearing it. To me, they kind of undermine the whole argument being put forward about Group Housing being affordable, but by design. Were actually, if were creating another special part of the inclusionary to cover Group Housing for rental and ownership, then were really saying that these units need to be built in not built in affordable, but to create a special accommodation to make them affordable. I believe that they should be treated like every other type of housing. So we can apply inclusionary. I dont think we should be making any kind of special arrangements just for Group Housing situations as well. So i will be not voting today, but i dont support necessarily the amendments that you are proposing today. And i also want to also echo the comments of supervisor kim about what is being planned in terms of dialing up the level of affordable as were increasing density. That is a discussion going forward, and part of our plan getting 33 by 2020. I think that we would be amiss in trying to create changes that would not be consistent with what were going to be doing as a city; that has brought support among the board of supervisors. So i dont support the amendments that you are discussing. Do other members of the Committee Want to speak or go on to presentation from the staff . Well, lets go ahead to the presentation of the staff. I can save my remarks for afterwards. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair cohen and supervisors. Planning department staff. The Planning Commission had the ordinance proposed by supervisor avalos and supervisor kim before them july 2nd. The Commission Approved the ordinance to apply inclusionary requirements to Group Housing and supported that notion. The commission did found that did not have enough information before them to approve or disapprove supervisor christensens amendments, so they wanted those amendments to go back to them. As for the inclusionary housing application to Group Housing, we thank supervisors avalos and kim to taking the initiative to codify the requirements in that regard. The planning code has some conflicting language, as mentioned, about that and this ordinance would fix that conflicting language. So that Group Housing projects could also be subject to inclusionary planning. The Planning Department noticed this conflict recently, because as some of you mentioned, Group Housing projects previously were homeless shelters, supportive housing, youth shelters, that were already exempt because they were 100 affordable. More recently were getting different types of Group Housing projects that are more, like, private bedroom suites. They have some limited Kitchen Facilities as well. So its more of a marketrate housing and we noticed that and the code has that conflicting language. The Planning Commission also recommended approval of the staffproposed amendments. The First Amendment is about the bright light requirement. Group housing currently is exempt from exposure requirements. Also exempts Group Housing from rear yard requirements in certain instances and also they have smaller open space requirements. Staff found that the quality of life requirements should apply to Group Housing, similar to other types of housing that are being proposed. So the proposed amendment is to apply exposure requirements to Group Housing, similar to what is in the code currently for smaller units such as accessory dwelling units. Also staff proposed another recommendation, which was approved by the commission, to incentivize onsite affordable inclusivity and Group Housing units. So that the inclusionary units in a Group Housing building would be exempt from that calculation. And this would allow certain projects in areas of the city that currently have controls to be financially feasible. And lastly, the last amendment is about parsing of Group Housing units. The proposal states that Group Housing bedrooms that are smaller than 150 square feet would be priced at 75 of studio. Currently most use sro rates for 75 for studio for pricing of inclusionary units. The original ordinance proposed the same rates for Group Housing, 75 of a studio. But the Department Found that there is no maximum limit on the size of a Group Housing bedroom and therefore, we wanted to create that distinction. So Group Housing bedrooms have smaller than 150 square feet would be priced at 75 of a studio and Group Housinged about rooms larger than 350 would be priced equal to the pricing of a studio. So that concludes the amendments proposed by the commission. Thank you. I just wanted for the record say that i am supportive of the amendment from supervisor christensen as well. All right. Thank you very much. Why dont we go to Public Comment. Is there any member of the public that would like to speak on item no. 6 . Please come up at this time. You will be given two minutes. Sue hester. I support the avalos kim legislation. I ask you to seriously ask the City Attorney whether you can even entertain the legislation that is proposed by supervisor christensen and supervisor wiener without sending it back to the Planning Commission . At the Planning Commission, there was a discussion of the christensen amendment. And that discussion was very explicit; they didnt have enough information to go up or down on it. And they were not taking a position on it. The planning code requires amendments to the planning code be considered by the Planni