It is reasonable to want to keep people out of there for the safety of other people. I would push it back. With a down sloping lot, it shouldnt be hard to accommodate we will separate separately work on that. Yeah. Okay. I would like to make a motion to approve with the additional condition that the cornice be wrapped around the long sides of the building all the way down to the end of the building. I would like to add an amendment that the steps remain as is, and the second is that the sponsor will work with staff to push it further back from the property line. Agreed. Yeah. Do we have a motion . Second. Thank you, commissioners. If there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as have been amended for the project sponsor to continue working with staff on the cornice, having a wraparound to the end of the building for the steps to remain as is and to continue working on the fence, pushing it further back from the property line. On that motion. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously. Commissioners, that will place us on item nine. 1815 waller street. This is a landmark designation application. [laughter] look who is back. [laughter] good afternoon, commissioners francis mcmillan, Planning Department staff. That item before you is a Community Generated landmark designation application for 1315 waller street. The application was scheduled was submitted concurrently with the millis act application. In addition to the material in your packet, staff received a memo on the property prepared by an Architecture Firm and copies are provided for the commissioners. The subject property is a woodframe threestory over garage residents constructed in 1896. The property is located on the south side of waller street. The gable roof features include angled bays with windows on windows on the verse and second floors. The property is nominated for its association with the original owner, developer, an occupant of the property. He was a shipbuilder with his own company and was also a shipbuilder with the north transportation and organ steamship properties. It also includes a brief mention of commercial involvement in San Francisco. Staff recommends further research with significance as both a developer as this of the subject property, and for his role in shipbuilding and commerce in San Francisco. They were part of the wave of development in the neighborhood in the late 19th century. Additional research may indicate there is a stronger case for landmark eligibility that can be made for the property, or as a contributor to a small landmark district comprised of the subject property and the other four seasons buildings. Staff also recommends Additional Research on the propertys restoration during the 1970s as indicated by permit history provided in the application to explore and establish a connection with the bride spread restoration and Similar Properties constructed during the same period. The movement is noted in the application, but no link is made to the property. It is nominated for its clean style of architecture. We agreed the subject property is striking style of architecture. We want to bolster the significance of the building first design and as one of the four seasons, a cohesive row of properties that exemplify the style and period of construction the property is nominated as a visual landmark. The home has been featured on several city houses and the application includes excerpts on the property. Clippings from newspapers featuring four seasons and photograph of the houses recreated at florida legoland. The documentation supports eligibility of 1350 waller street, individually as a visual landmark. The documentation also establishes eligibility of the four seasons property as a collection of buildings. The Department Staff recommends the project sponsor continue to compile documentation for support of eligibility of the subject property and the four seasons under this property as materials provided and statement of significance are limited in detail. The application would that would expand to the importance of the property and the four seasons to residents to elaborate on their value. Department staff find that based on the information provided in the application, the subject property does not rise to the level of individual significance as required under Department Ten of the planning code. The subject properly property does not meet their priorities for resignation designation. Commissioners, you may take action today to add or not add waller street to the designation work program, direct staff for the project sponsor to provide additional information, or initiate or not initiate landmark designation. This concludes my presentation. I will turn the presentation over to the project sponsor who would like to speak briefly on the landmark designation application and i am available for any questions you may have. Okay. Hello. My name is amy. I am one of the homeowners at 1350 waller street where i live with my husband and my two sons. I moved to San Francisco from Southern California in 2003, thinking i would be here for a year, and fell in love with the city, the architecture, the history here that was lacking from the neighborhood where i grew up. When the winter home went on the market in 2017, i went to tour it, fell in love with the home, knew it would work, but he was out of our price range. It was listed just under three 3 million. It saved date on the market for a while for the work it needed. Still out of our price range. We eventually made an offer and stretched ourselves to buy it at 262, and then found out that the foundation had to be completely renovated. Then the bank wouldnt give us a loan on the building because the foundation was not they said they would only give us a loan on the land. We took out a construction loan and drew into our line of credit we started to work on the project with my husbands support. Anyway, the project grew beyond what we had expected it to cost. I guess that is pretty normal. In addition to the foundation, we needed structural upgrades to the walls. We had to dig down to pull out the Brick Foundation that was set in the sand and put in a new concrete foundation, and between opening up the walls to install the steel in the shear walls, we found dry rot, insufficient plumbing, which all had to be brought up to code. The project grew to be over a Million Dollars with over 300,000 of that in the structural work. We are now in the process of starting to pay back those loans and found out about the mills act, which seems like a great way for us to potentially be able to maintain this historic building. In applying for the mills act, we got bids from contractors and determined the homeowner the home will require 500,000 and additional investment in additional investment to preserve and maintain it to the level that would be recommended over the next 12 years, which we would love to do, but in order to apply for the mills act, we have to be part of that Historic Program and so we are applying for that. As they mentioned, they are recommending some more expanded states of significance and additional information. As you can see, i am not a professional. We did spend hundreds of hours researching and finding books and spending time documenting everyone who has lived in the building over the last 130 years , you know, finding everything we could find about the additional builder and all of the owners in between, the tenants in between, the fact that 40 years ago, the previous owner had been part of a program to get a zero interest loan from the city to be able to help build the Building Back up. There is a history here of people wanting to take care of this beautiful building. I can tell you we have people every single day stomping on our front steps to take Instagram Photo shoots. We have a bus tour that stops in front of the house to point out the set of homes that are called the four seasons. We have those little yellow tour cars going by. People even come up and knock on the door and ask for home tours. I met an italian woman who wrote a San Francisco guidebook who said our home is her favorite, and she wanted to come in and get a tour. I gave her one work we recently were approached about a t. V. Show wanting to be set in the home. It is a beautiful home. It is an important piece of the history. We would love to give it the love that it deserves and we are here today asking that you might help us move forward in the process to establish eligibility , either adding it to the work program or initiating it based on the existing 127 page application. Great. Thank you. I am available for questions. Any questions, commissioners . We will open this up for Public Comment. Any member of the public wish to speak to this item . Come forward. Okay. We will close Public Comment. Back to the commission. Commissioners . This is a hard one because this is, you see these as you come up masonic street. This is on the right side. It is a very Prominent Group of houses. We have seen they seem visually super important, and so it will be tricky because the kind of want more information to be able to substantiate the findings, but it seems to me, certainly as a little mini district, i believe. I think it will be eligible. I guess the question is, is it individually eligible. It is a lot more work that would be involved. Im not sure what the answer is but thank you for the work you have done to date. [laughter]. Commissioner pearlman . I am in the same place. I used to live up the hill from you and would drive up masonic every day, some very familiar with the houses. I think as an individual, it is already a restrict a historic resource, obviously. I think it really is related to the four seasons. It is four houses that are of note. If this was one house surrounded by other houses that were not of similar quality, would probably it probably would be an easier thing to say, it doesnt quite reach the level of land marking, but i think as a mini district, whatever we want to call it, it has a lot more power and is, a special because of the way masonic is wide and gets very narrow, it literally is almost directly in front of you as youre coming up masonic and going up into that neighborhood. So i would advocate i dont know how we do this, but if we could advocate putting it in the landmark program, but as including the other three houses , and again, i know this is a timing issue for you, that is not our issue. Your financial issue is not our issue. I am trying to be sensitive without saying, it doesnt make sense to me as an individual. It only makes sense to me as part of a group. Commissioner black . If you wouldnt mind coming up, i do have a question. What discussions have you had with the other Property Owners, presumably they could benefit or perhaps they dont all have their foundations done yet either and they could benefit from this. I have spoken with the other three homes and mentions that we were applying for this and that i would let them know. I would encourage them to do it. They are all in similar situations of needing to do work on their homes and not necessarily having the means to. I would say that you would be the ones who would benefit the most given that we have purchased most recently, and the ones that have been there for 30 years, their property the property taxes will be lower anyway, but they all seemed interested in open to it. That is what i was going to volunteer is that, you know, i would be happy to be a gobetween and tried to help leverage whatever we can do to get the others on board for this we stepped into big shoes. The previous owner was a host of many block parties and we have gates in the backyard that connect our the four homes. We do have a sense of community. I would be happy if we moved this forward to try and get them on board as well. I appreciate that. I had another thought about the research. For what the staff is requesting for the amount of research. It seems like the research would almost be the same for all four, since they were all built by the same guy at the same time. They all have similar architectural styles. In terms of additional work, it wouldnt be that much to go from one to four. I think it is between 15 and 30,000. Again. I appreciate that, again, it is a challenge because, you know, our commission is not about the Financial Issues that addressed anyone particular. Perhaps mrs. Mcmillan could come up. I have some questions of process so i wanted to comment on, you know, i personally would like to support Community Sponsor designations, and the amount of research desired versus the threshold of being able to say whether or not it is eligible, we always would be doing more research. As we know when we are dealing with properties that were done in the seventies and the 80s, we dont have enough information, thinking about the antique store , and these projects of having that information on file its always beneficial is always beneficial, but how much do we really need to do in order with a minimum threshold . Im wondering, if you do this through the association, this is a group of Amazing Community people. I think theres no question in my mind that it would be eligible as a whole individual district. So maybe you put aside the association and you just do it for architecture. Or events. I think a lot of it will draw on material that is already written. We can work with the applicant on developing how far to go in the research, which avenues to explore more closely then others i just think as outlined in the case report, it just needs expanded discussion enhancing the statements of significance. If there isnt additional information, then we can only get so far with that research, then we can recognize that. The two write ups that were included in the application may have all the information that is available. Be helpful to maybe due another round of review, just looking to see if theres anything else about him. I know he designed some other properties, but i think possibly , they are associated more with events or architecture , and i think we can pay closer attention to those other areas. Can i ask a question . Please. Is it possible to place this on the landmark list and pending further discussion of the other three Property Owners . Yeah. Most certainly. That is definitely part of our recommendation. You can obviously collect by placing it on the program, it will give priorities to our staff to work with the owner to refine the application and or do the outreach as necessary with the other Property Owners to make sure we bring these forward as a collective. I know we are not supposed to get involved in the finances of anyones particular property, but i would think this would be of benefit to all Property Owners. I concur with them and about supporting Community Sponsors. I think it is something we should sabean support of generally. The biggest question is the timing. Knowing we have to do some outreach with the neighbours to make sure that we get them on board and it will flush out any Additional Research. I think that was some of the question on the stats. I thank you have a good advocate. Specifically, im thinking about the triangle. How many individual landmarks are within the triangle process . It is all one district. That is why we are leaning towards the district. I support the concept of the four units. It is a special collection of structures. I would like to support this as proposed. I would like to see it move forward. Commissioner pearlman . We are in a time where our consciousness is such that we want to have cultural things and all of that. If you look at the landmarks of San Francisco from when they started, you know, the first 30 years of land marking was about the architecture. And that is what people think landmarks are. They come to San Francisco and they want to see the landmarks of the city. They want to see beautiful buildings. So i think as, you know, supporting this just on his architecture, i think it is incredibly valid. Again, it doesnt meet one of our priority areas, but here is a Community Sponsored it is part of our priorities. That part is. Absolutely. I was totally endorsing this. On the process, just help us understand. So obviously we want to get to some status by the application act next year. It is this year. It is only three months away. It is in nepal. This is the first year we have accepted concurrent applications for designation. Given the incompleteness of the application and incompleteness of the mills act application, we have encouraged the applicant to apply for next years mills act. This is coming up in a few months. Yeah. It is coming up in september. We need to close by september and give them a timeline of the designation. It could be pretty tight. In either case, we probably wouldnt move it. What would you like to do, commissioners . I will make a motion that we, again, this is a process question, that we put it on a landmark work program and along with the other requests and request staff work with the applicant to include the other three. Theres been some good stuff done here. There has been a lot of Research Done here. Someone has the capability of doing some work. I second. If there is nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to direct staff to add this to the landmark work program along with the other three properties. On that motion. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 5 0. Thank you. Thank you. We are adjourned. Pleted copi speaker car [gavel]. Chair ronen good morning, everyone. The meeting will come to order. Welcome to the july 11 special meeting of the rules committee. Seated to my right is rules Committee Member supervisor shaman walton, and to my right is supervisor mar. Our clerk today is victor young, and id also like to thank corwin and colea for staffing at sfgovtv. Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements . Clerk yes. Please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. Completed copies of any speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the july 16 board of supervisors calendar unless otherwise suggested. Chair ronen can i have a motion to take items 1, 2, and 3 together . Supervisor walton so moved. Chair ronen thank you. So moved. [gavel]. Chair ronen mr. Clerk, can you please read items 1, 2, and 3 together. Clerk yes. [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read]. Chair ronen thank you so much. We have kate connor from the Planning Department and kate hartley from the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development to make brief presentations, but before they do, colleagues, would you like to make any opening remarks . Nope . Oh, supervisor fewer . Supervisor fewer thank you, chair ronen. So i just wanted to say good morning to my colleagues, and also to our audience. Im excited to talk about our Affordable Homes for educator and families now initiative, along with my cosponsor, supervisors walton, peskin, and haney. We can all agree that in this Affordable Housing crisis, we desperately need to create more Affordable Housing in every part of the city. San francisco is on track to exceed our rena goals, though we are fall far short of our goals for low and moderate Income Housing. As of last year, the city had already produced 96 of the units needed to meet our goal by 2022. However, this year, we have only produced 31 of the units needed to meet our goal for low and very lowIncome Housing units. So we are including legislation i recently authored and passed which allocates 50 of excess eraf funds that the city receives from the state for additional housing. This will continue to add tens of millions of more supervisor fewe supervisor fewe supervisor fewer waiving density restrictions and allowing up to three stories of extra height through the state and local density bonus programs, which helps to make Affordable Housing programs more financially feasible, creating an educating Housing Partnership programming that doesnt lock new programming in the city charter, but evolves as teacher demand changes, using the same equation that voters will be asked to approve in the november housing bond to keep educators in the city, eliminating the conditional use authorization process for 100 Affordable Housing and educator Housing Projects, and requiring that projects be approved in 90 days. My office began working on this earlier this year. This initiative is based on Lessons Learned from Housing Developers with deep roots in the communities that they serve. My colleagues also worked with the united colleagues of educators in San Francisco that would serve a wide range of educators in San Francisco. I am proud to have partners with them on this. As a former school board member, i know meeting the Housing Needs of an educators is an important teach in teacher recruitment. Since the mayors introduced her Charter Amendment, many proponents have said it s purpose is to stream line 100 Affordable Housing projects. Regardless of what you have read, this is simply not true. Affordable Housing Projects can already qualify for buy right approval through senate bill 35. There havent been any appeals for educate i dont remembor py into effect in september 2018. What the charter will actually do is raise requirements to 181880 of area Median Income. Every single unit in a socalled Affordable Housing project could be for people making 140 of the area Median Income. What does that mean . It means that 140 of area Median Income for were the area . The monthly rent for a rent restricted studio at 140 a. M. I. Is 3,018 a month. That means that under this new definition of the Charter Amendment would be a studio that costs over 3,000 per month. We need to ask ourselves as a city who are we leaving behind . The Mayors Office says removing the requirement that 100 Affordable Housing requirement is to encourage developers to build lowIncome Housing, but we can still build moderate and middleIncome Housing while still including lowincome. Wh how can we call this 100 Affordable Housing with a straight face when it excludes the vast majority of our residents and communities of color who need it the most . Once again, who are we leaving behind . In addition to locking this warped definition of 100 Affordable Housing into the city charter, this would also lock in another definition of 100 teaching projects that would be unaffordable for most 25e67ers and allow buy right on public leoned land. Despite the mayor referring to those projects as 100 Affordable Housing, the definition requires less than 44 of the project be for teacher housing, with onethird of the entire building reserved for nonresidential uses and onethird of the residential units as market rate housing. These definitions should not be set in stone in a city charter, and we should not be granting buy right projects to local developers under the guise of calling it Affordable Housing. This would extend buy right approvals to any Housing Development in the future. This means it opens the door to making all development, including luxury condos eligible for buy right approval with no public review whatsoever. Again, i ask you, who are we leaving behind . It is important to note some of the key differences between our proposals and the proposal the mayor put forward. Our proposal upholds the 2015 prop k mandate to keep projects in peoples hands. It does not redefine housing income levels. It allows Affordable Housing in all neighborhoods, including those currently restricted to singlefamily homes. It is flexible and can be adjusted to accommodate changing needs over time without having to go to the ballot. We have a choice today to regulate human greed and mandate that developers build at all level of income. As you listen to public testimony today, i think what you need to ask yourself is, who are we leaving behind . Thank you. Chair ronen supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin thank you, chair ronen. I would like to associate myself with the comments of pri supervisor fewer, but i want to thank everybody whos been working on a legislative path for Affordable Housing and rezoning in the last few months, and particularly supervisor fewer, whos been a champion for Affordable Housing on the less dense west side of our city, frankly saying that the city should prioritize every Housing Project there. District four has 273 . The press will no doubt classify this as an ideological debate between the mayor and the board, but i think it is a shared battle on all sides to build for Affordable Housing for the people of the city and county of San Francisco. Having worked on these for a long time, ive been privy to a number of hard fought community struggles to bring about some pretty profound wins. I stood with supervisor mark leno almost 20 years ago when he created the citys first inclusionary housing law. We stood with the community when they corrected the huge mistake of locking in inclusionary rates in the charter, which supervisor fewer said is locking in 140 of a. M. I. , the definition of affordability in the charter. We, i think lost hundreds, if not thousands of units that could have been affordable had we not locked in the inclusionary definition in the charter when the market went crazy starting as we came out of the great recession, and it wasnt until 2015 that we were able to take that out of the charter. That was a profound mistake, but we stood with the the city when they needed to cough up millions of dollars for Housing Project. We stood with the city when they came up with the r. A. D. Program for thousands of units of housing. We stood with the city when developers and some deeppocketed interests put prop p and u on the ballot to pit our most vulnerable populations against middleclass communities. It was a wholly unnecessary fight. The right thing prevailed, and i think we have shades of that again today. When we start publicly subsidizing market rate housing, we not only force most of of those at risk for displacement to compete with this housing, but we give developers the right to build what is going to make them the highest profit. Unfortunately, as supervisor fewer i think very well articulated, the mayors amendment seeks to do this. The red herring of stopping d. R. S has been moot, and i think supervisor said that since sb 35 passed, but also before sb 35 passed, 100 Affordable Housing projects were rarely, if ever, the subject of discretionary reviews. If were going to gut Community Process and can first remind benefits on a developer, it is better we should really do what the Community Asks for, which is have the most deeply Affordable Housing projects that are possible, so id like to associate myself with the comments of supervisor fewer and look forward to the comments of the members of this panel and members of the public. Chair ronen thank you. Supervisor mar. Supervisor mar thank you, chair ronen. I just wanted to make some brief remarks. Since joining this board in january, like all of you, ive made Affordable Housing one of my top priorities, in fact just actually deciding to run for the board of supervisors, one of my main motivations was to try to bring what i could to the table to try to address the Affordable Housing crisis in our city to ensure particularly on a personal level that my daughter and other kids in this city are able to continue to live here in the future. And besides working with all of you on important citywide efforts like the Affordable Housing bond, ive been working with my constituents, the Mayors Office of housing to develop a housing plan to develop housing in the sunset district. Weve identified four public sites and dozens of privately held sites with potential Development Opportunities and were moving forward on our first Small Sites Acquisition Program in the sunset district. And additionally, ive been actively supporting the first and thus far only educator Housing Project in San Francisco, which is at the Francis Scott key annex in the sunset district. Its critically important, and as ive worked on this project with midpend, the developer, and the Mayors Office of housing and the housing department, i actually became more aware of developing housing in our city and especially the Lengthy Development timeline that projects face for the outer sunset educator Housing Project, the timeline at a minimum looks like its going to take five years from when midpend was identified as a developer until educators can move in. So i want to thank everyone for all of your work on on developing proposals to stream line the the Development Process and timeline for 100 affordable and educator Housing Projects, and i look forward to hearing the presentations and the Public Comment and seeing how we can all Work Together and move forward on these important issues. Thank you. Chair ronen thank you so much. So now, we will hear short presentations and i got that wrong. Were hearing first from ann Murray Rogers from the Planning Department. Good morning. Thank you very much, supervisors, for call these items today and doing so much to ease the burden of teacher housing in the city. Ill describe the basics and then kate hartley from the Mayors Office of Community Development and housing will describe how these initiatives may help housing, and then well conclude with the Mayors Office concluding the remarks. Its important to understand just how unique San Franciscos land use regulations are. Fundamental here is the fact that Decision Makers should have complete discretion over permitting. Every permit, even those that comply with the law should be discretionary, and this is unique in the state. Our discretion is baked in our founding document, the charter. The charter specifies that the board of appeals shall hear from a wide away of permits that the public feels have been affected. The implications of this get significant when we consider how this interacts with state law, specifically ceqa. Since the 1970s state law has required that when the government considers discretionary actions, they should have a complete understanding of the impacts to the environment. However, even when the project is approved by law, the ceqa is based on the fact that the developers have already considered the Environmental Impact, so ceqa is not required. Because of San Francisco all permitted include the use of judgment, then Decision Makers should have a full accounting of the Environmental Impact with each permit. This means the permit as minor as adding a window to a nonhistoric building requires ceqa analysis. This is different than any other city in california and this is the construct of our charter. Because this charter can only be changed by the voters, if the see believes that this charter the housing must also be code compliant. And this last requirement that the housing be code compliant is what the two Housing Initiatives would seek to adjust. But first, lets look at some of the details in the Charter Amendment. Incomes are restricted to 40 of the a. M. I. Or below, and for teacher housing, at least two thirds of the project must be dedicated to educators. The units must be below market rate, public parks and landmarks cannot be housing sites, and thats the basics of the Charter Amendment. Now for the ballot initiatives. Importantly, these are not rezonings. Instead, both expand the permitted uses so that affordable teacher housing can be built in more districts. The difference is in the details, it may be most helpful to understand this by looking at a comparison. Here you can see the definit n differences in the definitions of affordability. The Mayors Office defines is more broadly. The Mayors Office initiative would permit this housing on any Zoning District that allows housing except for rh1. Here, the supervisors ordinance is more permissive. It would allow this housing on rm1 zone sites rh1 zone sites. The supervisors ordinance is more restrictiveti as to the housing that could be built. Neither would allow the demolition of existing units, and there are additional controls in the bored ordinance that would pertain to massing and scale. However, these could be waived. The supervisor has time frames that would mirror those in sb 35, however, unless the ceqa amendment is waived, these amendmenmay not be achievable. And now, ill turn it over to kate hartley. Chair ronen yes. Supervisor fewer, do you have a question . Supervisor fewer yes. So in your presentation, i just wanted to clarify. So the supervisors initiative can be amended by the board, is that correct . That is correct. Supervisor fewer the mayors proposal cannot be amended in three years, is that correct . The Charter Amendment . Supervisor fewer her initiative. I think thats a yesorno answer. The answer is after three years, it can be. Supervisor fewer but within the first three years, it cannot. Yes. Supervisor fewer thats what i thought. Isnt it true that only half the units in an sb 35 project have to below income because isnt a threshold of 50 . Thats correct, at 80 a. M. I. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. I just wanted to clarify those points. Thanks. Good morning, supervisors. Kate hartley, director of the San FranciscoMayors Office of housing and Community Development. So thank you all for this hearing. Im happy to be here. I want to let me just advance here. I want to just to just stress one thing. You dont need to be sued in a Housing Development to have a negative consequence for Affordable Housing development result from discretionary approval because what happens often in discretionary review what happens often in the discretionary review process is it is very laborious, very iterative, very lengthy in time. It can often add to the process two years. Theres the ability of individuals to stop a project based upon very subjective considerations, even if the even if the building is code compliant. So what that means is in this environment in particular, when we have had quarter after quarter since 2014 of Construction Costs increases is we just add cost to our Affordable Housing development. So if were delayed two years in the iterative discretionary review process, and we have a 100 Million Construction project budget, thats 12 million additional, and thats 12 million that we would have been able to invest in another project. We see the ability to move more quickly and under a streamlined action as really the opportunity to build more Affordable Housing. The other thing that i did want to stress is that the proposal is additive. In altogether out 140 a. M. I. As Affordable Housing in no way diminishes the goals and mission and programs of what mohcd does, what the mayor has ord ordered that we do. The problem is that by any measure, we have failed in our effort to build affordable miding Income Housing middleIncome Housing. When mayor lee set his housing unit goal in 2013, we are going to meet that by 2020, and we thank you for your support and your ongoing allocation of resources to make that happen. Unfortunately, the 5,000 unit middleincome goal that he charged us with, we are not anywhere close. As of today, since 2014, the city has produced 710 middle affordable middleincome units, 710. And we were striving to hit 5,000, so we have a we have a need to think differently about how to build middleIncome Housing. When mohcd includes middleIncome Housing in our developments, it costs us a