and transportation of the san francisco board of supervisors. should i keep going? >> i'm going to i.m. them really quick. >> supervisor melgar: should i start over? do we need so start over? i'm going to keep going. i'm supervisor myrna melgar joined by chair supervisor dean preston and aaron peskin. we are joined by president shamann walter. madam clerk, do you have announcement? >> clerk: board of supervisors and committee are commencing hybrid meeting while providing remote access. the board recognizes equitable access is essential. first we'll take public comment on each item of the agenda. those attending in person will be taken first and then those who are waitening on the telephone line, taken afterwards. for those watching, the public call in number is streaming across the screen. the number is (415)655-0001. you enter the meeting i.d. 2482 953 5033 # #. when connected, you will hear the meet discussion, you will be be muted. when your item comes up, those joining us in person should line up near the curtains and those on the telephone line should dial star 3 to be added to the queue. if you're on your telephone, please remember to turn down your television and radio and other listening devices. we'll be taking public comment from those in person first. then we'll go to public comment on the telephone line. alternatively, you may submit public comment you can e-mail myself, if you submit public comment via e-mail it will be forwarded to the board of supervisors. you may also send written comments to our office at city hall, the address is 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place. items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda, june 14th. ms. lee please make the announcement in cantonese. [speaking cantonese] >> supervisor melgar: thank you. to add to madam clerk's announcement, masking is still highly recognized although, no longer required. please continue to be respectful to those around you and provide adequate spacing if you are speaking in the chamber. thank you. madam clerk, please call item number 1. >> clerk: a resolution renaming >> director cajina: hahn street to mrs. jackson way with directive to public works and the county surveyor. members of the public who wish to provide public comment. that's (415)655-0001, meeting i.d. is 2482 953 5033 # #. if you have not done so, and would like to speak, press star 3 to be added to the queue. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. we have agnus supporting us for item number 1 and 5 today. please name the announcements for item 1. >> i will make announcement when public comment is called. >> clerk: okay, thank you so much. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. we are joined by president shamann walton who is the importance of this legislation. >> president walton: thank you. i want to make this resolution renaming hahn street and sunnydale avenue to mrs. jackson way. we're here with additional post-passage directive for public works, the municipal transportation agency and the county surveyor to solidify the renaming. >> supervisor melgar: if my colleagues don't have questions or comments, oh, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i wanted to note that this resolution does contain the standard language that would indicate that both the new and former names of the street would be in large letters for a period of five years. >> supervisor melgar: thank you for making note of that. madam clerk, let's go to public comment on this item. >> clerk: all right. any members of the public that like to speak on item number one, you can line up to your right near the curtain. agnus, you can make the announcement in cantonese and mandarin please. [speaking mandarin and cantonese] >> clerk: you may approach the podium, ma'am. we are taking two minute public comments. >> hello, i'm laura barber, i'm here to speak on behalf of the hahn street name change. i'm here the why we were invited to come. the mayor came out saturday and she spoke and she was happy to see that the street had been changed. as i see it, it's a done deal. what i heard coming out of her mouth. i'm confused as to why we would ask to come here to speak against it if it's already written out that it's going to happen or has happened, because the sign is up there. as i go on, can i ask someone to answer my question? i don't want to waste up much of my time. to the board of supervisors, who's going to help us out, financially, if we need to get a new driver's license? is the board prepared to help out in that manner? after the street name is changed, certain business you may take care of, they may want an i.d. that will match what you put on that application. i was told by the d.m.v. it will cost like $31 to have your license changed. i feel that it could have been on it without taking out hahn street block from us. we can have a new street -- we can name a new street in the sunnydale housing project. it's not sunnydale housing project anymore, it's a development area. you have a new building going up in there. i can see one of them being named in honor of her. to tell a short story about her. the young people will be able to read about her. they will know who she is. >> clerk: thank you, so much. let's take the next public comment. i apologize, this is not a q&a moment, this is time for folks to make public testimony for the open public meeting. next speaker please. [ speaking alternate language ] >> interpreter: hello, committee members. i'm the resident of district 10. i also lived on hahn street. i oppose the resolution renaming hahn street between the visitacion avenue and sunnydale to mrs. jackson way. here's why, first hahn street includes three segments. it is strange to just rename the middle segment of hahn street between the intersections of visitacion and sunnydale avenue. number two, i am and my neighbors appreciate all the good that dr. ruth mary jackson did. we, as hard working taxpayer, also have made significant contribution to our community. it can be costly in time and money for our 17 household who live on hahn street. because it is common to update the address for all our legal documents, mortgage documents, mailing address and i.d. and more. address is personally identifiable information. second, important, i hope that all committee members can hear our voice. our mayor came to our community to attend a committee event of renaming hahn street. i don't know why our voice is ignored. i like to ask you all and urge the community to look at this resolution and i like to request an alternative resolution to honor ms. jackson. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker please. >> hi, i'm hazel. i live at 161 hahn street. i am not in favor of the street name being changed. most of us over there are senior citizens. we've been there for some 40 plus years. that will be too much of a handicap for us to change the name. we have to change everything that we have for our mailing address. i'm afraid that some of our mail we will not get. i would appreciate it whomever is in charge of this, is not to change our street name. thank you. >> clerk: are there any other members of the public who like to speak? [ speaking cantonese] >> interpreter: hello members of land use and transportation committee. my name is wendy. i've lived at hahn street for over 13 years. i oppose this resolution as well, because, i really think that renaming hahn street it will bring a lot of inconvenience for our labors. here's why, hahn street includes three segments. it's weird to rename the middle section of hahn street, that's where i live. it will upset our labors. also, the second thing is that, as taxpayer and we also make a lot of contribution to our community. please consider our voice. i do think that this should be another relative -- another alternative solution to deal with this matter to honor mrs. jackson. it's kind of waste of public funding. i hope that we can consider a better solution to honor mrs. jackson. thank you for your consideration. >> clerk: are there any members of the public who like to speak on this item? okay, we'll move to remote call-in line. looks like we have zero people in the queue. >> supervisor melgar: with that public comment is closed. president walton? >> president walton: i want to thank everyone who came out and spoke today. i want to remind everyone, this was something that community had brought to our attention years ago to do for mrs. ruth jackson, even prior to her untimely passing. we did conduct the appropriate outreach as a city, comments were received and most of the comments were kind of around what you heard today, just in terms of the difficulty in renaming the street, some of the costs that may be associated. i do want everyone to know that our office is available to have conversation about how we can mitigate some of the concerns that some of our constituents may have. also i want to remind everyone, we have already approved the renaming. this is just solidify to give certain directives to few city departments, most certainly our office is available to work with our constituents on mitigating some of their concerns. i will remind everyone, like supervisor peskin stated, there's language in here that this would have to have mrs. jackson way along with hahn in parenthesis. this is a five-year duration. any of the concerns that were brought up, i can definitely address. the data supports that we -- this is something that community is in support of. we only received seven responses. again, the only negative aspect from the responses was definitely nothing to do with naming the street after mrs. jackson but about some of the concerns that were stated here today in terms of licenses and different things with the street name change. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. are there any questions or concerns? can we have a motion with a positive recommendation? thank you supervisor preston. >> clerk: on that motion. [roll call vote] you have three ayes. >> supervisor melgar: that motion passes. thank you. madam clerk, please call item 2 and 3 together. >> clerk: item 2, resolution to declaring the intention of the board of supervisors to order the vacation of portion of griffith street and hudson avenue block number 4629a a portion of innes avenue block number 4645 lot 10, force of hudson avenue at assessor's parcel block 4630 lot two to facilitate the development of 900 innes avenue, known as indian basin. item 3 is an ordinance a street vacation order of innes street to approving the interdepartmental transfer of the street vacation area to parks department. adopting a appropriate findings, members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, please call (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. is 2482 953 5033 # #. if you like to speak, you need to press star 3. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. we are now joined by the project manager with the san francisco recreation and parks department to present on this item. >> thank you. good afternoon supervisors. i'm the project manager with the recreation and park department. i'm here to provide a brief overview of the indian basin water front park renovation project, as it relates to the easement before you at indian basin, which has been historically underserved. the division for this site has been to create a larger interconnected water front park and trail network in the bay view punter hunters point community. with that recognition in 2015, the property owner, as well as regional and bayview hunter point stakeholder, to understand the opportunity to ensure all indian basin parks feel and operate as a integrated park system. out of this process, goals around equity and inclusion became front and center. the equitable development plan was created, otherwise known as the e.d.p. the equitable development plan ensures this water front park will benefit current bayview hunter point residents. it provides a blueprint for delivering a park designed by and for the community while improving economic opportunity and environmental health for its residents. it is a culmination of a two-year community-driven process to preserve the rich culture, identity and pride within bay view hunters point. to ensure that the multimillion dollar development uplifts the community monday its park boundaries. indian basin water front project is aimed for community investment which includes three main priorities. to address decades of environmental, contamination from both building and ship repair activities. to create inspiring and amenity rich water front parks that build community capacity and reflective of the bayview hunters point community. third t create a resilient, healthy and adaptive shoreline and community. the indian basin water front park includes several park sites. the first future park development at 900 innes avenue. we're in mediation for that site now and preparing to begin construction this summer for the park. second, the comprehensive renovation of the existing indian basin shoreline park, which is the park to the northwest, and third the renovation and expansion of the existing indian basin open space and new big green, which are being constructed by build inc. which is part of the innes mixed use project. these open spaces about provide public amenities and will be linked by pedestrian and bicycle pathways. please note that the proposed street and public utility vacations will accommodate these important park improvements, proposed by the recreation and park department and e.i.r.s. in the development of these parks, is an important component to the needed reinvestment in the bayview hunters point community. it is also consistent with the general plan, the bayview hunters point area plan as well as the san francisco rec and parks strategic plan and would support open space equity goals within a high needs area. here's a project map showing the various parcel ownerships. ownership is color coded so that streets are in blue. rec and park owned properties are shaded in green. public works streets are in purposely. the build inc. properties are in orange. private parcels are shaded in gray. the street vacation footprint before you is in a darker blue color, occupying a population of griffith street and hudson avenue and bounded by innes avenue. it overlaps with the western most edges of the proposed park developments. the department plans to return to the board at a later date for a futch second vacation boundary, which is depicted in yellow. that comprises an edge of the park development site, however, because survey work will take little bit longer and given the time sensitivity of our current construction the department has elected to seek that vacation segment at a later time. this presentation was developed with public works. the proposed street vacation includes a resolution of intention to vacate streets which is board file number 220448. an ordinance for the street vacation order which is board file number 220450. the remaining schedule hearing includes today's hearing, we're at land use and transportation committee. june 7th is the full board, the resolution of intention as committee report. july 12th is the committee of the whole and first reading of the ordinance. we would like to request the committee to amend item 2. july 19th, the second reading of the ordinance. in closing, i like to reiterate that the board ice approval of the proposed street and public utility vacations will lay land use ground work funnel implementation of the incidentian basin waterfront project. thank you for your consideration. please note that rec and park are here today to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, mr. frolik. let's go to public comment. >> clerk: thank you. members was public who wish to provide public comment on this item, 2 and 3, please approach the podium. there are no members of the public in the chamber. if you are on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicate that you have been unmuted. if you like to speak, you need to dial (415)655-0001, meeting i.d. is 2482 953 5033 # # and star 3 will bring you to the queue. we have 13 listeners with zero in the queue. >> supervisor melgar: okay. thank you very much. public comment on this item is closed. for there no other questions, can we please have a motion to adopt the amendments? i'll make the motion. >> clerk: on that motion to amend the committee of the whole day of july 12th on page 4 line 15. [roll call vote] you have three ayes. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. can we please -- can we have motion to send item 2 as amended with the positive recommendation. sorry, file 3 as amended. >> clerk: as a committee? >> supervisor melgar: as a committee report and number 3 just with a pops recommendation. >> clerk: to the committee of the whole? on the first motion to recommend item 2 as amended committee report. [roll call vote] you have three ayes. for item number 3 to refer out to the board of supervisors committee of the whole day july 12th. [roll call vote] you have three ayes. >> supervisor melgar: please call item 4. >> clerk: an ordinance amending the planning code to extend the time from three to six years for temporary closure of a liquor store in north beach neighborhood. as a result, of the fire to not result in the abandonment of such use to another location in the n.c.d. to require new conditional use permit. members of the public with wish to provide public comment on item 4, should call (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 2482 953 5033 # #. if you have not done so already, and would like to speak, you need to press star 3, the system will indicate that you have raised your hand. >> supervisor melgar: supervisor peskin, do you have any remarks? >> supervisor peskin: i do not. the planning department has recommended it. it's an extension of our preexisting legislation regarding a closure of a liquor store due to fire at the corner of columbus and union street. we need an extension of this so that the liquor store can continue to operate nearby. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. let's go to public comment. >> clerk: thank you. are there any members of the public who like to speak on this item. seeing none. we'll move to remote call-in. members of the public who wish to provide public comment. should call (415)655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2482 953 5033 # # if you have not done so, and like to peek, you need to press star 3 for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicate you have been unmuted. we have agnus supporting us for this item today. agnus, i don't have in queue if you want to make the announcement. >> i'm here to support item 5. >> clerk: all right, i apologize. we have zero members in the queue. >> supervisor melgar: public comment is closed. supervisor peskin, do you want to make a motion? >> supervisor peskin: i like to move this as a committee report. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. >> clerk: on that motion. [roll call vote]. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. that motion passes. let's call item number 5 now. >> clerk: an ordinance to create group housing district and affirming appropriate findings. members of public with wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415)655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2482 953 5033 # #, if you have not done so, please press star 3 to line up to speak. we have agnes for this item 5. >> supervisor melgar: we have heard this item before. supervisor peskin, do you have any remarks? >> supervisor peskin: thank you chair melgar for your co-sponsorship. i want to acknowledge my chief of staff for her work on this as well as the support from many collaboratives and affordable housing, tenant association. as i mentioned at a previous committee meeting, while our city donor does -- city attorney does not believe special use district is considered a down-zone based on development opportunities of conditional dense housing in chinatown. we like to promote the concept and make it clear that the upzoning benefits for the west side of the city in supervisor mandelman's legislation, that we're about to hear compliment that tenderloin and chinatown goals, that those neighborhoods have housing needs met for permanent residents and families. i like to pass this and travel with the four plex or multiplex legislation. i was hoping it can get out today for a hearing tomorrow. eir understand a will get -- i understand it will get to the board next week. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair melgar. thank you supervisor peskin for all your work on this. i think the time you introduced this, my district has now directly impacted given the redistricting. i like to be added as a co-sponsor. thank you again for your leadership. >> supervisor melgar: okay. thank you, madam clerk. let's go to public comment. >> clerk: are there any members of the public who like to speak on this item? seeing no members. let's move to remote call-in line. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item 5. should call (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 2482 953 5033 # #, if you have not done so, you need to press star 3. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. we have 14 listeners today with 4 in the queue. first caller, please. [speaking cantonese] >> interpreter: to the land use and transportation committee. i'm an s.r.o. tenant. thank you for the opportunity to provide public testimony. i'm here today to ask members of committee to support this legislation. i really hope that there are many more affordable housing development in chinatown, because my son live in s.r.o. there's no space to move around. our children activities are made on the bed. they have to sleep on the bed doing homework, playing and eating. in the bed, 1.4 meters wide. there's no place to turn around. it's even more uncomfortable. our toilets and rooms are shared. i remember one time that my children was very eager to go to -- [ indiscernible ] they can't but they cry. it seems like a small problem. it has been a great impact on the health of our children. living in such a small village has made me very depressed in my daily life. at the same time, it affects the physical and mental health for our children. this is why i ask members of committee to support the development of more affordable family housing in chinatown. thank you. another caller from the same line. [ speaking cantonese] >> interpreter: hello, members of the land use and transportation committee. my family of four has been living in chinatown unit for four years i'm urging you to support development of more affordable family housing in chinatown. our children do not have the private space. during the pandemic, my eldest son, he could only turn on the desk lamp to go to classes. he's needing to open the audio to answer teacher question, he cannot speak louder because his father return from night shift and his -- [ indiscernible ] with such live-in conditions, children are unable to concentrate on their studies and parents are unable to provide them good living environment. s.r.o.s are not suitable for families. we already have many families living in s.r.o.s in chinatown. please, find an alternative solution to this problem and help improve our children's living environment. we support the development of more affordable family housing in chinatown. we are asking members of the committee to support this legislation. thank you. >> interpreter: we ask members of the land use and transportation committee. now i will interpret. good afternoon members of the land use and transportation committee. my family of four live in chinatown s.r.o. unit. i urge your support for the legislation. s.r.o.s are not suitable for families. chinatown already have too many s.r.o.s. my youngest daughter has asthma. usually, her health is not good. air is poor. my daughter is sick due to poor circulation of air, and good circulation of air is very important for children. we love to give our children a good environment. we have tried to move out from s.r.o., but, other market is too high for us to move up. i have been applying for affordable housing. i cannot get housing, because, there are two affordable units. i don't want have new s.r.o.s in chinatown. s.r.o. environment is not suitable for families. chinatown needs affordable friendly house. not market rate s.r.o.s. i hope you could hear our voice. build more affordable housing in chinatown, thank you. this is the last caller. >> interpreter: hello, operation, why don't we move to the last caller. >> clerk: i believe there's another caller that needs assistance. hello, caller? next caller please. >> interpreter: i think they hung up. >> clerk: thank you so much. let's move on to the next speaker. we have 18 listening with 5 in the queue. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. [ indiscernible ] we like to chair melgar and supervisor peskin for co-sponsoring this effort. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: this is david willis. tenderloin resident, member of tenderloin people's congress. the people's congress support this. i lived over 15 years in the tenderloin, 13 of them have been in a 220 square foot s.r.o. i'm no longer living in that, i did spend 13 years from 2006 and 225 square feet. that's one single adult. this is inadequate space for habitation. i did that out of desperation because nothing else was affordable. this will be impossible, 300 square feet for a couple or family to live in, it's impossible. the developers are using this group housing option as a way of skirting planning requirements, to try to best craft home housing projects, it's inadequate substandard housing for the neighborhood. we need family housing in the tenderloin and chinatown. this special use district, which i strongly support really helps to correct this wrong. [please stand by] 22 >> in these dense neighborhoods. we have so many families and children being forced to live in small and inadequate facilities in the tenderloin community. our community is screaming for more affordable family housing for years. it is what we really need. there is an influx of new development. people are taking advantage of the group housing projects and those propose understand the tenderloin neighborhood. it is not providing the housing we need. it is adding to the problem in the neighborhood, density problem thatleted to the problems on the streets. there are no new to attract. they are adding more density. please support moving this legislation forward. thank you for your new supervisor for signing on to this legislation as well. thank you. >> clerk: next caller please. 17 listening with two in the queue. to speak press star 3. >> good afternoon. i am policy and planning manager at tenderloin neighborhood development. we support the special use district in the tenderloin and chinatown that is the direct of years of resident advocacy. thank you, supervisor peskin's office for designing this legislation. >> clerk: that completing the queue. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, madam clerk. closing marks? >> supervisor peskin: thank you for your positive sponsor hip. >> preston aye, melgar aye preston aye. >> public comment is closed. thank you. let's call item 6, please. re-zoning all districts to residential two family rh-2 zoning districts. region rh-1 to in class called residential 2 family detached rh-2 d and provide density exception to authorize the subdivider constructing in units to submit application and affirming appropriate findings. members to comment on item 6 call 415-655-0001. 24829535033-pound and pound again to speak. press star 3 to speak. the system will indicate you have raised your hand. >> thank you. i will acknowledge we have speaker marwith us who intends to talk about amendments. we are joined by jacob from supervisor mandelman's office online because supervisor mandelman could not be here today. are you with us? >> yes, thank you, chair melgar. >> once again thank you for hearing this item at land use and to make myself available for questions. we have planning staff here available as well. i would like to request that you all consider moving this out with positive recommendation today. thank you again for your thoughtful work on this ordinance. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. supervisor mar. >> thank you, chair melgar and supervisors pes ton anapest -- preston on peskin to consider this legislation and balancing the goal of incentivizing small scale development in low density neighborhoods with concerns about affordability of the new units and potential gentrification impacts on the homeowner neighborhood. these are complicated policy issues. it is a new type of development we are try to to incentivize in the city. it is a very good public process and discussion the committee has gone through for a number of months. i want to thank supervisor mandelman and jacob for leadership on this as well. i did want to refer to the last time that the board adopted a similar density bonus for new development that was home-sf five years ago. that also required pretty extensive public process and a lot of amendments. ultimately there has to be a new version home-sf 2.0 adopted a year later. i think it is important to get the details right on density bonus. i do appreciate the consideration of my strong interest in affordability for the new units through the density bonus. i appreciate the planning equipment's analysis on the feasibility and even though it looks like the legislation that is moving forward to the board is not going to include my proposal for affordability ensuring affordability. there is another path and that is through the legislation we adopted in march creating house be development incentive for homeowners which is a package of technical assistance and financing incentives for creation of ad touched, duplex and quadplex. that will be an opportunity for us to incentivize affordability for for those incentives. i thank the planning department for the hub development incentive program and hopefully that will be lodged by the end of the year. colleagues, i have one amendment. i would like to respectfully request you consider in my staff circulated it to you earlier today. i want to thank the city attorney's office for working on this. this is basically would amend the legislation requiring an annual report on having affordability, racial equity and language access. this would be prepared by the planning department in coordination with other departments. i think it is a fairly simple amendment requiring annual report by the planning department on housing affordability and racial equity. i respectfully request that you move the amendment. i am open to any questions about that. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor mar. let's go to public comment. >> clerk: are there any members to speak on item 6? approach the podium. those on hold please continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted and if you have not done so already press star 3 to be added the queue. >> good afternoon. i sent attached to the official file for ms. major complete executive summary from the informational hearing on sb9 and 10 heard at the planning commission last board it is important to have the executive summary in the record to read what is on page 14. i will add parenthetically don't forget about ab916 section 1, 65850.02 at the senate housing committee on june 13th. i don't know what this could mean but it has far-reaching implications if not amended that could affect the legislation and anything to come before planning. here is my documents. i am sorry, supervisor mar. i will send one to your staff. thank you. >> place it on the banister there. no other members of the public in the chamber. we are moving to remote call in line. first caller. we have 13 listening and five in the queue. >> caller: eileen speaking on my behalf. any legislation from sacramento is questionable for one reason. mckentucky and company. when newsom was running for governor $3.5 million housing unit deficit. he failed to mention this was for a 10 year period. may 2015 to 2025. that the data was from the kentucky and company with prime -- kentucky kensey and company. using the method instead would have revealed 1.5 million unit deficit over 10 years. before in some was worn in as governor a former executive was sworn in as financial adviser. now most housing legislation is based on the kensey. skinner. 2019-20 legislative session the san francisco board of supervisors unanimously voted to oppose unless amended resolution 20062 sixty 2-17-20. all three state senators voted to support despite this being the official position publicly advocated by the lobbyist for the city. sb-330 bid downsizing has occurred. there is no going back. table the lemming lake and join the sb9 lawsuit. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, christopher roach. chair of the public policy and advocacy committee san francisco aia speaking today on the legislation before you regarding. [indiscernable] legislation was introduced we were in support of it. we are generally in support of adding density and getting rid of single family zoning in san francisco. however, in the intervening months as the legislation evolved, we are concerned that more and more units have been added that are completely counterproductive to the actual production of any new housing. it is too long to quote right here. adding the residential requirement before and after, continuing ceqa unit sizes and rent control. our concern is that this at the end of the friday be window dressing -- day making it look like we are addressing the window crisis and nothing will happen. unless it is back to the original version we are in opposition. >> clerk: next speaker. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. i want to echo the comments from the previous speaker. we sort of view housing advocacy in a pro-housing agenda in two different areas. we need more money for affordable housing and paying attention to the financing. we need regulatory reform making it easier and more streamlined to approve and build housing and zoning to be able to build the homes that we need for the people that want to live here. on the initial proposed bill from supervisor mandelman's office we think this piece of legislation has gotten much, much worse and making it much harder to create housing units and with the housing element and the numbers on the horizon, it feels like a small step that we could be taking considering the size of the problem we respectfully request this board of supervisors be mobile in trying to get to solutions that result in the number of homes that we need. it is a step in the right direction but we do not believe it results in any real housing. that is unfortunate. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. zack wisenberg with young community developers member of the race and equity planning commission. we urge you to prioritize affordability. we need to make sure this is serving the low and moderate incomes to monitor the outcome of the program the equity reporting must capture how it is used in practice. in detail the dram graphic data on homeowners who use it to occupy the results needed future changes in it is not accomplishing the goal of produces the rental housing. yes need a clear path to include affordability if it negatively impacts communities of color. this should be with the housing development incentive program. these programs will ensure the low income homeowners benefit from the impacts, achieving equity in the program is key to accomplish the goals. thank you for your time. >> caller: next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, chair melgar, supervisors peskin and preston. this is anastasia member of the race and equity planning coalition. i am thrilled with the introduction of supervisor mar's housing affordability annual reporting. it will help us track these units. i must point out to you and i don't know if you are aware up to 30% of all of the single family homes are tenant occupied. tenants pay the rent to the owner. the sb9 does not include any tenant occupied units. you are creating history here by including tenant-occupied units in this universe. i am hoping that the owners will be following the 60 day rule of giving notice to tenants and that the relocation benefits perhaps supervisor melgar could be raised to a standard that is comparable to today's housing, you know, prices. after all, tenants are going to be displaced. thank you. >> clerk: we have 11 listening with four in the queue. next caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon. commission economic development agency. we are a proud member of the raise and equity all planning coalition. we thank you, supervisors and the authors of the ongoing discussion. it is going on for a long time now. we are feeling like we are continuing to focus the legislation on the city equity goals through the amendments and process and discussion happening. thank you. we think it is especially important to build out the residential areas over the coming decades we continue to establish the framework to make sure we have low to moderate income homeowners as core of the legislation. we think the five year look back and forward amendments in place now will be a critical step here to ensuring the existing families participation that is happening. we also appreciate the shift to focus on family ownership along with property way to address the practical family matters raised here. we think the annual report amendment introduced by supervisor mar will add an extra left to the legislation to understanding the equity impacts of the program. we look forward to seeing the results in the first year to continue to tweak the code to make sure it aligns with the city and social equity goals. in fact suggested by another speaker we think that it is a good idea. first year's annual report does come out we hope it does not but we hope it comes out in alignment with race and equity goals. we think about applying empirical triggers to add affordable housing requirements or attach improvements or additional funding through the proposed programs. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, chair melgar and supervisors. this is the west side community coalition and all planning coalition. in each of these hearings we feel it is paramount concern to make sure large parts of the city result in greater opportunities for people of color and families with low income to remain and find a home in san francisco. it has been proven for several generations in cities around the world the only way to guarantee accessibility is to focus on housing solutions not market based. this is entirely market based and relies on the functions market rate housing will result in greater racial equity and social equity out comes. we urge you to adopt the reporting from supervisor mar to provide data about who is being served. who are the owners? who are beneficiaries of new opportunities? who are the people able to rent the units? critical data to be collected and reported to make future land use decisions. thank you very much. >> clerk: we have nine listening with two in the queue. to speak press star 3. >> caller: good afternoon. i am tony summer a member of the race and equity planning coalition. this key process coalition has urged this committee to ensure the legislation the people who live and work in san francisco and those most priced out of the current market. the amendments included are helpful. the five year look back and forward to speculation, inclusion to prevent. [indiscernable] assurances the tenants are occupying these after temporary displacement. we want systemming reporting of date to test is assumptions of the report with actual outcomes. ultimately the city should not only care about increasing production of units but also about who the new housing serves and who is benefiting from the wealth generated. the property owners able to take advantage of this as well as the future tenant in the homes. data collection and reporting will be needed to learn how to ramp-up housing incentive programs to support the working class homeowners to take advantage and to expand their homes to meet growing needs of families and communities. this reporting is needed to ensure we are meeting the equity goals and to monitor how we are increasing the number of units and ensuring that working class communities of collar are not left out. thank you. >> clerk: that completes the queue. >> supervisor melgar: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair. ongoing conversation we had and issue you raised relative to eligibility in conversations with the city attorney. city attorney drafted language to accommodate the concerns that you express and those would be on page 7 under the eligibility provision to include the words including any inheritance in or through a trust in the middle of that paragraph. i would make that amendment and discuss supervisor mar's amendment. >> supervsor mar: thank you, supervisor. supervisor preston. >> thank you, chair melgar. i want to thank all of you for your work on this. i certainly am comfortable with supervisor peskin's amendment and also supervisor mar's amendment which i think is important. the public comments noted and supervisor mar noted to really measuring the impact of this as we go forward and also to see how the development fits in with the racial equity goals of the city. requiring that kind of reporting makes good sense. broadly convey my thanks to supervisor mar for bringing issues around equity and affordability into the conversation through his parallel legislation and through the amendment discussions that we have had along the way. i just, you know, i hope to move to the full board. i want to take the opportunity to reflect on how we got here. this is clearly a fairly long road. not necessarily that long when you think about other land use legislation. certainly a complex one. i think the time that is spent has yielded a sensible ordinance that protects against the unintended consequences. i think that is the product of flexibility author of supervisor mandelman and chair melgar and supervisor safai and maras committee members. the two things i do want to highlight and we have talked about prior committee hearings. it is important to recognize that it is first the committee had as i mentioned a robust discussion about affordability components in the various proposals. as concept that i believe when the city is conferring benefit to developers. zoning that we can and should expect to get something in return. that applies in smaller scale projects like these. we also have to be really customize what the benefits look like in crafting the law. am encouraged on the rent control on the bonus unit goes to allow us to promote long-term housing by limiting -- long-term homes with benefits to future benefits from chapter 37 of the administrative code. thank you, chair melgar, and your office for your work to incorporate that positive change to the initial legislation. the second be thing i think we took an important step by including the five your ownner ship look back in the legislation. my concern was without look back there was sing any can't risk of this -- significant risk of large scale demolition of existing sound housing. by requiring five year look back it is far less likely developers will buy up and bulldoze existing neighborhoods. given the city's shameful history with demolitions particularly in the district i represent and elsewhere in the city this is important to my office. i appreciate the consensus or emerging consensus regarding the amendment we made. i think these are positive changes. the time was well spent. i appreciate the flexibility and creativity of all of you colleagues as we tried to get this right. i would end by saying i would push back on the notions expressed in public comment. the concerns expressed by some folks who don't see this the same way. they believe any restrictions, rent control, limits on development are inherently bad. it is important to have rent control provisions so there can't be rent gouging. we need a look back so we don't get green light to large scale demolition. i understand there are folks who will oppose inclusion and any form of community review and rent control and who are fine with speculators buying up neighborhoods for profit. it is not a position i agree with. i appreciate this legislation as drafted strike the right balance. i look forward to supporting it and sending to the full board. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: public comment is closed. let's have a motion to approval both amendments. >> so moved. >> clerk: the motion requested -- amendment and the amendment supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> suppressston. >> aye. >> nel gar. >> melgar. >> three ayes. >> i move as committee report as amended with recommendation. i will move with recommendation as amended. >> now you are confusing me. >> i am moving the twice amended piece of legislation to the full board. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. motion passes. we are now on item 7. >> clerk: hearing on the review and status of the mayor's office of housing and community development below market rate program including about the number of participants in the program, what area median incomes are currently served and the program's funding availability and participant demographics, number of units in development and number of units currently available and requesting the report. call 415-655-0001. if you have not done so and would like to speak on item 7 press star 3 and the system will indicate you have raised your hand. >> supervisor melgar: we are now joined by supervisor safai who is a sponsor for this hearing. welcome, supervisor, the floor is yours. >> supervisor safai: thank you for saying my name so perfectly. i appreciate that. thank you, colleagues. i don't think i have to tell you or members of public that we are experiencing a housing crisis in san francisco and more specifically affordable housing shortage and crisis in our city. particularly around units to be rented or owned by working families. something i have dedicated a large portion of my career for work in the labor movement prior to coming to the board of supervisors. i have made a top priority of building and enabling and facilitating the development of affordable housing and particularly housing for working families. in year one, supervisor peskin and i worked on the city's inclusionary housing program and looking at house that needed to be updated in terms of percentage of units set aside in market rate housing, what targeted incomes to provide for. it is clear that families that may be 10 or 15 or 20 years ago would not have been in need of or considered for affordable housing are now desperately in need of that type of housing. we had a very honest conversation about expanding the definition who would qualify for affordable housing. as we worked on other pieces of legislation recently in the past year i learned from that conservation speaking to both private and not profit owners of property that we were having a backlog or experiencing a high amount of vacancies in our bmr below market rate housing program. many of them stated the process for leasing up those units and filling those units was cumbersome and adding to the crisis in our city. as a result i asked the bla to do an analysis to understand where we were in terms of vacancies. in march this year we found out that there were at the time and could be more or a little less but 305 vacancies of affordable units sitting vacant in the affordable housing stock. these are units that could be rented to deal with this crisis that we have and houseworking families. we wanted to have a hearing to talk about the program. hear people in the public experiencing difficulties with it. i want to state out of the gate i don't think anyone whether they are nonprofit or for profit wants to it is on an empty unit. there is no incentive for that. people want to rent their units. i think what i have heard and we will hear more about it today is that the process to certify the wait list, lottery, having resettertify by staff all of that creates backlog and when it is time to offer the unit sometimes those folks have moved on. some of the cumbersome nature of the process can be contributing to this housing shortage. this is not just to point fingers at the mayor's office of housing. they are very swell intentioned -- very well-intentioned. we want to have an honest conversation what is happening and what we can do to improve the system. i call from that hearing today. we will hear updates about the program frommoacd. we will harry view of bl -- hear the review of the bla report. the first person to speak is from the bla who worked on the report. i think the bla will speak first. they have slide to present be. >> good afternoon. i am dan. [indiscernable] i am here to present on our report. anna is available to help answer questions. a request to the clerk. could you set up the slides that i sent. second slide. as supervisor safai stated, we were asked to conduct analysis for low market rates for bmr rental units across the city, how many vacant, how many exist, how long the vacancies have been vacant and discussion of potential tenants for placement in the units. we will go to slide 3, please. the program requires deed restricted affordable housing as part of the development. it is goff verbed by section 415 of the planning code by the mayor's office of community development. there were 305 vacant out of 1961 units in 101 acknowledges throughout the city. city-wide rate of 15.6%. slide four, please. much the 305 vacant. five or 2% are vacant since 2019. 55 or 18% vacant since 2020 p.245 or 80% have been vacant since 2021 or 2022. we look at the vacancies by eligibility and we found that 69% of the vacant units are for those earning 55% of the a.m.i. 30% are earning between 55 and 100% bmi. looking at the vacancies by unit type. 53% vacances among sro, studios or one bedroom apartments. 24% two bedroom and 3% are among three or more bedroom apartments. the staff noticed there are currently several market-based challenges to renting the bmr units. specifically smaller units are harder to rent in the current market. more potential renters want more space due to the covid-19 pandemic. some renters can rent slightly larger units in neighborhoods that they prefer for close to the same rent as the bmr unit especially if it is priced at 100% bmi. we require developers meet outreach and add vertising requirements. they must hang a banner on site during construction to advertise availability of future units. advertise in five local representatives in spanish, filipino and target the african-american community and have a social media residence and addter ties on the radio and send flyers to displaced tenants informing them of availability of bmr units. send an e-mail to m ohcd list serve over 50,000 recipients informing the availability of bmr units. must send information to community organizations present in the supervisor district for targeted community outreach. according to the staff the city issued enforcement actions on the 60 units vacant since 2019 or 2020. it begins with the online portal that has been over 60 days since the developer or owner made progress. to enforce they send notice of complaint to the developer. if there is no response in 60 days they send enforcement. no response within 60 days. they refer the case to the planning department. planning department then can send notice of violation and if there is no response or request within 16 days planning department assesses administrative amounts of $250 per unit per day penalty. it can take months or years to resolve. we included three options for the board to consider. the board of supervisors could request the directormohcd provide regular reports to the board on quarterly basis through 22-23 detailing the number of rentals, location of vacancies, enforcement action and number and amount of fines issued to developers or owners with bmr rental units. this could be provided in an online dashboard format. second policy option we suggested. initiate legislation to amend planning code section 415 regulations for enforcement of bmr rental vacancies. it could include reduction in number of new developers with vacant rental units. reduction of the amount of time provided between notices or before issued. increase in the shifting of responsibility of assessing the penalties from the planning department. third policy action we suggested in the report was to request the director ofmohcd to conduct market research or economic analysis to determine the cause of the trend of vacancies including the challenges in renting smaller units and units targeted at higher a.m.i.s. it should be shared with the board of supervisors by october 1, 2022. na concludes my presentation. i am available for questions if there are any. >> supervisor peskin: my question was related to enforcement slide. you said it takes from as much as years for enforcement to commence. do you have any data as to actual number of enforcement cases, how those were dealt with and add jute indicated? do you have more specific detail on enforcement? >> thank you, supervisor peskin. the numbers that we got were high level. they only broken down by date and year the vacancy began. i don't have that data available at this moment. mohcd might have it or we might obtain from them. >> how the annual data can you share with us? >> yes. >> number of cases and amounts obtained? >> i believe the number of vacancies not enforcement cases. number of vacancies broke cundown by the year the vacancy began and the income level, eligibility level. >> mohcd did not provide information how many enforcement actions commenced, how many fines levied, how many collected? >> i think because that wasn't specifically part of the scope of the request. >> thank you. >> chair preston: thank you for your report and thank you, supervisor safai for calling for this important hearing. a couple questions. clarification on the length of vacancy slide and graphic which is interesting. i noticed 21-22 are lumped together. 80% of the vacancies since 21-22. it is different if it is vacant since 2021, six month minimum period vacant versus two months ago there might be different explanations. is there a reason they are lumped together? do you have the breakdown how many of these are since 2021 versus 2022? >> thank you for the question. we do not have a more detailed breakdown. i apologize for that. perhapsmohcd director has more detailed breakdown of the length of vacancies. we did not have time to break it down any further. >> thank you. we can ask for nor information on that. one broader question on this. i appreciate the work they do to get this information. is this information that is the basis of this report provided in any -- asking the bla to look into this, is any of this, number of vacancies, the status of enforcement actions, is that reported anywhere? was this gathered basically dinovo for purposes of this hearing? >> we did not identify the public sources for this information. we got this directly frommohcd. they provide period anotherric reports. we did not come across any publications on this data. >> thank you. >> i was going to say the questions asked might be answered in the next presentation. >> i have a couple questions. my first question was about geographic distribution. do we know if it is evenly distributed for the vacancies are, where it goes or is there a specific neighborhood or area where the vacancies are mostly concentrated? >> i will ask anna. she is in the meeting. i know we alluded to the vacancy rate possibly being higher because some folks may be opting for market rating at preferred locations. anna, please. >> thanks so much for your question, supervisor melgar. i am with the bla. we do know that this data does cover the bmr units city-wide. the vacancies certainly include the vacancies in units city-wide. however, we did not look at a more concentrated distribution to look at whether or not there were certain vacancies in certain geographic areas. we could do that. >> from a problem solving perspective. i have heard there are neighborhoods where the a.m.i. level of rent are pretty close to market. if from a user perspective you have to go through a lottery verses just putting down a deposit there is an incentive to not go through that. second thing -- maybe it will be answered. thank you so much. >> if we can move to the presentation frommohcd. some of this we might have additional questions like that question you just said about market rate being close to some of the higher a.m.i.s. one of the things that the office does because we have this experience in one of the buildings in our district. they asked for market rate rent in the building. the bmr units have to be certain percentage below those. that is part of the requirement. there have to be 80% of the market rate unit certified bymohcd. let's get to the presentation. we will have additional question the committee. i do as well. thank you. i believe we are joined by director shaw. sheley ann maria benjamin. i believe they are all here. >> hello. this is sheila, director of policy and legislative affairs formohcd. thank you for the presentation on my last name. perfect. many of the questions you asked we will be able to answer for you now. affidavit i present, director shaw ann maria benjamin are here for questions. a summary of the below market rate program and goals. it is in the planning code it is to access private funding for the affordable housing market rate buildings that include a certain number of affordable units. when we think about the program it is not just production of units but how to make these available to people that need them. i will highlight ways to increase efficiencies for tenants, owners and property developers. we have a web leasing more streamlined systems. we have built the system to add allow adequate time for applications and responses, streamlined the process. we do a lot of technical assistance for tenants and property owner to help them through the process. i will talk more about those later on. quick snapshots of our bmr rentals. 1961 units. 101 buildings. we added 270 last year. so far this year we added 74 units. the number of affordable units is based on the number of units in the building. those bmr units are offer add at three different level. 50, 80, 110%. because it is helpful to step away from those a.m.i. percentages to understand what it means in number terms. these are the annual income level for one, two, three person households. 55, 80, 110 and what the rents look like as well. this is our renters and the market. dan talked about this. we want to go into this in more detail. we are still emerging from a very complex extraordinary different market than we have ever seen before. the factors affecting the bmr and market rate units. two big categories, covid impacts. we saw housing supply change substantially in the past two years. it is still in flux. as supervisor melgar mentioned there is some cases, less margin between market rate and bmr units. we saw changes in income due to covid market, changes and we are seeing market rate units, some developers starting to add concessions to move the market rate units faster which goes back to the less margin between the market and bmr represents. we are seeing changes in household preferences. unit size is more significant. people are working from home and want larger units. smaller two bedroom there is less interest. studios can be harder to move. bedroom cap, limited parking and location. supervisor melgar's question where we are seeing most vacancies. they tend to be along the center of the hub area and into soma and tenderloin. snapshot of the current bmr renters. 30% households have one or more children. 9% at least a senior. 10% use represent subsidies such as vouchers to support represent payments. this is the information presented in the may report from the bla this. is an updated. in the may report through the data through the end of march 305 vacancies. status as of end of may update. all of those 305, 116 are newly advertised. lotteries in the past six months that is a normal lease period. we don't consider those in six-month period to be delayed in leasing. 40 leases signed. 17 vacant units sold to hsh. five under penalty. they may or may not be open for leasing. 127 units with delayed lease up. i will go into detail what is happening with those specifically. units with bmr with delayed leases. lotteries more than six months ago. when we break this down, 95 are actively leasing. 31 referred to planning for enforcement. one unit delayed because of staffing issues. i will drill down into these. active leasing some reasons we see they are actively leasing that takes longer than we want. more than the six-month period that we expect. there are delays between lottery and leasing due to changes. lease changes that delay signing of the lease. back to the challenges about the changing marketplace we are in. slow progress with the bmr and market rate units. the properties referred to planning. four properties. all received notice of complaint. that one unit that had developer staffing issues. they had ongoing staffing issues. they are working on it. we can also look at our reasons that applicants are leaving the pool for these 127 units. this piechart is for more than 1500 applicants for 127 units. 75% of applican'ts left the pool because of nonresponse. for every nonresponsive applicant they are contacted by e-mail, snail mail, money call, text, alternative contact and there is an appeal period. the good news in the chart. very few people are turned away because of under income or don't have subsidies or credit starteds that is a dramatic change from previous years. we think that is a great improvement. people are not denied because of administrative issues. one last thing before the next slide. to fill the unit right now we see an average of 31 applicants to be contacted to get one unit filled that has increased substantially from prior to the pandemic. as the bla report says is attributed to different factors. there were questions about the compliance enforcement process. this is a graphic illustration what dan provided. i want to emphasize emily works with developers. we want to units to lease. we do everything we can to provide the support before we start down the path of enforcement. some is employed after the other supports are used. courtesy notice after 60 days of donant lease activity. if the -- dormant lease activity. that is the first notice of complaint. notice of enforcement, relation, notice of penalty. >> to provide quick summary of marketing and lottery timeline. mohcd starts working with developers seven months before leasing to define expectations how the leasing is to happen. every developer with the units submits the marketing plan to approve to ensure we know how the developer andmohcd knows the plan for marketing and leasing the units. we have the post applicant timeline as well. it has dramatically saved time for applicants and leasing. provides efficiencies and holds everyone accountable. we can pull data and monitor the progress how leasing is happening for individual buildings and for over time. in the timeline for the lottery to lease up can vary depending on the developers and interest in the property and number of appeals. we offer a robust suite of resources for developers to support efforts in leasing. prepricing and marketing. we meet with them. trainings and one-on-one trainings, partners to help manage, income eligibility tools and office hours to attend as well to ask us questions as they move through the process of leasing. on the other side provides resources for applicants as well. application assistance, help and counseling, workshops and language access. $2 million annually to assist in these applicants to get through the lottery process and the leasing. bmren hangs chancements. templates communication templates developers can use to notify applicants of their application status, leasing, documents. we have a leasing agent. a manual provided to the agents. live lotteries and improved enforcement. upcoming next year community engagement to update inclusionary manual. we want to further build out the lowing portal to make it -- leasing portal to have communications to address things in a more rapid response. thank you very much. i hope that providing some of the answers you were looking for. maria and director shaw and i are all available for follow-up questions. thank you. >> thank you for that presentation. one of the things i would say. we have talked to a lot of owners, nonprofits, otherwise, and six months to rent the unit is very impactful for owners of properties and also for those waiting. i want to say that out of the gate. i understand this process takes time. i think we need to be try to and you ended with that to speed up the process. one of the things we heard in terms of the lottery process itself and the waiting period, we understand that you all go in successive order. lottery one has to complete. lottery person number one has to go through entire screening process before you get to the second winner. i am curious why and maybe you can talk a little more about this. why couldn't we verify multiple people at once to speed up the process? is there a way to qualify applicants for multiple properties rather than having to do each individual applicant over each time they apply for a lottery in a specific building? i understand that they do a snapshot of income and snapshot in time. it is taking six months or more for them to lease up a unit. 31 applicants. maybe you can go to more detail. the other thing to say is that if you talk about your over income. we have heard from a number of third-parties that handle the process. they said if someone is 50 or $100 over income they are disqualified for being over income. maybe you can address those first two and then the last question i ask you to respond to. i know a lot of the property owners will hire third-parties like the management and they pay them to do the verification process and the work. nohcd has to do the --mohcd does the work all over again. those three examples are things that could potentially change the outcome and speed up the process of verification to get the units filled. >> good afternoon. maria benjamin mayor's office of housen and community development. i oversee the program. i am happy to answer yes questions. first question about going in succession, one at a time that is not true, not how it is done. developers reach out to applicants they approve 20 people at a time. it depends on the develop per -- developer's exam 20 or 30 applications at once. we encourage them to reach out. they reach out to certificate of preference, displaced first. process those. then move to neighborhood preference. there have set aside number of units in a property for displaced tenants, set aside for the neighborhood tenants. they cannot go to the general preference until they have filled the units in the neighborhood preference. at no time do they go one at a time. they reach out to large groups of people to process applications. those people we have a system where they can select units in lottery rank order. first, second and third choice. they may not get them all. some people might take longer to process than others. the lease signing the what we do actually have them go in lottery rank order. they do reach out to the higher ranking people first. that does not take a lot of time if the developer has adequate staffing. second item that you mentioned was the over income by dollar. that is always something that in affordable housing is really heartbreaking. we have an income limit. we need to follow that. there are times when people are just over the limit. sadly, they don't qualify. that is how affordable housing across all of the country is looked at. eligibility criteria is looked at that way. i am not aware of anyplace in the country that would allow someone who is a dollar over the stated area income to track the unit. finally, you mentioned about in our process of reviewing the -- the developer has to review the property, applications. then we do it again. no, we don't do it again. in fact, what we do is the new developer who has not done this before. we are looking at the first three files that they have submitted. to ensure that it is done correctly. once they have done three correctly we say do as many as you can. we are not looking them over. the only time we would look over the file is if the applicant appealed a negative decision. in that case we are looking over the disqualification again to ensure that it was done correctly. a lot of times we overturn what the developer has done and because that applicant does qualify. this is part of our goal of creating equity in this process and ensuring that each and every applicant has a chance at these valuable, valuable resources. >> listening to you, you are running the program as top-notch. you think there is any improvement to be made? when i found out there was 305 units sitting empty, it was a shock to me in a city with a housing crisis. any recommendations you bring to the table today to improve the system? do you say steer the course and keep it going, we are all good? >> well, i do see there are ways to improve. we are working on those improvements. we see that we can have communication with developers. we are working on our referral to have more -- the owners to submit information to us, they are able to have access to it more easily. we are working on those things. also we are in the community engagement and looking at other ways that perhaps we haven't thought about to listen to the community. our developers are part of our community. we will be engaging with them. i have to point out that 305 number. while we have gone through the last two years are unprecedented. i have been doing this for a long time. i have never seen what the pandemic caused to this market in general. that number is a point in time. that number is not a stagnant number. as you can see, there are always going to be vacancies as long as we are building and as long as those units are coming online, there are going to be vacant units. this is how affordable housing is -- this is not unique with the bmr affordable units this. is how tax credit units are filled. it takes time. we are not looking at just the leases income. we are looking at the total household income and as sets. it takes more time than the developer who is just looking for the credit of a potential pennant saying you are in. -- potential tenant. that seems scary. it is a point in time. it resolves itself. >> i think we are looking forward to having an updated report on an annual basis. then we will have a better snap shop. as supervisor preston said this was done as a result of hear from individuals in the market, frustration with working through the system and difficulty. we will hear from property owners today. i have had a number of conversations with them. that is why i brought up income verification. i understand affordable housing. we have to verify and ensure that everyone meets guidelines. there is also some flexibility in the way deposits are looked at, savings is looked at. there might be difference this is approach to qualify more people potentially. we don't have to get into that today. we will be asking for annual report and looking at snapshot and have an understanding to your point this is just a snapshot or consistent trend that is leaving a number of these units vacant be -- we will work with your office. we want to see improvements in the system. we want units leased up quicker. if a property owner hires a private management firm and that private management firm is one you have worked with consistently over the years regardless of the property itself, that should bring a different level of credibility to the system. it is more the third-party hired by that entity. that is why i brought that up as an example. there are ways in which we can create more efficiencies to get these units leased based on demand. the other thing i understand is that there is a movement or legislation coming from your department that is talking about putting fines toward private developers for holding units from the vacancies. from your presentation it looks like 31 units have been sent for enforcement. also in the presentation it talked about market forces changes to the system, difficulty in which the applicant responses. i am trying to understand what is the motivation behind increasing fines or accelerating fines? do you think fines are the answer to lease units up that have been vacant? >> no, i don't. i will tell you that the enforcement piece of this. we are not interested. that is not our goal to get fines from developers. our goal is to lease up these units and to make sure that they are being cared for in the same way that a market rate unit is being cared for and leased up. for those four buildings we wrote the letter of complaint they were moving too slow. we find that just that letter of complaint is enough to have a developer who may not have been moving as fast on the market rate units to pay attention to it and to keep the lease going on, moving on. legislation that you refer to that we are working on is not the point of that legislation is not to -- nothing new in that. we are not asking to create the ability to collect fines. there is always a planning department has always had the ability to assess fines when a development is not meeting their planning code requirements. what that legislation does is moves the responsibility for noticing and it gives that responsibility to m ocd and allows us to capture if there are fines that are assessed that it gives us the ability to use those fines to help support the mohcd and staffing it takes to do compliance work. it is not our goal to gouge a developer with fines. we are trying to get the units filled. >> i have more questions. i will pass it over to supervisor preston. >> thank you, chair melgar. i have a few questions. thank you for your presentation and your work. i wanted to start and see if you could shed any light on the question i asked the bla originally on the issue of the duration of the vacancy and data provided to bla to combine the units vacant since 2021 and 2022. do you have the breakdown? >> we certainly have the breakdowns. sheila in her presentation outline will are 116 of those units that are within their normal lease up timeframes that are not and i can certainly provide your office with breakdown of each, what those projects are, and the number of units of each one of those within the timeframe. the ones she was focusing on are the 127 units moving slowly through the pandemic. >> supervisor peskin: is it 127 unit that are the 2021 units and the 116 are in the last six months? >> yes. >> you mentioned the difficulties more generally including other programs, tax credits and affordable housing with vacancies. i am curious if you have any comparisons? do you know are the rates similar in tax credits or sore types of affordable housing that have some of the challenges you identified? >> in this endemic phase now we don't have large buildings coming on online. >> i want to break out the difference between the below market rate and market rate building and those tax credit 100% affordable buildings. tax credits gives folks a year to lease affordable units. to meet that year deadline, those nonprofit developers have a team of people working on those leaseups. they have a compliance person, many people that are working on the developers. they tend to meet that year deadline. in bmr there might be one or five or 10 unit in the building. it is up to the developer to assign staffing to those projects. when affordable housing isn't their mission, isn't their goal, it becomes a challenge for some. that is part of why we work with folks, bring them on board seven months prior to their beginning of their marketing so that they can be informed of all of the requirements that affordable housing has with regard to lease. they can better prepare. >> on the same question i understand the detail. i am curious in terms of rates. on the private market in terms of causes of vacancies. this shows 15.5%. do you know for some of these up for tax credit buildings what the current vacancy rates are? is it comparable? >> are no 100% affordable buildings being leased up now. i don't have that. i don't know where we would get that information. i can tell you that there were lags during the pandemic for units that had come on line in 2019 and 2020. there were definite lags during the pandemic. those buildings have now finished their leasing. i can get you the actual how long it took each one but i don't have that with me now. >> i am not just looking at the initial moment of initial lease. as they are operated there is some level of vacancy that is normal. someone moved out this period of time before you lease it up. i tried to get a sense of that and how that compares to these figures. any other information you can provide on that would be great. i also asked bla this question. is this data that you routinely inmohcd collect and analyze or was this put together specifically in response to the hearing request and the bla report? how many bmrs are vacant, how long vacant and the barriers? is this the information time that information is collected and presented? >> no, sir, that is part of our process. my team reports to me, to their manager and reports to me on a regular basis of vacancies. problems and issues they might be facing or that our sponsors are facing. we do a whole lot of user engagement testing. we make sure that we are meeting the needs and the leasing agents that are working through it. all of the resources we provide our sponsors we have constant trainings and meetings so that we are constantly getting feedback. we have weekly meetings with them in some cases unless they don't need our assistance. we are constantly looking at the data and looking. that is part of the enhancements that we created through the sales force world that we created to see anytime where a developer is in the process. we can see when they lag. reach out to them to say we wish to process applications in a week? anything we can do to help you? it is absolutely something that we are on all of the time.