Planner with the tenderloin development corporation. So if were going to continue to provide this resource of Affordable Housing in San Francisco, we need more sites. Sites with something that as we all know is definitely limited in our small city. We have a really fantastic opportunity here with these public sites to do something has been mentioned for the public good. On that note i want to urge the city to increase the affordability for those sites. As was mentioned, they are looking at sort of a baseline of 50 affordability for a lot of these sites. While that is higher than the 33 required by probprop k, they with my its an opportunity to increase our affordability numbers overall. If you look at pipeline for the Affordable Housing over next six years were way below the 33 threshold. So we have an opportunity to bump up the numbers to meet our Affordable Housing requirements laid out by the general plan and to really fulfill this mandate that the voters approved to have more Affor
Should increase affordability of some of the sites. We think that sites that large enough to accommodate 200 units should be affordable, should be 100 affordable and that the sites that are larger than 200 units we can look at a more mixed Income Housing. We think that will help balance our housing in San Francisco and meet the affordability mandate set out bit general plan as well acid prop k and really create a service for the public in San Francisco. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, commissioners. Whitney jones the director of the Housing Development form chinatown ucu. First i want to thank the city staff who are moving this process forward. Thank you, guys. Many city sites have been held by agencies for years without a process for moving them forward to meet overall city needs. So this process of starting to move these sites are consider uses for these sites is a great one. We support the chao choochoo paper presented to you earlier earli
Could provide us the opportunity to build muchneeded Affordable Housing in areas of the city, like soma, and the central city and in chinatown. Additionally, we think that we should increase affordability of some of the sites. We think that sites that large enough to accommodate 200 units should be affordable, should be 100 affordable and that the sites that are larger than 200 units we can look at a more mixed Income Housing. We think that will help balance our housing in San Francisco and meet the affordability mandate set out bit general plan as well acid prop k and really create a service for the public in San Francisco. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, commissioners. Whitney jones the director of the Housing Development form chinatown ucu. First i want to thank the city staff who are moving this process forward. Thank you, guys. Many city sites have been held by agencies for years without a process for moving them forward to meet overall
And meet the affordability mandate set out bit general plan as well acid prop k and really create a service for the public in san francisco. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, commissioners. Whitney jones the director of the Housing Development form chinatown ucu. First i want to thank the city staff who are moving this process forward. Thank you, guys. Many city sites have been held by agencies for years without a process for moving them forward to meet overall city needs. So this process of starting to move these sites are consider uses for these sites is a great one. We support the chao choochoo paper presented to you earlier earlier and highlight a couple of points that i think you have heard a couple of times already. A couple of simple points with my heard at the public meetings, the emphasis was on affordable and middleIncome Housing. We think with that emphasis to set a great emphasis on affordable and that sites that offer the opportuni
Housing needs and 16 of our moderateIncome Housing and 100 of our market Housing Needs. So the priority for low and moderate makes sense, but if you add together what our Housing Element tells us, were supposed to build 62 of all of our housing for low and moderate income households. The first concern that we have is why then is this somewhat arbitrary 50 goal in the portfolio as opposed to let meet our Housing Element . Lets take it 6062 of all the public site housing and it would meet our low and moderate Housing Needs particularly when he saw the slide saying how poorly were performing in both of those categories . When you look at a neighborhoodlevel and we have an even bigger problem. Mission district, south of market, the central city, compared to other neighborhoods, we dont have an even distribution of Affordable Housing over the next five, six year ends. We have a real teenager of dearth of housing. And increasing our expectation. And socalled perfect sites for Affordable Hous