Perfect. If there is nothing further, commissioners. On that motion, commissioners, to approve this matter with conditions as amended to include directing the project sponsor to continue working with the community on security issue measures. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 60. That puts us at item 8. Good afternoon commissioners, kate connor, Planning Department staff. Im going to provide an informational presentation on senate bill 35. A brief overview. Can i get the overhead . Okay, perfect. A bit of background. Senate bill 35 became effective in in january it provided ministerial review of projects that provide a certain amount of Affordable Housing. The amount of Affordable Housing is dependent on a toward their housing elements, Regional Housing needs allocations arena. This bill is applicable statewide. With the only section being those jurisdictions that are already meeting the arena goals. The bill contained two programs, one for jurisdictions that were under producing in the above moderate income category which is 120 ami and above. Which is under 80 ami. For those producing, under producing above moderate income housing. A minimum of 10 of the units must be restricted as as affordable. For those under producing in low income housing, a minimum of 50 of the units must be restricted as affordable to take advantage of the benefits of sb35. San francisco is exceeding our minimum target but is not for low income production. Therefore the Second Program is applicable to San Francisco. What is sb35 in one of the benefits, first and foremost, first there is no discretionary entitlements. This can ten years conditional use authorization. Last, there is a timelines for review. There is 6090 days for completeness and eligibility depending on the project. Projects with 150 units or fewer versus over 150 units. And then 90180 days for the complete review which includes design review. What projects are eligible . There is a list of eligibility criteria. There are, the project must have a minimum of two units or more. There definitely restrictions on demolition. There are prevailing wage and skill forest requirements and project must meet objective standards. What are objective standards . First objective standards must be uniformly verifiable. They cannot be subjective. If you think of examples, the rear yard requirement of 45 , determining compliance with this requires no subjective judgments. Something that would not be objective is that many of our design guidelines. When we Say Something has to be consistent with architectural character, that requires subjective judgment. Its also important to notice that most of our larger products, require some sort of exception. Large project authorizations, downtown project authorizations. Its often you see these projects and they have exception for rear yard exposure, open space. Those would not be eligible for sb35. However, state density bonus projects are considered to be code compliant. Where an exception for rear yards may make you ineligible, as a state density bonus project you may require a waiver. What types of projects are we seeing . 100 Affordable Housing projects. Accounting over four over 980 units. The hundred Affordable HousingBonus Program projects would be eligible. This is because they include reductions in the planning code versus full on waivers. It doesnt require that discretion. If in Affordable Housing bonus project required an additional discretionary exception it would not be eligible. The second bucket is our 50 affordable mixed income projects. To date almost every project has been coupled with state density bonus because it gives you that flexibility to waive certain requirements. Process wise you would submit your application for senate bill 35 with your building or site permit. There is no neighborhood notification which is in keeping with previous interpretations and how we have handled ministerial review permits. We encourage people to work out reach out to the community. There is no discretionary review since it is and it just a discretionary review will. Then there is timelines for complete review. So the Department Implementation approach included the planning director bulletins which accrued in december of 2017. Right before the bill became effective. We followed up with the application and information guide which was published in january of 2018. We also have an internal working group as we move through the different state bills to figure out the applicability to San Franciscos immense and very lengthy code. Here are the projects that are moving forward. Weve had eight projects that have been approved. The majority are 100 affordable. There are a total of 1106 units that have been approved since january of 2018. 980 of those units are deed restricted as affordable. A brief overview of the projects here is a map of where they are located. Most of them are on the eastern side of the city. First is 681 florida. This is 100 Affordable Housing units. This is also the land dedication project for the bryant street project. The levels range between 3080 ami. Weve issued the site permit foz on october 2018. 2340 san jose also referred to as upper yard. Containing 129 affordable units, the project also includes a groundfloor childcare and the site permit was issued in january of 2019. Next is 1064 mission street. It contains 253100 Affordable Housing units that is split between two different buildings. 50 ami am below and has formally homeless occupants. Next is 3,124th street. Including 4500 affordable units only available for seniors. It is at or below 50 ami. This project also retained a historic mural. Next we have 457 minnis street, its the mixed income projects. 270 Group Housing rentals. Providing 53 of their units as affordable because it is mixed income. They also need to comply with the Inclusionary Program and we need to see representation. Slightly over the 50 that is required. Next is 833 bryant. Containing 146, 100 affordable Group Housing rooms. The ami range is 50safety percent. This is a project that is 100 affordable without any funding from ocd. Next is 4840 mission, 137, 100 Affordable Housing units. This site permit has not been issued but has been approved by planning. Those are all of our sb35 projects. Im definitely available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. That is it. We will open this item up for Public Comment. I dont have any speaker cards. Anyone who wants to weigh and please come up now. Good afternoon commissioners, cory smith. Really excited that this report came out. [reading notes] i know recent tweet by councilmember berkley said the majority of affordable units in berkeley, the majority are using sb35 to get that process sped up. Producing housing faster. We need to be producing Affordable Housing faster. Overall, this is absolutely exciting and exhilarating. In case, the arena conversation does come up. I tried to come back and get the data. Im well aware of where we are for the above moderate target this cycle. Were not going to have streamline for projects that have 70 or 80 market rate units on site. Its important to look at the historical numbers as well and see how we did hitting those targets. And then also want to remember arena numbers are a minimum. It is the minimum goal that we are supposed to be hitting. If we are not hitting those numbers then sb35 kicks in because when you speed up the the production. Just because we are hitting the minimum just means we should not be doing more. I hope the below market rate targets, and continue to build as much housing as possible because people need a place to live. Thank you. In 20 thank. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. I just wanted to bring up a point that i wish the presentation had covered. Sb35 applies to the homes that are zoned for two units or more. However there is no control over whether or not the second unit that qualifies for Affordable Housing is actually going to go to Affordable Housing, we were talking about a small project of only two units. Also, what is going to stop somebody who wants to gain assistance to build two units with one of them being a sham unit. You have seen many of those here in this chamber. One of them that you may actually recall is this huge house that was over 7,000 square feet with a small sham unit of 323 cumberland that came to this commission in 2016. Projects like that could get get out of jail free card. Theres not going to be in a discretionary review and there will not be any sql evaluation. I just want to urge this commission on the Planning Department, the city of San Francisco to amend this application and implementation of sb35 so there will be better checks and balances so people will not build two units with one of them being a sham unit of 300 square feet and say were going to give it to of course theres not going to be any control as to whether or not they are going to give this to a housing. Those are the issues that we find with sb35. Hoping to see the implementation to get a little bit tighter, more regulation so that people are not going to be gaming the system. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Commissioner richards . If i were still on twitter i would still tweet outs, senator weiner, well done. This is exactly the kind of Housing Production we as a city need. We are woefully lower than the low and moderate. We are higher than the above moderate. I think this is well done. A couple of questions for staff, ms. Connor. If you compare january 2018 to today, on other projects we approve where we impose the Affordable Housing impact fee and terms of units or cost. What with the we have sb35 projects over here, 980, but the normal projects over here that are discretionary, and all of the other bells and whistles. What would that look like, do you have any idea . The comparison and the numbers . I mean, if you look at our 2018 housing inventory, i think there were 2300 units roughly that were approved and that calendar year ready for construction. We are trying to look at the difference between actual numbers. The low in the moderate. I dont have those numbers right now but i can definitely get them. That would be great. We want to understand if this is turbocharging versus the market. I think i would be an interesting thing. The other question is, definition of a Housing Project. I know this is to units and have all of this demolition. Following the mall project out of cupertino, it is two thirds housing on one third office. Its a very large Square Footage of office because the site is so big. What is the definition of Housing Project that qualifies for sb35. Two thirds of the Square Footage of the Housing Project has to be devoted to housing. One third could be commercial use. The other question i have, are there any suspension or superseding on roles in in terms of our Affordable Housing requirements in terms of size, finishes, placement. From what i understand, they shoved the smaller affordable units in the battery of the project and the market reviews got the better views and everything. Because we have more stringent requirements to our requirements apply . For the 100 affordable they are following regulations. If youre thinking thinking about our inclusionary requirements with mixed income. All the units are restricted and put into our inclusionary portfolio. In terms of distribution, that type of thing, yes, we would be following our current program. Thats great. This sham unit issue was talked about, can you comment on that. Can i actually go and demolish whatever and build an 8,000 squarefoot house and claim sb35 put a 375 square feet unit down in the basement i call it a sb35 project . Thats a two unit minimum, and that one of restricted as affordable. Under sb35 you would be able to do that. However there is demolition control so you would not be able to demolish in a unit that had any rental tenant in the last two years. One last comment. I appreciate us moving towards objective zoning standards. The issue i have is, when you have all of these objective standards, the projects that become as of right, because they actually choose to waive those objective standards. That is one of the issues i have. Nonetheless this has been a successful law. For the life of me, im wondering why the dust hasnt really settled here. Looks like its doing really well. Before jamming more laws into place, the list goes on and on, looks like we have our golden goose here. Enke. Commissioner. For for. I am assuming the projects you presented and those metrics are produced within the timeframe that is the limitation with the bill, is that correct . That is correct. What about all of these other projects that have gone through the commission . What kind of timeframe as a taking for them, as a comparison . I dont have those numbers right now, i can definitely get back to you. A lot of it depends on what the process is, to kind of trigger that timeline. Its quite a variety. With our 100 Affordable Housing we do have planning concession 315 which allows for administrative review. Its not used that commonly now because we have sb35. That took away the Planning Commission hearings and allowed for our director to approve something administratively. It still required ceqa. When youre looking at 612 months, or 1822 months dependent on the needs. If i was to add to that, i do think the timeframe for approving 100 affordable projects, as i understand it it has been cut by Something Like 60 from our previous review times largely because of sb35, which is great. I think i mentioned this to a couple of commissioners recently. It had an effect on our budget revenues. In a logical way because we no longer receive the ceqa fees from those projects. It had a budget impact on us. It helped those projects obviously so we didnt have to pay those fees. For all of the other projects, for projects that have come in the door since the executive directive was issued, projects since one of december of 2017. So far, we are on track to meeting the target set up and the executive directive. For earlier projects that were going through a larger environmental process, not so much. We are currently on target for most of the projects. I think we will have a report, next month i believe come on that to update you on those. I think it is august 22. Last question would be, what is in the pipeline then . In the pipeline i know we have two projects. I mean, one is definitely about to submit and its 100 affordable. The other one is more mixed income. Im not positive that theyre actually going to submit. Until there a lot of mixed income projects that we are trying to see if they could actually pencil and if this will work for them. Right now we just have one that is definitely in the pipeline. Is it fair to say that there is less then the upcoming timeframe to what you just had . I think that would be fair to say, yes. Had a question going back to something you said earlier in the two unit scenario that was brought up, i guess it could be three, ors for smaller units brady said they would have to be restricted as affordable. Do you mean it would have to be deed restricted and comply with our affordable inclusionary housing guidelines . Correct. It would have to be deed restricted it would go into our inclusionary housing portfolio. If youre looking at the small unit projects, they would not necessarily have to comply with all of in terms of size or what not. We will use the Inclusionary Program to continue with our monitoring efforts and the deed restriction and the ongoing monitoring of the units. I think thats really important to if we have to comply with those, there has to be subdivided, in a certain way. It has to be deed restricted. It has to be recorded on the property, marketing requirements , lottery. There is all sorts of things. If you are a small Property Owner it is unlikely that this will pencil out for you. Because of all of the additional requirements. I just wanted to make sure we were understanding of properly . Yes, that is correct. Thank you. Quick question. These 980 units, what affect did it have on our percentage in those two categories low and moderate. We were at 15 and 80 last, does this really move the needle i think it does move the needle, exactly how much i cannot give you that exact figure. When i was looking at what our production arena was, moving forward we were at i think 35 and 42 of Something Like 980 units. From a state level, we are looking here the state, it like it successful. How does it look at a state level, do you have any idea . I mean, we definitely have quite a few projects. We have been working with the state. Aside from berkeley, cupertino, i can definitely get those figures for you. I would love to go look at theres a report somewhere. If i have enough money to build an 8,000 squarefoot home, im probably not going to go through all the hassle to go around the process and have to do that for a little unit, i would probably wait for the time. To play out. I wouldnt want to gain the system. It makes no sense. Thank you. Very good, that will place us on item nine. Case number 2019012970imp, 43 properties owned or leased by the academy or university located in the city or county this is an informational presentation. Thank you. Scott sanchez Planning Department staff. Or with an information item regarding aau institutional plan