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 choo-choo paper presented to y
could provide us the opportunity to build much-needed 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
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 choo-choo 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 middle-income housing. we think with that emphasis to set a great emphasis on affordable and that sites that off
planner with the tenderloin development corporation. so if we re 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 it s an opportunity to increase our affordability numbers overall. if you look at pipeline for the affordable housing over next six years we re 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
housing needs and 16% of our moderate-income 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, we re 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? let s take it 60-62% 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 we re performing in both of those categories? when you look at a neighborhood-level and we have an even bigger problem. mission district, south of market, the central city, compared to other neighborhoods, we don t 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 so-called perfect site