Thank you sfgovtv phil jackson and others for broadcasting this meeting madam clerk, any announcements . Yes. Electronic devices. Completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the april 26, 2016, board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated thank you, madam clerk supervisor wiener is the author and make the london breed remarks. Im sorry you want me to announce item one. An ordinances amending the police code Entertainment Commission procedures. All right. Thank you, thank you very much and thank you for calendaring this item colleagues this legislation updates certain entertainment procedures thank you for supervisor president london breed and this legislation first codifies the criteria and procedures for waving the filing fee for loudspeaker permits amplification permits currently the criteria are not codified the legislation will allow for the waiver by the Entertainment Commission of the fee for loudspeaker permits for mroontsdz planted when declare a hardship for nonprofits and Neighborhood Associations the cost of permit is more than 25 percent of the cost of the overall events in addition pubically funded events the legislation clarifies how the neighborhood notice should our and replaces an antiquated requirement with be reminded to post notice at the proposed location in addition to send written notification to all Neighborhood Associations and merchant associations in the area legislation strikes a balance continue covering the administrative and enforcement costs making sure the waivers exist where amplification permit represents a true Financial Hardship that will have a positive activation of the public spaces and allow the neighborhood to have Great Outdoor events madam clerk you dont say listen cane is here and if no, i see supervisor peskin is on the roster. Yes. Supervisor peskin thank you through the chair i appreciate the updating of this ordinance i was around and one of the sponsors or cosponsors of the proposition f with the Entertainment Commission back in the day i had a number of small questions and because were not allowed to communicate with each other we constitute a quorum i had to call you and read the file i get to do it in public the 43. 1 a provision that says no filing fee shall be required in the permit application for angle event that receives funding and that raised questions in my mind Many Organizations that receive the city funding organizations that get the funding actually events that receive the funding and raise the question in my mind you shouldnt regardless of the source of revenue or income is why would we treat them definitely so that was my first question. So ms. Kane is at the lectern ill ask her to respond we worlt with the Entertainment Commission. Supervisor thank you ms. Kane i got our email but didnt read it until saturday. No problem we were doing our best to define a group of possible things that could come forward there is implementation we might refine a little bit trying to sort of engage all of the possible scenarios as you may know we done this informally and waved the fees internal but trying to come up with a sitdown we looked at what is making people ask for a waiver and where are those kinds of finks that make it fair across the board thats what were aiming at. So through the chair to ms. Kane i i dont mind you having the discretion to waive but the notion that we are waving just because there are city fund doesnt seem to make policy sense i mean nor do i understand the actual terms in the legislation which is events that receive city funding organizations that can debt events lets make up an example range contribute to the chamber of commerce to hold the chinese nuru parade that is an event from the city to an organization not to an event per say and starts to get us into the scenario our organization got 10 from the city now we want an event on grant avenue and you dont have to pay the fee the way it is written is i see that it maybe better said defined as event in particular even though wears city funding the organization or that again, it was an attempt by the City Attorney to get get our arms around in total the issue i dont have much of an explanation other than i think you understand the language i think supervisor wiener has some insight. I want to make sure i understand the concern supervisor peskin through the chair youre referring to the 43. 1 a filing fee. Correct. I read that as no fee shall be required unless a city events. Thats what it said city events do receive the funding that the organization. The intent if this is city funding connected to the event when a yes organizations that receive the generic fees but frequently organizations would receive city funding specific to an event heres the grant of 10 theorizing to help you put on whatever the event might, so yeah. I feel. It should be could be i mean, we could quibble with that. It needs a little bit of work but the intention is clear supervisor you understood that as the example indicates as such to make it more clear. Yeah. I mean, if we can define the word event and also is i mean is an organization my worry an organization gets a dollar the city funding and hold an event oh, we comply with that provision oh, you dont thats not the intent the way it is written you can think between a rock and a hard place. If i may make this is not some sort of broad waiver of fees for an event this is for one specific permit that is 200 or three or four hundreds. I just want to and should have gone over this in my opening remarks every office gets this with you Small Community event that not the mega Events Community events that are trying to do something for the neighborhood low budget volunteers and all of a sudden a 5 housing unit dollars fee they want to have a microphone or play you know whatever the case might be theyre hit with a fee and the Entertainment Commission has put in a spot do we wave it not wave it do they meet the criteria the criteria can be further defined if theres a way to define is better i dont have is a problem with that but this is you know really about trying to provide some better guidance to the commission when they should wave the fees. Through the chair to supervisor wiener im 100 percent supportive of the language that you proposed in 43. 1 subsection Building Inspection Commission 2 makes a lot of sense the provision that gives the director of the Entertainment Commission the authority to exempt various organizations from fees i just worry that the lunge in 43. 1 a i think just not to put two fine a point but number it is everything you need done and if youre amenable ill make a friendly provision to strike the 43. 1 language from provided, however, and just stick with the very broad ability it is being granted to the director of commission in 43. 1b sub two. So what ill suggest because you know, i think that was carefully crafted i dont know it was random we put it out of committee after Public Comment and that maybe over the next week we can talk with work with the Entertainment Commission to see if theres a moifrtd version to the full board that will satisfy the concerns raised id rather not stick is out or if i may through the chair to director kane do you feel that 43. 1b sub two to the provision that gives us the ability for exemptions those organizations set forth in the is enough. Well from where we are anywhere will be great i think we included it for a purpose if someway to move this along and satisfy our requests ill appreciate that. Relevant to staff time dont have to make a determination and understanding they receive city funds or make a detector or finding theyre not the proper organizations or Community Group i think everything in that money language in sub a is going to be in sub b two so i dont really see the differences for staff time in fact it modesty take more time to figure out in we get the city fees if theyre a nonprofit or Community Association and that way we wont end up in a situation people say we get a buck for a city and you have to wave the fee. Through the chair if you look at the b two, that doesnt fully encompasses what is in subsection a could could have a situation people get 75,000 or 3,000 for an event or yeah 3,000 on an event and 5 hundred loudspeaker fee is less than 25 percent therefore not waved therefore i think happy if you want to over the next week after we pass this out of committee to see if there is a way that can clarify that satisfy supervisor peskin concern without stripping it out i think that is the better way to precede. Im amenable to that. Parking garage madam chair, i have a second question. Okay. I certain agree that the language been there since the last time i was supervisor outdated and out mooted i agree that the language that supervisor wiener is suggesting by enrevoking the code section d make sense but im not sure why that will have the historic noticing regime for residents whether commercial are residential a notice for those things within wrfd and 50 feet may not be members of an association we did that in the planning code im not sure why were taking that out you if i might we wanted to update because the language in the code raw right now was very much like the best effort and we wanted the come compliance with that so we thought that is a better way again not only require the notice on the building itself but we also have our own guidelines for what we call meaningful outreach and those do include door to door not a leaflet but trash on the ground. It was out mooted and out dated but as far as supervisor wieners legislation is relying think planning code definition relative to outreach is not relying on the and for those of you in the public were not dealing with loudspeaker permits but applications for place of entertainment and it seems to me it seems to me it is unfair for the city to say that a Neighborhood Organization that is on the Planning Department list an individual residents or individual commercial tenant may or may not a member i understand there is signage but if were going to rely 0 on Planning Department definitions they require mailed notice to individuals ntsdz Area Services that provide that function so i will respectfully ask the sponsor that we include the planning Code Provisions that any commercial or residential occupant within one hundred and 50 feet receive notice. Can we include electronic as well. Electronic. I thought the electronic in the legislation seems to make great policy sense. So through the chair supervisor peskin can articulate the exact amendment since the Entertainment Commission has to administer those responses i would suggest that the noticing provisions set for under section 311 of planning code be invoked the three hundred feet radius be reduced to one hundred and 50 feet. Can you articulate our rational outlet. Im going with the rad as the Entertainment Commission has used for the last dozen years so i thought i would stay with the one hundred and 50 feats that are provisions in the Planning Department that used one hundred and 50 and i this one hundred 50 feet for a place of entertainment is appropriate and thats been the historic radius i thought we would use the 317 four the three hundreds feet radius and reduce it 200 and 50 feet. Supervisor wiener. So ms. Kane you mentioned electronic notice im not sure how you do that but im curious to know. Well, i mean again, we dont know exactly this is a little bit tougher if we require the mailing the way the Planning Department does it to try to not pile on an applicant we use next door that works well and we are the ones that have to 10 establish this is done so were upcoming the low standard to a higher standard to confirm what is accomplished if were going to go to something where well require mailing notice the way that planning side we have to do this through the service and labels and the way the Planning Department does it well have to mail. The way the Planning Department does it and the Planning Department staff are here for another item they took that bonus only the applicant and through that applicant can file an affidavit. I think. Sorry so it sounds like were putting undue financial burden on people that are going to do small neighborhood events. This is the place of entertainment not loudspeakers. This is micro are and the application process is expensive so our hopes not. What is the cost. Close to 16 hundreds for a place of entertainment permit. Supervisor wiener. Im not prepared to sort of thank this on the fly over the next days several an opportunity for conversation perhaps when emission cain as access to her staff and were able to approach this in an amendment to the 90s that make sense ill be happy to support that but not on the fly this is the first im hearing of this the brown act supervisor peskin youve noted not allowed to communicate outside of the hearing and events of the hearing but perhaps the next 8 days supervisor peskin and you can talk about had is possible. Absolutely. You know i want to make sure that will be going to be doable. Yes. Supervisor wiener. Is there how do you want to handle it. I know i would my motion ill make after Public Comment to i move we send it to the full board with a positive recommendation understanding over the next 8 days we are formulate some amendment. Thank you, very much for the comment. Thank you, madam chair im sure theres a good answer that same session sub h that says that gives the commission the ability to extend the 9 months deadline up to 3 years my question ms. Kane the supervisor wiener the maker of the ordinance what brought that about my life example or statistics why that 9 month timeline is two short and years to 2 years or 3 months an additional year thats a pretty long extension time. It does and anticipating that question i have a couple of examples you might be familiar primarily with things under heavy construction where in the past easy to get contractors to come or the Entertainment Commission turned over without a lot of physical change but as we see whole places like such as paradise lounge taking long time they strip. You all about the walls eats Entertainment Commission can precede with the plan it they will get a conditional grant but taken a a long time and not that close and we had to very informally give her extensions thats one e example and another one with a build out a bunch of those kinds of things in all parts it is primarily when people tear something down and redo it it takes longer the City Department tells them what they need to fix and go out and get bids it takes more time than 9 months. Through the chair to supervisor wiener how would you feel about better defining good costs. What. More specifically defining what means a showing of good cause. I actually have a lot of confidence in the Entertainment Commission in terms of the work they do with the permittees and i dont need to add additional definitions i think we the Entertainment Commission is the person responsible a thousands of variations and im comfort with the way the language is now. Subject to Public Comment make seminaries no pressing deadlines 0 on this particular matter im respectfully suggest rather than sending to the full committee but keep it in committee for an additional week and discuss those items that were previously discussed at the committee and continue the item one week subject to Public Comment. All right. Well go ahead and take Public Comment. Time for Public Comment a reminder youll have two minutes a soft chime indicates your time is almost up thank you supervisor cowen im speaking in support of supervisor peskin call for mailed noticed. From my prospective an Entertainment Firm is as much in business to make money then our retail establishments in my neighborhood i routinely get u. S. Mail noticed not flyers e. R. Handout in my mailbox notifying me of one hundred and 50 to three hundred radius from my residence to the extent somebody will be in the entertainment business to generate revenue anticipate hire employees at the, afford the notices any other speakers on this item. Okay Public Comment is closed. At this time thank you supervisor wiener to your name. Thank you. I know supervisor peskin indicated to make a motion to continue i dont see a reason to continue this is not Rocket Science and you know obviously this conversation with the Entertainment Commission could have happened at any time and plenty of time over the next 8 days for supervisor peskin to sit down with ms. Kane and talk about potential tweaks to the legislation im not opposed to making an additional amendment but dont see a need given this committee how it gets to hold this in committee so my motion to forward with a positive recommendation. I see dont see a reason to continue but move it forward. Ms. Kane you and supervisor wiener will work out the details in the next 8 days and id like commissioner peskin to sit down to see ill endeavor to do that with you ms. Kane a roll call vote on that item. Okay a motion to send with a positive recommendation has been accepted and unanimously passes thank you. All right. Could you call items two and three together. Item 2 a hearing on assigning from the bio report and item number two and three. Item for a bio annual housing balance. Okay supervisor kim is going to be speaking and moving the discussion on this. Well wait a couple of minutes for her to arrive. Okay. The clerk has notified me cpmc is not in here office and not on the way down so well take a recess at this time than all right. We will reinvite item 4 call back items two and three together. Item number 2 is a hearing on the finding from the bio annual housing report and item 3 a resolution ref the housing balance report. Supervisor kim thank you, thank you chair cohen this is the second hearing that passed at the board last april 2015 as really a point in time through the november 2014 prop k ill see how the city was meeting 32 percent of Affordable Housing and all new production and preservation as well as 50 percent Affordable Housing and madam clerk, any announcements . And wanted to acknowledge the hard work and recognize teresa and really grateful for the rich data that helps to understand the impacts to the citys housing shortage in order for the Planning Department to make more informed policy decisions howe hours that is coming down the pike as expected certain district that harbor the majority of development by vibrator of proximity to transportation we see had in district 6 and 10 but percentage wise we expect it all of the district should be able to off a positive housing balance the number of Affordable Housing produced or preserved to pass the amount of housing that is lost primarily to what we see with evictions and condominium conversion unfortunately, the back the majority of district have a negative housing balance if 21 percent to two hundred and one percent the good news is that we have had an increase in unit from the last time to the housing balance september 2015 now 11 thousand plus entitled unit as opposed to 9 thousand plus in september of the Previous Year which is an increase of over one thousand units and a housing balance increases by 17 percent over the year there is still plenty of work to do but good to know were moving in a positive direction and the Mayors Office and the board of supervisors had hsa have been pushing in the negotiations for the developers and pushing our voters and residents to give a little bit more in terms of public dollars for the housing bonds that passed in november and other forms of public dollars to make sure were building as much affordable and middleincome as possible and the fact we know we can only do the Work Together if were truly to achieve our goal of Affordable Housing and 50 percent affordable for middleincome housing so i the president to bring up the Planning Department to speak. Off im sorry director rahaim. No problem. Thank you for being here i was not looking in this direction. Thank you being here. My player were pleased to present the third housing balances report the first supervisor after the report the balance was passed and were on a normal schedule of 6 months we understand that the trailing legislation to update the specification of including the evictions in the housing balance report weve been doing that with the legislation to clarify that as well so i just really here to thank teresa a robust piece of work that happens every 6 months with lawful valuable information and thank you for her to put this together and introduce her to present the details of the report. Thank you director rahaim and thank you very much for your commitment to supply the research for this report. Good afternoon supervisors my name is teresa senator planner with the policy section im here to talk about the housing balance report this is an annual report mandated by the board to be heard annually representatives of the Mayors Office and the rent board are here to answer questions to any so what is the housing balance report in april of 2015 the board of supervisors approved ordinance 431 to add section one 03 to the planning code this new section directions the Planning Department to have a balance continue the new market marketrate and the Affordable Housing production the housing balance the proportion of now affordable units to the total of netted Housing Units over a 10 year housing Balance Period the ordinance bye annual report that was submitted to you a couple of weeks cover from the threequarters to 2015. We submitted the first in july and the second one in september of last year and we actually had our introductory hearing on the report in october of last year so why a housing balance when the ordinance is to insure the data are meeting the target citywide and informs the process for new Housing Development and to remind the supervisors here are 3 separate Affordable Housing tasht each with a reporting requirement the housing balance the Housing Elements that are to be dictated a production goal of 28 though new units to be built between will 2015 and 2022 called the arena over and over the Regional Housing goals 47 percent of this between 28 thousand units should be affordable to low and moderate households they 134i789 an annual report to meet the goal to the state department of Community Development the Planning Department prepares a report to the Planning Commission based on the production goals called the quarreling residential dashboard prop k passed by San Francisco voters in 2014 set a goal that 33 percent of net new units be affordable i believe this is the goal Point Housing balance report will be aiming for this also mayor ed lee by 2020 that set a goal of thirty percent affordable units the Mayors Office of Economic Workforce Development prepares a weekly dashboard progress towards meeting this goal so what is the 10 year Affordable Housing trend if we look at only new Housing Production the Affordable Housing made up 24. 6 percent or almost 25 percent of net housing built in the last 10 years the housing balance calculation, however, looks at beyond in any Housing Production in addition to new Housing Production the housing balance calculation looks at acquisition and rehab for existing housing rad Public Housing replacement rad stands for this is rehabilitation and subsidized projects and looks like with the permitted Affordable Housing units the the units are removed from protected status essentially rentcontrolled housing either through the ellis act or demolition under conversion or owner movein evictions it is called the net Affordable Housing stock foyer district reports this net Affordable Housing stock is seen as a proportion of necessary new Housing Units built and permitted and the figures for the 10 year reporting period is results in a housing balance of 18 percent this is in comparison to 15 percent that was recorded last year the ordinance requires that the housing balance is calculated by the board of supervisors district and any Planning Department districts the housing balance for the board of supervisors district range from negative 200 one percent and 49 percent in district 5 the negative balances are due to large numbers of units removed from the protected status relevant to the net affordable units built and the new Housing Units overall district 8, 6, 9 and 10 positive balances the rest have negative balances the next slide shows the housing balance by the planning district and again, we see a variety of balances. Im sorry can you go back to the previous slide. Excuse me the cumulative housing in the district. Can you explain the the reason for the negative balance. Yes. Yes. That is the number of units that are removed from protected status. What are some of the reasons and criteria to remove those. Those are essentially this is data taken from evictions no cost evictions primarily nofault evictions that are primarily ellis acted the units are elised out and those that are converted condos and the units where the owner moveins so he will relatively those are from protected status to a large number than the number of units that are produced in the district. Thank you. So basically, it is just for the planning district and again, it shows a range of balances. The ordinance also reports protected housing balance essential net not housing affordable units if projects that have received entitlements but have yet to receive Building Permits this slide is the projected housing balance is 15 percent the projected housing balance provided at the board of supervisors district and the planning district levels and that youll see in the report itself what is not included the housing balance orientals specifics it 3 Major Projects that have been entitled do not get Building Permits not included in the projected housing balance this is until facing those projects move to applying for and receiving Building Permits all tooth the projects will provide about 21 plus 23 percent will be affordable Hunters Point and Treasure Island they were specifically called out in the ordinance and not included in the projected housing balance are prongs currently under review there been 21 thousand 5 hundred units under review of which 13 percent are in 100 percent Affordable Housing projects and another one hundred marketrate 15 thousand units will be subject to this city inclusion housing means 18 net affordable units built on site under the requirements the second phase is the rent program that included over 2000 units in the projects again, all the coming into the pipeline but not included in the prolonged housing balance im talk about others balances this is a a bio annual ordinance in the the housing balance report comes out in the first of march and the first of september we appreciate the boards patience because weve had difficulties in meanwhile the deadlines given our current technical constraint and staffing constraint and that would be helpful from the deadline coincided with our deadlines for the Housing Inventory for example, the ordinance also meant an annual hearing to be conducted before the board of supervisors and the Planning Commission before the first of april this years schedule is slightly late we tried to meet the schedule. Whats the reason it is late. As i mentioned we have been having technical constraint. Such as. Such as the we are having problems getting data. From who. Collected from the department of building inspection and also matching that with the data from our departments it takes a lot of work to make sure that we capture all the information that we can simply because its just not easy to create the data as well wed like to. So is the dashboard an issue. Yes. Could be and also, we have a schedule we had for some years now we normally prepare the Housing Inventory and we have the schedule release of april one and having march one deadline pushes us a little bit too much given the staffing constraints were not were not able to prepare the report we were able to prepare with the Housing Inventory. Okay continue. So the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development the Mayors Office of Economic Workforce Development the recommendation stabilization board and the department of building inspection and the city environmentalists will present the stratus for having the housing balance with the Affordable Housing goals at the annual meeting should the cumulative balance fall blow a percent theyll determine how to bring the city into the required minimum percentage. Sorry the Planning Department office created and maintenance the website for the housing balance reports as riders by the ordinance the current report as well as previous ones can be download from the site and ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. If the services have questions thank you. Thank you i should reiterate again how helpful it is to have these numbers but for all of us to work off the same numbers in terms of how we calculate our production more Affordable Housing and in relationship to market rate housing and i think as we look at new construction we both look at preservation and very excited about the fact if last year for example, we were able to announce another building that was in the south of Market Stabilization Fund on top of 534 plus we are actually saving current residents to stay in their home often they lived in their units for thirty or 40 years but we count the units we are losing online usually as though nofault evictions or owner movein or condominium conversion i think that is important we look at the balance of both to understand where were at and while we want to be almost double our housing balance to thirty percent it is helpful to know the difference how we chuch the goal and it gives us guidance in future legislation in terms of how we build more Affordable Housing so is it having more of our general funds dollars towards Affordable Housing is it asking the voters to give back or developers to give back to get to the thirty percent i think this is in line with compensation fees that passed unanimously out of this board Going Forwards to the voters were having the feeling in terms of what we can Ask Developers to build for onsite Affordable Housing and this measure will be an important element of how to get to the 17 percent housing balance were building today so at this time through the chair. Supervisor kim i have a question throughout in the presentation i asked the question when this was made she indicated the times and schedules were for the peshdz dont sync up awhile it is important and great to have those numbers but from the schedule is not in sync i dont understand why i think your office was kind of inflexible and having an april one deadline according to this to push forward to the march one deadline do you recall. We asked the report to be submitted by march first and the board of supervisors to have the hearing in april like were doing today; right . Perhaps you can come back to make sure this can sync i i up so were not having it late in the month of april and at this point lets go ahead and take Public Comment. Public comment is open ladies and gentlemen, if you want to comment on the items the matters youve heard. Thank you chair cohen im patrick the first housing balance report in july 2015 showed that the cumulative balance was 21 percent the second report is september showed is it dropped to 15 and the third it back up to 18 percent to peter coming down the pike recorded in april through examinerer it was down and the recorded balance was the projected balance was 11 percent and the third report in large reporting the reflected balance is now up and between the two and three report for moderate income saw 28 point decline from 15 hundred and 50 units no september to just 11 hundred plus unit in march while the combined low and very low income households saw only 7 point plus decline from seven hundred units down to 4399 units and also between the two and three report the moderate income households dropped if 24. 6 percent of the total affordable units to just one percent in march while the very slow plus jumped from 75 plus percentage to 39 puss in march as from the city is fiscal year only on low income. Are you converging didnt we have this conversation. Your Public Comment is also for the public to hear. Next speaker. Again and again supervisors i primarily am here to just i think give proposes to the staff that is kind of mindnumbing work this is only the second or third report so a methodology that to the previous speakers point there is a little bit of a difference in the way the data is organized that explains why the out put it different but the methodology is fine tuned i think that is important we all recognize how hard that is and how important it is very, very informative we have one set of numbers to tell us how we are doing in all the Public Policy debates over policy a or policy b at the end of the day, we want to know how its stacking up and this housing report helps to what were doing terms the providing brick and mortar housing this is not close to thirty or 33 or 50 or was the Housing Element but San Francisco still stand out ahead of the pack so we set your own goals tore getting higher and setting ourselves a leader get to 33 or 40 or 50 percent well continue to pull the state with us thats something we should be proud of but we have a displacement crisis the report looked at the loss units unit taken out of price control thats what were losing as san franciscans and we have to stop the displacement and speculation and think with about both of those solutions thank you. Next speaker good afternoon, supervisors with the well action having the housing balance report has been a big progress theres two missing items that i feel that should be addressed at some point perhaps some way to be added one of them is that building housing that is larger vacant, i. E. , private tiers and first and second homes doesnt add to the Housing Stock in San Francisco really theyre vacant and the second is the number of units that are lost to and or and equivalent services which is somewhere 2w7b 2 and 4 thousand units thats not an insignificant number so we need both more enforcement of b rb o had units running underwent only to vacation and other visitors to San Francisco none of those are legal and we are thats a loss of Affordable Housing right there thank you. We need to see those things take into account thank you, supervisor kim. Next speaker yeah. This is a good report i think the focus on housing balance percentage is to the point oakland last year had 90 percent Affordable Housing sounds like wow. 90 percent but we had fewer 200 homes built total housing balance we can get to 100 percent of 5 homes and well still be in a big problem it should be Housing Production monitoring that should be the focus of analysis and conversation thanks. Any other speakers all right. Public comment is closed. Supervisor kim thank you again, i want to thank the Planning Department for your work in putting these nebraskas numbers together in response to one of the members of the public the analysis of the balance and the number of unit that are produced and constructed and were certainly doing i think significantly well and better this year for construction and production that is as positive for the city in response to the timeline for the reports we received the report on march 31st but keep in mind this is still a new process for the Planning Department theres a lot of numbers and data to go through were happy to hear the item in april and continue on and more routine and were able to add up the numbers in a quirk fashion but i have to say that is a heavy lifted and a lot of new data to calculate and i want to appreciate the department for the work theyve put the resources to make that report possible and this responsibility will help to guide and drive future Postal Service of policies of the board and the Mayors Office to make sure we are a city that everyone can afford to live if if youre a workingclass or a middleincome and not by throwing today is it is a very important part of the work and want to recognize the Planning Department and director rahaim and the colleague for making this happen colleagues i dont have further questions or comments i imagination members of the committee dont so ill suggest to file 24 item. All right. A motion to file this item lets see supervisor wiener and supervisor peskin supervisor kim has asked us to make a motion to file the item supervisor wiener made the motion and supervisor peskin has graciously argued without objection this is filed thank you very much supervisor kim and the Planning Department hopefully, well work to streamline all of our collection of data all right. Are you guys ready to call items two and three together all right. Excuse me item 4. Item 3 the resolution receiving the bio annual housing report. Supervisor kim. My apologies for item 3 that we move that forward with recommendation. So moved. Well take that without objection. That that item passes for item 3 ladies and gentlemen. Item 4. Please call. The administrative code for the inclusionary housing for the Economic Feasibility study and with the housing for the Advisory Committee and also this matter has been notices to increase the fees and this establishes a body suggesting for the rules committee clerk. Thank you very much supervisor peskin is the author of this item supervisor any opening remarks. Im the cosponsors with supervisor kim i believe that supervisor kim has opening remarks i have plenty of additional remarks. Thank you supervisor peskin actually, this is a very appropriate followup to the report that was given on how were meeting our goals of building 33 percent of Affordable Housing and 50 percent of middleclass ive middleincome this has coming up come out of long series of negotiations that has followed a ballot measure that was that the board put on for the june ballot to eliminate the ceiling weve placed in the city chapter in terms of how much Affordable Housing for the marketrate Building Inspections to build in San Francisco assuming the cap at 12 go percent you can go above not below what preceded the Housing Trust fund we saw one of the hottest and strongest housing this market has seen in San Francisco and through many of the negotiations that has preceded we know that marketrate developers can do more than 12 percent given the market but also in many cases the value on the Land Developers prop c roves the cap and sets an sdrmz of asking the developers to go back to 15 of the Affordable Housing we know that developers what manage and on top of that acknowledges not just workingclass residents but middleincome residents are similarly getting pushed out of the San Francisco on top of of the 15 percent for the developer to do this in that discussion a big question of how we treat projects have gone into the pipeline but not approved that have not limited to their epa that is a discussion that followed i want to thank many of the Developers Working closely with delegate habeebs and i, we move that the developers that Everyone Wants to do more regardless of requirement was 12 or 25 percent we also wanted to acknowledge that Many Developers submitted in their proposals do have notice their inclusion rates are going on and around land purposes that make it difficult for them to meet the 25 percent now projects moving forward the 2016 has notice of extension and the citys expectation of inclusionary housing is the expectation for them to work the numbers within their development but were projects in the pipeline that didnt have notice of that that we would not set the same rirmentsdz but yet we were pushed to ask them to do more i have to thank the developers for saying yes, we want to do more and make it work within the project we have in place and that is the ordinance that is before us today that is a essentially call do grandmother proposal but a way to figure out though to have the inclusionary housing to a wide variety of projects in multiple neighborhoods and in the best fashion possible we really handled this legislation with a scoop he will not a hammer not treat the projects the same thing differentiate between 2013 or 2014 or 20152015 and think about the eastern neighborhoods and make sure that theres a slightly graph of parcels that are exempted higher affordability so this is the ordinances that is before the board today it is not perfect but it is a great negotiation and compromise were building more Affordable Housing and would have been expected and with this ordinance so were able to do it in a way to be feasible for developers and put skin in the game in terms of the process so again do want to thank the Mayors Office and the marketrate Housing Developers and agreeing to figure though to do more and make up for the units weve lost from 15 to 12 percent but coming before us with the ordinance that is before us today so these are my opening comments and commissioner peskin my coauthor if you would like to make further comments. Thank you, supervisor kim chief sponsor of this legislation i think you summarized 2 but i agree in 2012 when the previous prop c went on the ballot that reduced the 15 inclusionary housing requirement to 12 percent albeit out liar areas none knew at this point what with the best of intention well enter one of the largest booms in the rentcontrolled housing since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire today, well talk about for the one and 10 anniversary of that major schematic and fire fended and hats off to the Fire Department for the one and 50 anniversary the Chinese Hospital we opened and it was built originally 91 years ago so a great day in San Francisco but the reality is in 2013, 2014, and at or near in 2015 the developers would have made their net and paid in their loans and folks from the executrix trades would have they jobs our jobs as a society to make sure we get as much Affordable Housing in new marketrate construction so indeed that the people who build those projects the police and fire and other city workers that serve the san franciscans can afford to live in the city and county of San Francisco and that will only happen if we step in and make sure that that 12 percent that has been made and legitimately should not have belonged in the city chapter since this chapter was introduced on september 15th supervisor kim and myself working in a very collaborative process as representatives the mayors and representatives the building and Construction Trade and representatives the marketrate Housing Development have coowned with that piece of legislation pursuant to a legislation that supervisor yee offered that was voted for unanimously by this board and this was the resolution i called the road map to peace that laid out how we do that i believe that we have all endeavored in good faith to come up with the trailing legislation i think it treats the pipeline appropriately and treats the Pipeline Projects in a way that is not going to end up with a demolition of new Housing Stock or the loss of jobs for the individuals that build those new projects i think that is done in a way that will capture Going Forward the amount of Affordable Housing that we can and should construct in this great city and county of San Francisco i want to thank eric who has represented most of the albeit not all of the organizations and individuals in the marketrate Construction Industry i want to thank michael who ive kept awe pride e prized of our communications and thank you to mayor ed lee and ken rich for working with us in a good faith collaborative congressional centennial fashion and i believe that as the board of supervisors put this measure on the ballot unanimously i have every confidence with a few minor tweaks we will pass this trailing legislation unanimously thank you, supervisor kim for your leadership. Supervisor wiener. Thank you very much madam chair colleagues this important and impact full legislation in its current revised form became public on thuday afternoon i dont think we should be asked to vote on this legislation a mere 4 days later this is perhaps the most significant piece of housing legislation that well vote on during our tenure on the board of supervisors one that will determine how much housing is San Francisco going to produce to meet the needs of growing population and how much Affordable Housing are were going to produce we owe it to the public to have a fair and transparent process that was not happened here i dont cant support this legislation today i supported placing prop c on the ballot i agree with supervisor peskin that we need to remove the affordability percentage from the charter i support raising the affordability percentage i support doing it in a way that will maximize the number of affordable units we produce in San Francisco yet i also support doing this in a thoughtful way one that is based policy, one that is based actually maximizing the amount of Affordable Housing, one that respects the rules and notation of fairness and based on economic and financial feasibility so we dont kill promotions and actually undermine the production of Affordable Housing this legislation is bad housing policy and will make our housing crisis even worse it results from a series of private backroom negotiation with certain favored developers graisht in some projects while not grandfathering in other projects it dramatically increases the inclusionary requirements adding Million Dollars no costs the projects that were already fully approved by the good faith reliance on existing rules and requirements and for future housing creation this legislation one size fits autos not studied realize on random numbers that has nothing to do with with any analysis of what will actually maximize Affordable Housing production in San Francisco current projects the projects in the pipeline the legislation creates convoluted grandfathering grandfathering language resulting from the backroom deals where developers they win and loss inform policy basis to explain why some developers are grandfathered and others not and it gets worse the legislation goes so far to have the inclusionary requirements in some cases doubling that requirement and imposing millions of in cost for the projects already been approved youve heard that right the projects that followed the rules that went through the Community Process and approval progress went to the Planning Commission that got approved those fully approved projects are now having to meet the change this is not Good Government how we should be doing things think outside the box on that basis the lack of policy based fair and clear grandfathering provisions the legislation should be rejected in its current form yet the grandfathering issue has attracted the most tension and activity the problematic part of legislation is in terms of its long term the impact on long term housing policy in San Francisco future projects because is one size fits ought to determine whether or not those projects will be feasible at 25 percent the legislation treats a thirty unit project dentally to an 8 hundred unit project again, no Economic Feasibility study and it is important this is the elective equivalent of throwing darts at a dart board it works well, for dart scheme but not appropriate ill note no nexus study on this legislation colleagues, we all want to produce the highest numbers of Affordable Housing yet to achieve that goal we absolutely must know what is economically and financially feasible if a project becomes infeasible or if it shrinks or reluctance to 24 units or less to come in under the 25 percent trigger few affordable units will be produced artificial 25 percent of zero is still zero this is a significant risk if the future of the de facto moratorium in San Francisco it moves us to the days when we produced this housing as a our population was growing by leaps and bounds which directly led to the housing crisis and the displacement that we are experiencing today this legislation will make our housing crisis every worse and will make our city even less affordable than it is today i will not be supporting this legislation thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, supervisor farrell has joined us. So colleagues first of all, i want to associate myself myself with many of the comments from supervisor wiener were in a housing crisis and housing crisis across San Francisco doing everything we can in terms of policies here at the board of supervisors and inside of city hall that encourages more housing kiss e chris, i building we need to build more Affordable Housing in the city not less supervisor wiener touch on the perspectives on that overall i want to mention in terms of grandfathering legislation i appreciate some of the comments of my colleagues and supervisor kim about projects in the pipeline and people that have made Financial Decisions nevertheless their projects and put money on the line only to have not only projects fully approved but magnificent decisions make a good e made only so have us change the rules midstream people have put skin in the game and this is not applying a scalpel to the pipeline this is a hammer on Affordable Housing in San Francisco i know in my district that is the potential to put the hammer on over one hundred avenue, i building we owe it to the people in the town we maximize Affordable Housing and create a process that is fair and visual so people know the rules they have to abide by people in the city of San Francisco when they have a choice landowner or developers have a crisis between residential or commercial our history we want to encourage residential building within our city limits and in some instances it is much easier for developers or landowner to build commercial given the hoops and now 0 move we are impcos and give the housing crisis we have to have residential along the way in march in board adopted the resolution im glad to adopt a policy that maximize inclusionary housing requirement it was adopted unanimously with the understanding the trailing legislation by a further resolve grandfathering class it allows Economic Feasibility with projects in the pipeline my fears this is constructed as supervisor wiener mentions some Developers Left in and some out depending on the whims of the colleagues thats not how to promote polly will be a supporters of that and my fear that legislation the way it is drafted will not achieve that goal it will kill be not only market rate housing in the pipeline on line sooner than anything else and established city policy to eliminated the nonconforming uses and support housing especially on the opportunities we shouldnt loss site of this policy i want to say i understand there are amendments to project suggested later on im in full support we need an honest discussion i ago that 4 days is two soon again especially in the pipeline cant think of any reason not to support the people to get housing online as quickly as possible so have more commercial uses and in the process killing affordable units in the city. Thank you supervisor peskin. Thank you, madam chair if i may through the chair to supervisor farrell is sounds like youre speaking about amendment relative to a specific project you said would be residential or commercial that is a large site in your district are you referring to something in particular. To my colleagues commissioner peskin both at a citywide and project in particular in my district a strong invested interesting interest yes. Through the chair to supervisor farrell what project is that. Is it a project up at laurel heights. Okay laurel height is a big area can you be more specific you or supervisor cowen is going to introduce an amendment to accommodate it. Ill suggest two amendments i fully support im not a Voting Member of this committee but at the support two amendments one in terms of issues within the 4 days weve had to look at this legislation that we have been able to look at that is detrimental and in Affordable Housing in district 2 and other parts of San Francisco. Im not sure that was responsive to my question but im sure well find out what youre referring to if i may through the chair to supervisor wiener and supervisor farrell raised highlevel issues which is in reveling i was not a member of this body i believe most of you were when you choose to put on the ballot proximate cause which reduced the percentage of Affordable Housing from 15 to 12 percent. Absent Economic Feasibility study. Ive heard words in the last few minutes if my colleague supervisor wiener he hold in highest esteem this is the subject of dealing with specific developers and offering them specific things ive not heard examples whyd with the grairthd legislation does is it says if youre in the pipeline remembered we voted for a resolution we would well get 200 units out of the pipeline we voted for that how did we do that we did it uniformly we did it fairly we do it in collaboration with the Planning Departments and the that in collaboration with the folks who developed those projects, we did it in collaboration with virtually outline of the building and Construction Trades albeit not one for the head of the voting Construction Trades doesnt speak so far one union i went or respect that having said that, we all unanimously voted that we were going to get approximately 200 units of additional Affordable Housing out of the pipeline and whyd we have in good faith worked to do that how did we did that not by choosing politically connected developers but like this we said if you were in the pipeline which we did quite geniusly in the pipeline if you filed angle environmental application if you filed one prior to republican youll get a with only percent bump none claimed calendar year 2014 a one half hour binge no complaints up to january of 2016 when supervisor kim and i introduced this Institute Charter amendment youll get 2 and a half percent bump how is it picking favorites or through the chair to commissioner lee youve give me examples sfashth i heard without further ado, you e with all due respect you sued me of hypocrisy if youre getting getting ready to introduce a backroom deal for a specific developer for a specific project that was not covered and quite uniform very generous compromises we brought up to bring the people of this town Building Construction workers everyday people normal folks approximately 200 more united of housing we should have gotten which this board i was not a member put proximate cause on the ballot supervisor kim. When they put their name on the cue they can respond supervisor kim. Actually supervisor peskin covered many of my points the grandfathered legislation is uniform how it treats our developers the bumps are exactly the same depends on the year you submitted your education a i think that is a generous trigger there be up to this time we could have made accident grandfathering bumps we choose a piementd that was early on in the process generally when you introduce legislation in this case we actually were generous we didnt pick the date in december we picked january 12th the day we submitted the institute for prop c at this time we felt it was fair and the developers did what the expectation was and if they submitted their e a it was the beginning the Development Process with the city the very giving you understand the expectation of the city in terms of what we exterminate you to build omitted in the Board Members have issues with 25 percent they should have voted against prop c negative impact february i dont like this hammer it is was development of construction that was the moment in time to say i dont like this what were doing today, were taking care of projects in the pipeline asking them to contribute more we worked the developers in the pipeline they agreed and they wanted to contribute more Affordable Housing they believe that is important to do and they did it in a way they felt it was reasonable given the fact that many of them have skin in the game and have actually begun a planning process with the city so i think that is important to note the krivendz im hearing hearing how there is is not a fiscal faubd that was agreed two months ago at the full board of supervisors in february and my colleagues had an opportunity to vote no on prop c and say they dont support building more Affordable Housing but prop c they said well go do a go Feasibility Study and we can who well lower the number to the maximize that we think that marketrate developers can do and that is what that process is for so anyone that is concerned b about projects that came in after january 2016 they will be taken care of by the Feasibility Study so if youll say i submitted my e a last week and in fact, only one marketrate project since january telephone, 2016 only one since january 2016 well and we discovered through the Feasibility Study that will be pled by july 21st well not make you to 25 percent we need more Affordable Housing and our goal to get the maximum that we can expect in terms of what they can build thats what prop c is so for mono that has concerns about that that will be taken care of in the future there are really none on this board that wants to halt construction or development we all agree ear a growing city and we have to be in balance and not leave anything on the table we want the marketrate developers to contribute and not just marketrate Housing Developers as supervisor wiener appoint it is the city and Property Owners through the housing bond and through set aside at transfused, it is general fund dollars all of those things and developer fees that are helping us build more Affordable Housing it is also the contribution of a private community as well and im actively proud to say the developers that i district recommend i want to appreciate thats the work of all the negotiations now in response to the facts if some of my colleagues say on 4 days to consider the amendments it went under the Planning Commission the Planning Commission made a series of recommendations and in fact, we actually put most of amendments in and theyve their typical we bring this to those the Planning Commission they make the recommendations and ask the sponsors to consider a serious of amendments we make those and it comes before the Land Use Committee ive not heard any containments so suddenly 4 days not enough weve done it multiple times before it i think is no a genuine criticism this happens amended and if you get the planning report those are the ones through the Planning Department i know that Ann Marie Rogers is here to talk about the process long with the amendments they have proposed which supervisor peskin and i committed and adopted several of. Thank you supervisor wiener. Thank you very much madam chair you know supervisor peskin has raised the prop c issue in terms of putting the affordability thresholds into the charter and i want to just note that that prop c was quickly adapted during times was passed out of this board unanimously supported by the mayor, supported by the business communities, by the Affordable Housing community, came out of actually a broad based transparent process i never heard supervisor peskin exclaim about prop c when it was pending at this board or during the protection maybe i didnt hear all i agree that percentage needs needs to be taken out of chapter i dont agree can supervisor kims statement this was the time to complain about the 25 percent when we put proximate cause on the ballot the whole point was taking the percentage out of the charter and establishing and temporary 25 percent threshold with the understanding that there will be trailing legislation that would then establish a more wrote a broadbased approach understanding not all projects are the same i dont know that is the case if you didnt oppose prop c you can have an opinion about welcome to the one line fits all it is clear this legislation as present to us today without naming the projects is exempting certain projects from this increase is it so very, very clear the office of the legislation ive been talking to Different Developers nothing in appropriate but we know that they have been all sorts of negotiations in recent days and weeks in terms of what different kinds of xoems exemptions will be and what the cut offices will be and we know there are winners looser so not adequate 24 was drafted in the ivory tower and sealed off by the projects happening and not happening we know that was krachtd very much with the acknowledge which projects will be bend and which projects will not be benefited i do think with should be attending otherwise. Supervisor peskin. Thank you, madam chair i first want to reiterate what supervisor kim said which is this trailing legislation didnt come along 4 days ago that was introduced a month ago it went to the Planning Commission the Planning Commission wrote up a staff report the Planning Commission reviewed it can supervisor kim and myself made changes with all due respect to my colleagues disingenuous to say it arrived 4 days ago the changes were changes that happened though the introduces processing that is a piece of legislation that has been around a month but through the chair supervisor wiener please tell me what are those projects what change needs to be made to this legislation that is not uniform supervisor kim stated i stated this is being done absolutely uniformly pursuant to the unanimously passed reserves authored by supervisor yee we were getting approximately 200 units out of the pipeline that led to the one bum and is 2 and a half percentage bump so, please if theres a change your proposing that you on is parse of this backroom deal tell us what it is yes have i gotten calls from a number of developers who would like to make more money or who will be invented not one of them actually on one of them who previously spoke about who is a day late a directing short said this will kill the project not one of them which is why youll hear later on today from the representative who represented the maufrtd Housing Developers many of whom have long histories in that town that they actually port in compromise so, please through the chair supervisor wiener what you r are you talking about. Supervisor farrell. All right. Id like to take a second to talk to our in response to some of the comments id like to ask a few questions by the Planning Department it was referred to by one of my colleagues only one project that has filed an application since january 12th. One marketrate project. My understanding it is incorrect that there are now been a number of projects filed since then i want to make sure we have all the facts as you. Director rahaim with the Planning Department i believe that there are 5 projects filed since that date im actually checking the data but 5 projects since that date im not sure exactly on the totals. Ignore him. I think there are 5 projects since january 12th. A rhetorical question in terms of this these provisions to our Planning Department as well were you involved at all in those discussions who grandfathered in or out. To the best of my knowledge i believe there was information traded in terms of data i dont believe there was discussed about the character or the types of grandfathering that is to the best of my knowledge as and i as written something your supportive of. We certainly were here to present the Planning Commission proposed changes to the legislation some of which were incorporated into the revised draft. Lets that speaks for itself and thank you for that just want to conclude i think we should respect the people that want to speak in Public Comment but i believe we need to promote building more housing especially in the city of San Francisco and legislation that come down forward that kills over one thousand units of Public Housing and one hundred units of Affordable Housing well not be supporting here at the board of supervisors. Thank you, supervisor wiener and after this supervisor wiener comments well go ahead and go to the staffs presentation and take Public Comment. The planning staff there are various categories of grandfathering do you have a list of which projects falls into the categories of grandfathering how much can you go through publicprivate to start. Good afternoon emry rogers planning staff i do apologize attire staff has been working on that and came out friday after 5 so the first public discussion of it and the commission was not able to hear the information so there are 3 proposed tiers that are described in the grandfathering the first will be for the projects prior to 2013 and that year or prior and we have there are 200041 potential units in the first year between january 2014 to the ends of that year there are 18 hundred 78 potential residential unit in that tier b and tier c all the 2015 and up to the first two days of this year there are about 8 thousand 1 hundred and 23 dwelling units. Do you have a list of projects that are not being grandfathered. So of those potential projects not grandfathered a total of 5 thousand 200 and 46 potential dwelling units. Is that because i know there is building over one and 20 feet at all or taller no grandfather and thats right building over one and 25 feet with. Im sorry one and 20. One and 20 feet or higher. All right. So if you have a building that is your proposing one and thirty feet and you filed our environmental application in 2014 what is your affordability percentage. Defense in the Zoning District also. What would the range be. And it this for grandfathered rate. The new permit rates . For a project one and thirty feet tall that filled the environmental application in 2014. I believe that will be 25 percent. Right that was my understanding so for that kind of project they get no grairthd at all so even though they have been in the pipeline for several years they purchased their land based on certain assumptions without affordability, they went through the process, theyre now do 25 basically doubling. So my incentive should the Economic Feasibility study has not happened yet; correct . Thats correct. So how obviously a project becomes infeasible you could you know we instead of 25 percent say 50 percent or 75 percent has to think affordable some point the project is economically infeasible so without that economic faibd o faeshd how do we know from particular type of project that you know 15 percent is the highest feasible or 25 or 35 or 50 percent how do we know if we dont have the Feasibility Study. Supervisor our right the feasibility is difficult and depended on the project with the economics the building prices of the Reality Market and unless our developer returning the performa we dont have the understanding newly we do our own Feasibility Study. Weve not done. Thats correct. Do you know how the number 25 percent has come up i know for the Charter Amendment the goal was to take the percentage out of the charter to ed set a temporary 25 percent with the understanding that we would then presumably both into through an analytical progress to say this kind of project 35 percent is the right number or 40 percent whatever the case for this project 25 percent maybe 21 or 19 percent to that was my understanding of what we are going to do instead putting in the grandfathering for the existing Pipeline Projects that will eventually be out the pipeline and built or not built and further projects so this imposes on all of them if 25 unions or more inclusionary percent of 25 percent and what it sounds like that number was i made a comparison throwing a dart at a dart board 25 percent may sounds like i sound good but ive yet to see any analysis that links 25 percent to what is feasible for any kind of project we heard the other day Treasure Island was here for 8 thousand units project an upcoming e up zoning and all sorts of economic advantages that the projects dont have they tell us they were struggling to hit the 25 percent theyll do it because they have to but struggling for a large project so it is twoub well be asked to vote on prevention to set for future projects and projects 25 percent threshold in no connective Feasibility Study whatsoever to determine whether or not it is feasible for those projects is the Planning Department able to say whether this legislation will maximize the production of avenue, i think our shared goal so have the most affordable units possible so will this legislation maximize production of Affordable Housing . Supervisor it might be good do go into the presentation part of the presentation theyre no support of that because of the long term it sets out the best practices model for doing a Feasibility Study and periodically and professionally updating it so they have any additional recommendations when necessary said theyll support it but want to see it into the legislation some have happened but overall the structure will set the model. Supervisor kim members of the jury that and, of course, it is good to do periodic analysis but the board of supervisors has to make the provision for 6 months or 5 years there was an analysis suggesting maybe instead of 25 but maybe 17 percent or whatever the case but in a political situation to lower the affordability percentage we heard from supervisor peskin krivenl criticism of the board in 2012 so am i correct it requires large project authorization a political decision by the board of supervisors or the future board of supervisors to make those changes not like the the Economic Analysis happens in the future not selfimplementing. Thats correct no selfimplementing nature so take another ordnance by the board of supervisors after the Feasibility Study was complete and we get a lot of reports from different depends suggesting we make changes to the legislation that often doesnt happen you dont need to respond to that. Supervisor peskin. Madam chair. Thank you. I know we want to hear from the Planning Department relative to the presentation by from the patient members of the public but if i may through the chair to supervisor wiener a couple of things first of all, supervisor wiener i think you made a serious allegation which respectfully youve get to refute weve spoken to the uniform way this policy is being applied but your line of reasoning and our line of questioning does not deal with the reality and the reality is that you are one of the lovingly unanimous members of this body that voted to put what is now prop c on the ballot that measure very clearly said that we were going to take this out of the charter you stated youll agree and set an interim rate of 15 protecting and moderated income vote for that we all voted for supervisor yees legislation that said that on or before the 31st day of july of this year 2016 we would have a fiscal analysis conducted by an trusted independent corral that informs the board how well deal with that Going Forward i want to read to you and to the public the language if this matter that is before us it reflects the language that was in supervisor yees resolution it sets forwards the good faith spirit of the negotiations that have been ongoing and it readers federal, state, and local the board of supervisors has proposed this is on page 43 of the trailing legislation this board of supervisors has proposed to the voters a Charter Amendment that will appear on the june 7, 2016, ballot the cheater amendment will authorize the city to enact i ordinance subsequent changes to the Affordable Housing requirements including to the minimum or maximize Affordable Housing obligates awe applicable to the Housing Stock and on march first, the board of supervisors unanimously adopted the resolution 80 delaying that it shall be city policy to maximize the economically feasible percentage of air force and market rate housing to create housing for low income and slash middleincome households and two in the voters adopt this on adjoin 7 the board will adopt a further ordinance requiring the city 2k789sdz to have a Feasibility Study to maximize affordability in the Affordable Housing requirements this is that ordinance and 3 the future ordinance will create Advisory Committee to insure the Feasibility Study is a result of inclusive process the purchasing purpose to set the Affordable Housing ignitions in San Francisco at maximum feasible for the housing for he workingclass and middleincome housing set forth in the charter and with the guidance with the nexus study you referenced that will be periodically updated and it goes on to say at subsection b well do a bio Feasibility Study and ill read you, you all of that but everything supervisor youre speaking to is actually the subject what you vote so far not ones but twice the subject of the trailing legislation i have no problem if you want to oppose it but in substance of what you sport if you want to make a motion to theres the Affordable Housing so forth to uniformly apply that at one and a half and 2 1 2 youll make that motion well vote on it here quite frankly the thing i think you owe the supervisor a response to youve yet to give how your allegation with the backroom deals is true give me one example. Not today were about to again to the presentation from the Planning Department keep this moving. Thank you, supervisors moores planning staff im joined by the Director Director rahaim and the Mayors Office of housing Sophie Hayward so today, im here to represent what the Planning Commission has to say they considered it on march 31st of this year and recommended a approval with a number of recommendations as you may know the voter removed this for the chapter this ordnance establishes the new rates and creates grandfathering and a message for the periodic updates because of this the Commission Recognizes this as perhaps one of the most important observances of the year this ordinance energies the city to maximize the production of Affordable Housing and inclusionary housing with the most Affordable Housing with the market rate housing can only happen if we establish a review and update and this ordinance does that from the inclusionary rates are too low theyre not providing as much Affordable Housing and from the production is low so it establishes the best practices not only by the regular study of and investment and response to feasibility but also establishes the best practices by Building Public trust given the importance of the Feasibility Study the ordinance establishes an open and transparent process that will be reviewed by people with Technical Expertise and in the two prond approach with the transparent process the ordinance follows the best practices and set the needs for inclusionary housing on behalf of the Planning Department i commend the sponsors in the long run the city gets the most Affordable Housing no matter the marketing condition this was amended last week and somewhat different but you have the commissions full recommendations in your packet and ill hit the major points we thank the sponsors for the approving the equity and the new version as postages in the umu and the family zone and grandfather rates further and likely due to the speed of the process the first version has some of the grandfathered lowered rates set lower than the existing rates this is corrected and now the existing tier rates of nuke reflects the capacity within the districts today the new version only to in association with the concessions and the density the project itself so the commission made recommendations the most important ones we would like to drawing your attention to include the following the commission requested additional equity and viability to be grand parented raised and namely the muck is outstanding were involved in the 2020 fetter effort to stabilize the Small Businesses the second request that the commission id like to directing your attention without the fooebd that demonstrates the specific needs to differentiate the building types the commission asked for the building over one and 20 the same until studies that can for the rates by building heights and number 3 the projects which have been completed their Commission Hearing or the planning approval the commission add r asked those approved projects are exempted from higher rates if in their approved before the election on june 7th and in those instances the board feels those grandfathering provisions are appropriate the commission pointed out it is very limited window deadline will be 2018 our r for those projects to achieve their entitlements from the b b i and the Commission Asks for those projects they wish to grandfathered 3 years and this is consistent with the conditional use authorization to complete the entitlement project after the approval if projects are not invested within the 3 year period they shouldnt apply as the current reverberation some projects with the e base will be technically allowed to use the grandfathering rates but have a difficult time of getting approval by 2018. And also in this proposed ordinance maybe some confusion been the terms middle and moderate income in consistence how those didnt exist in the proposed ordinance one of the last the new amendments that was presented to the commission not yet analyzed it was supervisor kim i guess that is one of the ones you handicapped to them the department in thinking about this hearing has concerns some of the amendments especially the location but all the size of the bmr units those requirement may have a Significant Impact on feasibility but no studies to truly understand the breathe of this impact and also this may be perhaps an unintended circumstance but two works in the permanent rates for is the prmentd rates are a continent and not the tiers and then further those grandfathered rates for a u m u will be higher than the that time u m u as proposed in the ordinance but thats not tint in talking about retalking with the staff that concludes the recommendations of the commission we need one more followup on the question in conversation with the City Attorney correct the record on the question of the fees paid by a one hundred 20 feet building they certain can use the grandfathered rates the only place in the mission and the key districts, however, the two and 20 feet or higher elect to pay the fee theyre not able to use the grairthd rates im hearing in the City Attorney if she has a correction if she has it right. I have a wrong the project sponsors based on the study in the future that is the best way to maximum the production of inclusionary housing. Emry a couple of questions for the planning i have one in particular ill put out there to the of any person s responsible for the ringing or use of a the my understanding the way the substitute ordinance p is written there are inconsistent with way the umu is treated this could route in in newer projects actually paid less those that are grandfathered in explain with the Planning Department analysis. It is really complicated so ill apologize at the beginning and do interrupt me if something is not clear it is possible in the umu to pay a higher rate and this is because there were some set percentages that were added to the various tiers there are 20 tiers abc so if you are doing a dwrairth say in tier a depending on the date of the app it will be 28 or thirty plus or 33 percent whereas anybody that is not grandfathered will always pay 33 percent and if you look at tier c it is the most confusing in tier y c depending on the date of e e application your rate will be 32 or 35 plus or 37 percent and if youre one of the promotions that was not eligible for grandfathering because your new it will be 33 so grandfathering 37 and higher than the new permit rate of 33 and i dont believe that was the intent. That was not the intent were capping out at 33 percent thank you for pointing that out we hadnt realized had this change but to cap out at 33 percent per you know your pointing that out to us. Thank you for your clarification. It should make the umu consistent. From a policy prospective Difficult Commission agree on the approach. It is part of the new approach the commission at that point looked at no reflection the capacity within the umu so after pointing that out it was in the grandfathered section but not in the permanent fee rates. Okay. All right. Thank you supervisor kim i see your name on the cue are you in line to speak. I have a quick question do you have language. Do you have los angeles youll introduce today. So, yes. So we have the language on the cap of 33 percent. The uniform treatment of the umu. Yes. To the point that was brought to make the nuke consistent with grandfathered or not in youre not grandfathered you, your capped at 32 but if not your capped at 33 and not above that that change we will i will ask this committee to make a motion to mainstreamed but to summarize by the way, so many numbers and technical adjustment the baseline the summon are in the substitute legislation following our hearing at the Planning Commission was that we are making the bumps the one percent and one and a half for 2014 and 2 1 2 for 2015 including the eastern neighborhoods the umu and n u r so in response to Planning Department we did want to make that consistent abused we didnt grater in those paralyzes because the eastern neighborhoods plan states they can do more Affordable Housing so our original intent asking them to do more but now were making urban forest the bumps to all of those projects the exception is for building at one 20 and above it is really because we firmly believe that you can do more affordability as you build for housing it will be seen in the past with previous developments that is the one exception to that rule so finally this is really a question im not sure if this go is to the Mayors Office of housing or to the Planning Department that it was brought up today a new point a feedback to the authors that maybe the bmr mixed requirement is not what the Planning Department wants to see in the legislation but actually, we anywhere the bmr language based on had was proposed at the Mayors Office of housing and Planning Commission which say we expect the belowmarketrate in condo built in the district i represented to be spread across the first 2 3rds of the building and the reason we put that in and by the way, negotiated in fulsome and several others projects that you know there was a desire on the part of developers to put all the belowmarketrate on the first floor and the 5 floor again, a compromise not the eventual 100 percent but a minimum that middleincome residents should have access to the bottom tier of the building and as well as on the bottom floors so the intent is the language if come out of our office we were simply mirroring language through the Mayors Office of housing and so we wanted to make sure that was included in the legislation and, in fact, weve already negotiated this in several others developments that is the sustainability behind that language i wanted to ask the Mayors Office of housing specifically about some of the changes that were made, of course, sorry to describe the recommendations amendment in recommend to 9 small sites project that is a key component of that legislation. Sure thank you very much it is Sophie Hayward from the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development we have a couple of recommendations and they relate to primarily section 415 plus and the existence we are hoping to insure insure that the inclusionary housing fee can, in fact, be used to support the Small Sites Fund and the small sites project programming so our suggestion. Im not sure ms. Hayward what page. I believe 22 but section 415. 2. Got it, it is that have. Thank you. Our suggestion you add a sentence that will help use Inclusionary Housing Fund to support the small sites and the incentive is on line 11 for the purposes to find if section 415 plus and the Small Sites Program and its perimeters of periodically updated and administrative code protecting moderate income and middle income are together extended as affordable to household that earn or will earn an average of 80 percent ami i can explain but sierra club in the small site Promissory Note Program we can acquire a rentcontrolled building at risk of irving we obviously dont know the income ofll a tenants at the of the acquisition the building will reach an average of 80 percent ami and as the existing code as structured were limited in spending inclusionary housing fees on projects based on the definition of low and middleincome before that. Madam chair is not here can you retina repeat those. Ceremonial we add a sentence for the purposes of the Small Sites Funds extended in section 415 plus and the Small Sites Program and its premiers as periodically administrative code by mohcd low income, moderate income and middle income are together defined as affordable to households that earn or will earn 80 percent ami so pretty confusing for the effort so limit that coincidence definition to the small sites application. We have a Second Chance id like to suggest as well and similarly this is only for implementation purposes that is to clarify that the income targets did i understand im still in the same section are the original income targets that are applicable for the Inclusionary Housing Program what i mean there are income targets that are defined for the program that are not in the sections that are amend their included in section 401 as a result this ordinance that two conflicting targets so assuming your intent to have 80 percent i going to be qualifying households for next door and 80 percent for middle. No, i was going to say 100 percent ami for low income owner and 100 percent for middleincome and relents and 100 percent ami for middleincome ownership if i can find the page we would need to amend section 415. 6 a3. What page is that on. Page 36. And on line copy striking the reference any reference section to the term qualifying household not capital letters but it is a definition in section 401 that describes the discretion so you spike the qualifying household affordable unit on lines 15 and 16 and replace that with low income household and then also strike on line 19 the reference inform qualifying households and receptionist that with low or moderately or through the chair we have slightly whats in the board packet line 19 was struck months ago so can you help me out 415. 6 sub a 1, 2, 3 all of sub 4 has been stricken so where i see qualifying household at the end of sub 3. And in the middle of that same subsection there are 2 references in subdivisions or subsection 3. In our to strike our saying qualifying and low income. Correct. And in our version at line 17 strike qualifying and say low income. Ill say protecting and Million Dollar and no. You said it correct strike it with protecting household. Oh, i see got it. Is it possible to get a copy so we can all look at it i get im personally supportive but want to make sure were looking at the same wording. Supervisor kim is that it. Thats it. I want to go back to the City Attorney and give deputy City Attorney kate stacy an opportunity to talk about grandfathering. Go ahead. Madam chair deputy City Attorney kate stacy i want to clarify the temporary provisions for building of one and 20 feet in height or greater from the building is providing onsite unit the only expectation from the temporary requirements are buildings located in the mission nct regardless of their heights for the purpose of onsite housing or paying the fees the xemgsz exceptions from the interim gardener parenting provisions are either buildings one and 25 feet or greater or buildings located in the mission nct so for onsite. One and 20. Im one and 20 ann marie found that. I hope that is clear the legislation as crafted only excludes building of one and 20 feet if offsite and fees provisio provisions. All right. Thank you supervisor kim is your question to the Planning Department. Based on when supervisor kim was talking about maybe you can clarify for me and this is regarding the cap of thirty percent does it not present all the projects uniformly. Emry rogers planning staff i believe that as described the cap at 33 would still not acknowledge the different tier rates in the proposal so if you set everything as 33 percent if an onsite instead of having substantially higher automates for abc in the umu. Supervisor kim you have not looking to address that there are two ways to be consistent one way to say if you are you know at he will 2013 and get a one percent and 2 1 2 bump we treat everyone the same what it gets calibrated the offsite and then 10 percent the problem if you are grandfathered then in some cases your bump at 10 percent youre actually above the 33 percent if were to be twul consistent with all the bumps well not cap it at 33 percent but if we want to be consistent with projects not grandfathered those projects capped at 33 then cap it at 33 percent so that is you know my understanding of the discretionary pleased reorganizes is that not the case instead were saying that if the bad news are recorded consistent you might be at 37 percent were saying guess what we firmly believe that 33 percent is the max if youre not grandfathered in 33 percent will be the maximums does that make sense. Ive raised the capping it solves the grandfathered maybe paying a higher rates the other is other there but perhaps youre saying that is a policy call in the permanent rates tailor no differentiation about terse the raised are set the same for onsite and offsite and fees so regardless of the existing tiers within the umu zoning so. Can we actually just walk through an example tier a or tier c and a 2015 project. So how are we treating those projects. Youre addressing the grandfathering rates because of the tiers im not talking about the permanent leases so in tier a currently the offsite requirement nuke umu 20 percent youll change to thirty and tier b is higher than the 33 but still. Those are projects not grandfathered. Exactly. But it is consistent because ever any project regardless of umu now anothers thirty percent. Advertised how you want to look at it anything after january federal and state, 2016 at 25 and 32 percent so that is uniform and i think that you know, i have to reiterate supervisor peskin point i mean were treating projects uniformly i say guess the one exception we cap the thirty percent so from the bump up is different well keep you at 33 percent. I have a question for you either one of you im not sure which one were supervisor supervise can you tell me how current projects in the pipeline you anticipate will have the collaboration obligations. So through actually through the chair i believe that ms. Rogers answered that 220041 projects that played phenomenon for an environmental application prior to 2014 will be affected in as far as they will get a one percent increase all of this is pursuant to the resolution that the e resolution we voted for on march first if 201418 hundred plus realized to air inclusionary requirements and 8 thousand will get a 2 and a half percent increase all combined will bring approximately 200 address units of Affordable Housing to the city and county of San Francisco. All right. My final questions project that which will receive their entitlement and whats rational on those projects. The rational is that everybody in this business had notices as of december 15th of 2015 this new redevelopment was coming into place and interesting enough as the handful of projects that we can define entitlement im not sure an attorney bvr but having two here none of the projects are invested so they have received an approval by the Planning Commission but as to those projects after december 15th on and through june 7th i believe that they getting to the 200 unit night club number should be shared by everyone in the pipeline i believe that the fundamental policy racial and again, i await in a dear colleagues response how to this has been favorable to certain developers as compared to others those organizations and individuals that had been in the pipeline the longest have the most money at risk thats why their percentage only went up one percent those organizations in the pipeline for the at least amount of time is one and a half percent weve done this is a reasonable and fair judicious manner the bottom line everybody in the pipeline should be treat in the same way thats precisely what that that legislation does. Its my understanding the projects in the market octavia and the van ness special use district some of which files 6 years ago will pay the new 33 in lui Affordable Housing fee ive heard you have an amendment which will allow the portion of the fee to this obligation thats correct ill defer to supervisor kim there is a large Public Policy we have trying to do here so incentivizes marketrate developers to build their Affordable Housing onsite what were trying to do is to make sure we have neighborhoods and development that actually accommodate people of different income levels different ethic nights and associate economic backgrounds and rather than having a city where you have rich people in one building and protecting People Living in another place had in legislation is fundamentally as a matter of policy designed to do to encourage and incentivizes developers to build their Affordable Housing onsite and that is why you see the large dealt continue onsite and offsite slash in lui were saying to the developers we want you to build our air force onsite thats the kind of city that we want to be. All right. Seeing no other questions lets go ahead and open up for Public Comment i only have 5 Public Comment cards in front of me but if anyone wants to speak first calling names sure. Good afternoon supervisors. Thank you for holding this hearing im alex a research from with the Northern CaliforniaCarpenters Union i dependent a few folks to speak ahead of me just a couple of points as were walking through and discussing this grandfathering legislation a couple of things i want to make sure you remember and understand first of all, construction workers the people that are building the housing were talking about are not part of the Affordable Housing sclaugs the way the nexus study is performed we lower the was this we essentially incentivizes the developers to cover the was this and the ellis acted number two treating all the developers the same and making many urban forest well, i dont know if everyone noticed we cutting out 24 units about 5 hundred units of the pipeline now the important thing to remember these projects pay less they pack far less for labor as you can see thai have extremely low labor practices but charge rents and sales prices similar to others projects were talking about uniformity lets not leave out the low risk builders and continuing with uniformity we wanted to treat the projects the same to the one and 20 foot projects should be creating treated the same onsite and offsite i think i followed the umu i think in the discussion dont breakdown them separately lets have the watch treat everyone the same be consistent throughout the process and from there im running out of time but youll see from my brothers and sisters here in the room. The next speaker card is a. D. Twinkie. Adrian carpenters local 22 field representative years ago the local 22 started and funded city build to bring carpenters into good jobs residents from San Francisco we have apprenticeships, we still have supporters ofcy builds in fact, our financial secretary runs the program this is one this san franciscans come into and get a good job and apprenticeship and raise a family we want to keep this we dont our jobs cut we dont need developers and developments killed this is our livelihood we have a lot of programs and jobs that once a job is finished we move on to the next so those are not jobs where you stay in for 25 years sure you can work for 25 years but we have to go from reenforcing emancipation proclamation project by project and these brothers and sisters and apprentices and journey men and women are carpenter like that we move on from job to job and get on a job and work actually, its done and look forward to the next one we cant have development for or a killing jobs in San Francisco we just cant have tt we need to continue to build and keep on working and like you to support that thank you. Thank you next card jay bradshaw. Good afternoon, supervisors Jay Broadway Shaw director for the local 22 so id like the carpenters so stand uppermost of all our folks are working this time of day but saw it is important to come down today and following that a lot of talk and decision from the developers and labor organizations we are without. Doubt left out of the process pell people can say this and that there is no Building Trades union in this town more engaged in city hall so while this is the past now looking forward people leave us out the thought process at their parietal for good policy ill put it to i tend to be the guy from the Carpenters Union that goes for candidates for union jobs close to the economics ill tell you what was said today from certain supervisors the call went out to me like 3 weeks ago all projects are at risk now a lot of movement so in the right direction we hope it continues to go that way i find that a problem that folks liquor the Residential Builders association are getting special recognition so ill quote is it should be uniform across the board and if you put too much well look at developers sitting on land and coming in and theyll tells you or the we at other trades follow us we cant afford to to be union thats a fact thank you. Thank you eric chow next. Supervisors ethic the market rate housing developer thank you for the kind words i want to be honest when he when we started the negotiations we asked for grandfathering to be zero bumps no percentage percentages until 1231 at the beginning im a capital lift a developer we want to maximum our profits and invest with as little restrictions as possible im always a real outlet the people here people under and everyone it is diversity and inclusiveness so we embarked to maintain that exist how to serve the people of San Francisco by building for them who are recommended by you by the mayor so we engaged the mayor and the supervisors to serve the people of San Francisco and serve our investors thats how we came to the legislation its not perfect but to be clear it serves many purposes were trying to maximize our investment and serve San Francisco and develop in San Francisco we love today after all the process in two months were very, very close to having a deal that was approved by resolution in conjunction with the Charter Amendment a couple months ago thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Matthew miller. Good afternoon my name is Matthew Marin an investigator at the carpenters local 22 we investigate for the 2 billion problem in california ive been to a number of nonunion projects they interview the construction workers and ask a lot of questions and the answers with disturbing most of workers are making 15 to 20 an hour they are commuting in stockton and that is out soursdz i see problems working shorter hours and not given breaks and safety violations and low contractors meet the bottom line and make the profits off the backs of workers i ask if they receive health care they dont theyre not contributing to the Huntington Park ordinance that is a wage theft stealing the health care San Francisco considers the rights for working people if their increasing the burdens on the large projects will need more developers to use those same types of contracts the contractors have obligates and month will sacrifice given the choices between low profits easy labor practices and questionable ones we guess most will cheat the employers that dont pay the standard wages and benefits and dont follow the rules their contractors which include policies to up lobbyist San Francisco like city build would and users the apprentices to train the workforce instead, they cheat the contractors in San Francisco thank you. Katherine david followed by robert pill man. Thank you, madam chair and supervisors im the Vice President of the law school heights Improvements Association im concerned that a particular amendment that was alluded to today by supervisor farrell that he said relates to a project in his district im concerned that will be proposed today and will impact on this one project and that is the s k s on california street that seeks substantial rezones and opposed by my Neighborhood Association about mr. Sincere of the prod do group unveiled his project on february 1st of this year we met in supervisor farrells office and the president of our association said to the gentleman id like to know what in project is before you go public with that and mr. Sincere said no trust me this is not a negotiation now all of that and the inadequate public process confirmed in a letter sent to the developers and supervisors i brought one for the record and one for each member those developers are seeking a rezoning were hearing the process takes years the developers are seeking rezoning on april 12th the developer mr. So foreclose made a whooping contribution to supervisor farrell caption and now it appears hesitate asking for an amendment behind the scenes with serves on the private investors. No. You might not continue you see all the people here. I thought id ask. Robert youre up. Supervisor wiener im your example my name is bob tillman a 73 unit project in the mission i receive epa from 2014 i filed my environmental evaluation in june of particular and put 4 hundred thousands of my money to get this project entitled and i would like to have an explanation from the committee as to why my project should be subject to almost twice as high inclusionary percentage as others projects in the city im located in the mission nct i would like to thank commissioner peskin for his remarks stating that all developers should be treated the same and i presume that supervisor peskin will be introducing an amendment to this legislation that will do exactly that at least i hope so, so thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Tillman i will. Next speaker come on. Good afternoon supervisor the increase of the Affordable Housing generosity of Government Housing funding for feasibility are southern locations our inabilities for consistent connection of efficient of all areas related areas of organizations the developer and individuals specifically the airport for solving the problem of projects for protecting and moderate didnt income targeting people of qualified households without conflict building Affordable Housing on site i support that please move forward with that project with considerations as weve seen for example, of todays involvement so diversity for Public Services of peoples living benefits of peoples civil rights, of peoples divided culture, of peoples passion, of peoples wisdom of peoples destiny thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors joel cop he will the local 6 more the Building Trades reps would is have been here ambassador in washington, d. C. For a legislation conference i want to echo the words of supervisor wiener and supervisor farrell and also alex in the carpenters at the board speaking so far the Development Projects that are going to utilize the local businesses and pay the residents a liveable standards wage with health care and benefits which they will eventually end up spending in the city reinvesting in other businesses were not in favor the cut out for the Small Projects typically were not part of that with theyre not being to the prongs that do step up and commitment to using the local contractors for the local apprentices that are trained here in the local Training Facilities and paid the high wage were here last week speaking in favor of a 10 floor increase for a project that will increase understanding and a high transit area of this city and were also at the same time seeing a project on the van ness corridors another hive traveled corridor on van ness was within the one hundred and thirty feet height and now theyre being cut by one floor and this project might not be probable were just hoping we can use legislation to promote and enable the developers to create more Affordable Housing thank you next item, please. Supervisors im circling the schools from the partners thank you for the time and a vigorous debate i believe is on probable one of the most important issues housing for the remainder of this decade ill encourage the ability part to look at what the pipeline of new projects being filled the ptas i dont have the data you probable have access to the data i believe those had should be decreased i urge you to consider looking at specifically the impacts of grandfathering as it pertains to certain projects that are with Committee Support and compliant since 1995 we have one project there are others that may not have submit the e a weve been in process for two years we bought the land two years ago the fees were 17 percent he understand the policy direction supervisor peskin of president housing to be built on site this is not feasible for some projects that have gotten the costs and now although were not a highrise project on the waterfront we have the high costs and choices that the residents will be paying if theyre able to provide the cost onsite but doubted to 33 percent because were one hundred and thirty feet in height side highrise is at risk of feasible to answer our question supervisor peskin there are 200 plus jobs union jobs will that will be completed with this 11 million for to the bottom line for the impact. Next speaker, please. Im marlene president of the cathedral Hills Association and a member of the San FranciscoNeighborhoods Network and coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods i want to say im a major fan of that legislation it is fantastic legislation to build more Affordable Housing about at the lower and middle level for the marketrate development weve seen most of housing built at to the mix of affordable units is wonderful well support it and doing everything we can to make sure that it is fully completed, however, a slight problem in the grandfather right now particular on van ness corridor and im speaking particularly to supervisor peskin and supervisor kim who both districts are are on the van ness corridor right now we have 11 hundred units in the pipeline on van ness built anothers one and thirty feeds that feet that are close to approve or through the process that we feel is somewhat unfair to have the highest level of underscores put at one and thirty feet one slight and on a permanent basis yes with whoever they absolutely know that is coming everyone that is it is pipeline ill strongly encourage to build onsite but it this case is that possible to make the cut off at the higher rate one and 20 feet please consider it thank you. Next speaker ms. Morgan it is at one and thirty feet. Got it. For those promotions my name is testing d 5 action in terms of heights it or it would be nice to considering having more than one tier how about 200 and 50 some of the benefits that will give us this is good legislation it will help us keep up with the demand for housing because inclusionary housing will equal what the master or marketrate housing requires and im supporter on down on the specific micro level on the embarcadero the site divisadero the builder was going to build 16 units with the legislation by supervisor breed and also at the state legislation all of a sudden they decided to build 60 units we need to make sure that a project like that that opened its viral application in january of 2014 was under review gets the maximum amount of Affordable Housing in to say and so that relates to exactly when is the Environmental Review application complete thus planning says this application is complete you need to bang those dates thank you. Hi sonya sf bay Renters Association my question now is why be so generous with developers why are we are doing any grandfathering at all why stop at 200 units why not no grandfathering and require 25 percent for everything in the pipeline whats that . Is it because if you did that those whole measure would have about think destroyed by developers it would with have gone down if flames and the developers that had those projects will not allow them to be killed instead, they got grandfathered so every single project is an work of an project that made a backroom deal thanks good afternoon supervisors per steve for mary tell we want to commend support two of the suggestions that came out of the planning Planning Commission the first is were hearing the one and 80 foot cut offices that didnt allow grandfathering for a project that is higher had should have the in lui fee i look at the policy resolution supported by supervisor yee and unanimously by the board policy Resolution Says this ordinance will have grandfathering that should be constructed allows to continue the feasibility for projects all right. Not pipeline and the grandfathering will include both onsite and offsite and grairgd provisions so your policy resolution is established not make a distinction and in such a way to disadvantage and destroy the offsite fee diesel with the midrise one and 50 feet is no the luxury project you want to eliminate that one and 20 with penalty or at least move it up to one and thirty feet these projects that pay the in lui fee an important source of 100 percent projects you want not to discourage them completely by punishment them and the second encouragement that the Commission Recommended not the december 77, 6 are that will be equality in the projects have entitlement to get their permits and projects that are sued in litigation that ought to be told and the projects that are in entitle with the litigation have not had the litigation roved in november of 2018. Good afternoon tim colen San FranciscoHousing Action coalition. And it is often the case with legislation the balancing here on one side a lot of folks youve heard are trying to find feeble levels of which housing projects that they contemplated can move forward on the other side of the divide maybe people say kill as many projects thats in the best interests of San Francisco in the middle were talking about today maybe lets stop some of the projects i guessed were trying to establish what an acceptable threshold how many what can we stop before the political process is too high i understand youve moderator move forward ill urge to keep on take out the mission that will help youve heard on the height where code compliant is subjected to something new and different in the interest of the city more projects implored if the housing projecting proximate falls that as are simple relationship ill say one of the other things weve noticed in the respect draft the one mile obesity for the inclusionary that was not part of discussion we have to keep a lot of these options available and the offsite radius is guaranteed rate to make that impossible to build offsite housing so you come a long ways i urge you to keep on going and letting the maximum amount of housing go forward it delivers ocher the Housing Affordability goals thank you. Next speaker good afternoon Board Members percent cohen i know that youve been down in the weeds and you carefully thought about the delays i dont think to the previous speakers motorbike or anybody on the board is talking about how many projects to kill this is grateful language but how to finetune to youre pushing to the maximum point we need Affordable Housing but nobody is trying to kill projects that is in the what the legislations is about what has been talked about sorry about that unprecedented is step were about to have the opportunity to increase inclusionary housing to a level every city in the state or country that is jealousy to have were doing it because we have at will power and folks in the room that build the housing and kudos to eric to talk about the right balance . How we get things deny were a National Model of solutions to Affordable Housing and one of the most expensive Reality Market we have had no, no, no and nay sayers but guts to do a fine job were o weve been to inclusionary housing updates many times some of us have been senator mark leno that a is terming out it will kill projects that will kill projects guess what a number of Development Projects increased after we have the inclusionary housing in 2006 and 2007 we increased it again, i want to tell my brothers developments are growing in San Francisco lets get it done. Thank you. Anyone wish to comment on item on this item if not Public Comment is closed. All right. Now this item is many the hands of the board of supervisors of this Committee Supervisor peskin. Thank you, madam chair i want to thank the members of the public a lot of really great and important testimony in what is truly a complicated piece of legislation by the way, we have mareZoning District we trying to find the sweet spot and vote for the piece of legislation not ones but twice voting on feasible Affordable Housing in this town so that we can all continue to live in a town whereas, you do said your industry can sell market rate housing that people want to live in i understand that you have to sell market rate housing to have affordable units i get it i do real estate for a living but ill say one agreement that mr. Tillman said the exception to the universities policy it not through the chair respectfully to my colleagues supervisor wiener the subject of a backroom deal but the subject and the result of a massive amount of change and displacement act and stories that are heart wrenching stories that emanate out of a Wonderful Community called Mission District in San Francisco and that is why the nct is treated definitely in this legislation but if this supervisor is going to be consistent about uniformity i believe and i will motion at some level of political bravery to treat the nct in the same way mr. Tillman were treating every other Zoning District in this district be that the mucus or the eastern neighborhoods are be it as everything effected at prop c and make that motion and i also acknowledge this board my come along to preserve the housing fabric but relative to the fundamental argument that that is been the subject of unfortunate and unfounded allegations there is only one portion of that which is the fact that the nct and the mission is treated differently for Public Policy purpose and for the sake of this decision i hereby by move colleagues Public Comment is over we treat the in depth in the exact same way through the hearing projects are e e and a prior to 2014 a one percent bump and brokerages e e a at one and a half and projects between january 1st, 2015, and january of 2016 a 2 1 2 percent bum the one and only motion ill make and the only motion ill support other than technical changes youll hear about. Thank you. Any discussion well take the morning motion now. Supervisor wiener. In terms of the one hundred and 20 feet that was raised a question about why it is exempted from the grandfathering or gained parenting and theyve recommend remove the distinction between under one hundred 20 and above i guess through the chair to the authors in terms of the possibility of removing that exemption from the grandfathering as well im soliciting feedback. Supervisor kim. Naermdz to be unarmed to that above one 20 not one hundred 20 and above ill ask the committee to make in regards to the height a general agreement when we were building take our you can build take our this is the negotiation as a result of your marketrate developers thats the number that was previous elder. Thats a lot of the political and financial history 2, 3, 4 it this chamber and building historically it was spur and i dont know from the hawk existed in those days that actively not wanted to differentiate between building one 20 and above and blow because precisely that was the breaking point at which the economies of scale become such above one hundred and 20 for that type of construction much more money to be made we adopted the one hundred 20 that is historically been the cutting line as a matter of fact i remember in the old days ive got mr. Broadway show you u shaw here the Residential Builders said theyre cutting Downtown Developers a special deal and one hundred 20 has been the dpiftd line in the chamber. We have a motion that is open on the floor and supervisor peskin has made a motion any discussion if not im ready to take a vote. John gibner, deputy City Attorney just to clarify what if that motion is i belive supervisor peskin is proposing to delete subsection 415 e1 e it starts on page 23 and ends so that deletes the exception for the nct and treats the mission nct like other other projects subject to the grand parenting but totally different from the umu only on grandfather and thats correct. All right. Thank you for the clarification lets hear a roll call vote on supervisor peskin amendment. Supervisor peskin amendment supervisor peskin supervisor wiener and chair cohen. Thank you all right. Amendment passes unanimously supervisor kim i think you have an amendment to discuss you wanted to propose or if you could restate it. An amendment suggested bets the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development around the small sit acquisition how you can sell our onsite obligation i believe the City Attorney will read into the record. We dont have it in front of us not written down. Please into the mike and deputy City Attorney kate stacy and in section 4415 ms. Hayward upgraded an amendment im suggesting clarifying language that language is not before you in written form. Is there a substantive change. A change that makes that consistent with the small sites something that the see macys put before the Planning Commission. Is a reap not written before us or a flyby your pants clarification. I cant answer that madam chair the language that moovd read into the record im suggesting some alternative language. I appreciate that ill let you know id like time to review the lunge and chew on that you may read what you have and then well continue. So this the the last sentence of section 415 point it at a new in essence sentence defined in the subsection f and the Small Sites Program my use the Affordable Housing fees to acquire sites and buildings consistent with the perimeters of small site funds as periodically updated. All right. Thank you any discussion on this. Family through the chair relative to that cant meet more than 200 and 50 does that language survive or not survive. Sophie hayward from the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development i didnt suggest touching that of the grandfathering. All right. So i want to say a couple of comments before we go on from local 22 and everyone that came out and who gives a damn about this critical issue thank you for thank you for your time i believe we need to increase the inclusionary housing and building we should be sensitive vision zero the developers to put affordable units onsite onsite rather than in lui fees im concerned this ordinance and the process that state as under gone has turned into a mess i am not how many of you followed that grandfathering 3 tiering and 33 percent come on lets keep it real what is before us is extremely complex to complex and move forward it is that complex system of Affordable Housing fees arrest grandfathering or now grandmothering this ordinance is a result of negotiations i dont want to take away from anyone any work to move forward but i many have not been a party to the discussion i certainly have not in the revised owners that was introduced last week and not available for public review youve heard comments yet were asked to make key provisions in the pipeline that have been entitled and mainstreams were dealing with as well that language has not been written or circulated by our that is customary ambassador an important piece of legislation we also need to be doing Due Diligence in thinking about this in a significant way to make significant changes to the housing policy in the past are whether it be whether were making housing policies were talking about shortterm rentals where whether we are talking about condominium conversion maybe you were there for that conversation and several opportunities informing for pickup input in the discussion this is an important conversation were having today but were i i dont feel comfortable with returning it so the changes we make today maybe the difference between housing projects moving forward and maybe the difference between the city succeeding and winning a challenge so i understand the urge to get something done and adopted before the primary june 7th election we cant do it without having a transparent process so frankly, i think that all of us will benefit waits presented my preference to continue the female item for another week so the public can review and all of us review the project collection policy and the last minute changes today i want to comment but im going to be introducing two amendments on behalf of supervisor farrell and im going to read them ive circulated the read into the record to delete the section 4 and substitute in lui and member the provisions informing thereafter, and read into the record subdivisions d any residential or prominently residential mixed use that has submitted a place after january before or on june 16th that replaces a nonconforming use on f a excuse me shall provide affordable units in the amount of 21st century. 5 percent of number of units onsite and the other developments that is an application after january 12, 2016, has the requirements sfoergd or one 5. 4 or plus as applicable the Second Amendment is distributed i want to make sure the existing trailing legislation that provided that protects legally biden coast that the city has entered into therefore ill read more language number 4 subsection on page 27 line 14 any Housing Development project that comes on or before june 7th has entered into an executed entertainment a agreement between the city demonstrating it the affordable units are not subject to the costahawkins rental act now im sure youll see the beatings debate well deal with those amendments and get out of here so we can get on with the rest of the day is p there first a motion on the amendment that deputy City Attorney kate stacy read into the record this is the language they had supervisor kim had proposed so moved as restated by deputy City Attorney kate stacy thank you if it dab amount well take that without objection. That item passes another motion to i made to accept the two amendments i read into the record is there a motion to temple that. Madam chair id like to ask questions specifically around the Second Amendment that says that it demonstrates that the affordable units are not subject to the costahawkins rental action what do you mean. I think we want to encourage the production of housing and not parking lots and office buildings. Costahawkins i believe an act that deals with rent control in San Francisco. Outlook supervisor wiener and mines is that as we know i forgot how long 6 to 8 years the superior court ruled that the rental citys couldnt force the project to include the belowmarketrate housing according to the costahawkins there are unsuccessful efforts in the legislator to overrule that and not know what theyll do that right now when rental units come online they have a costahawkins waiver stating a percentage they will agree to so from the project has made that statement and entered into that binding agreement that will be honored. Thank you for that clarification if i may madam chair every member of this board voted on a resolution authored by supervisor yee that said that we would use our best efforts to have that matter heard by the full board by april the 19 which day is tomorrow i fully expelled this matter would be forwarded from this committee as a Committee Report as a shoe of combooth by this body and this supervisor and the chief sponsor to the folks from the local 22 to the folks from the building industry to the folks in the Mayors Office so i was somewhat disappointed this not appearing on this agenda as a Committee Report i was somewhat disappointed it is not on tomorrows board of supervisors agenda because this was the pledge that all 11 of us took im reticent to delay this process we gave our word to the Church Branch and to the marketrate Development Industry and the Building Construction groups we will have an amount of disability e stability and predictability im hearing the politics of the way in addition to that despite the statements yet to be answers any other colleague from district 8 an amendment that is not a uniform amendment that is constructed to deal with one individual developer who introduced his their environmental applications but a few weeks ago we heard testimony today about other politics that deeply are concerning and troubling so i for one will vote against the amendment made by chair cohen on behalf of supervisor farrell. Thank you very much supervisor kim is that your name on the cue i see. I have two more clean up amendments to ask the committee to. Okay. Well take that in a second lets deal with those. In regards to the amendments from supervisor farrell to chair cohen i do not support those amendments again, we have spent months negotiating in good faith with the Mayors Office and our Developer Community and the proposal before us is really the product of that work im committed to getting this to the board as quickly as possible and was actually, the entire board condemned the process by april 19th tomorrow i dont support the continuous this need to move out and in fact, plenty of progress to evaluate this legislation. All right. So it is interesting the discussion around good faith i wanted the public to not be fooled by the eloquent statements youve heard and just want to recognize that supervisor peskin and supervisor kim introduced an unsigned ordinance that made this meeting april 19th that is visually impossible id like to take a roll call vote on the amendments so madam clerk and supervisor peskin. Wait on which amendments. On the amendments i read into the record you said you were voting no. There was one amendment relative to the farrell and the other to continue ill a take them separately and b let supervisor kim speak to other clean up amendments she times to make brownbag we take the amendment to continue as to the farrell amendment that the amendment before this. Madam clerk call the vote for the farrell and supervisor peskin. No supervisor wiener supervisor cowen two is one no. Thank you supervisor wiener did you have something to say all right. The Second Amendment will be voted on excuse me the second month motion that is open a continuous for one week. Madam chair there are other clean up amendments that supervisor kim worries about 0 over that are supported by the Planning Department and the Mayors Office. Okay one amendments sorry i was looking at the amendment. Right its not written. My apologies one area that ordinance is actually silence on the intention of the interiors for any project prior to january 1st, 2013, the project maintains its inclusionary requirements under the understanding that for projects that came in 2013 one percent and 2012 and two one half butches but the projects that submitted and epa that was the original intelligence our measure was silence on articulating that point we wanted to clarify that so it is clear for projects that were uncertain how their projects were 2r5e9d before january 2013 thats at language on that piece the Second Amendment is also clarifying the amendments in regards to the area there is an additional Affordable Housing impact fee on top of we require in those cases the hed fee can be used for fulfilling your bumped inclusionary housing depending on the year you submitted our e pa. Okay. Well amendments have been read into the record. I move those amendments. Okay supervisor wiener. Im i think i need clarification on those items and director rahaim looks at puzzle. That last points that is the first ive heard of the amendment my take that is probably related to the Affordable Housing fee with the highrise of the market octavia plan this is a fee on top of the normal inclusionary requirements im not sure i thinks by the way, thats what i see. As you see shes unavailable this is part of the reason well continue this we need more time to chew on that supervisor wiener. Can i get a restatement on the amendments that was a little bit confusing that supervisor kim couldnt through the chair that i can ask supervisor kim to restate the amendments. The First Amendment was exactly as i articulated any project before january 1st, the project will maintain the inclusionary requirements and the Second Amendment for any Housing Development located in an area with specific housing requirement for special use district or any other section of the code like section 419 with expectation of the Zoning District or the south of Market Family zoning the higher of the Affordable Housing requirements and so forth in the special use district or in section 415 plus fees apply any one pursuant to the special use district symshall be part calculation for the sections 415 point one so any amendments was a summary if there an, an additional impact fee requires by the special use district or plan that will account towards this bump up there the grandfathering. Please. So the amendment will allow the additional fee towards the suds for the proposal in the ordinance. Yes. Thank you. Ill move those amendments. All right. Well take that without objection. Those amendments pass amazing all right. The final motion to continue this for one week. Madam chair we have to deal with the sunset provisions looks like the City Attorney is jumping up youre right. John gibner, deputy City Attorney i actually had a question on one of your previous votes you voted 2 to one to adopt what youre calling the farrell amendments and discussed two different potential amendments and intend to closing include above them we want to capture everything. Thats correct two farrell amendments we took a vote and supervisor peskin was against the committee is in favor of. I do want to do backroom deals in a public. My second clarifying question supervisor kims first proposed amendment which that anyone that submitting environmental applications prior to january 1st, 2013, is grandfathered entirely subject to the current requirements for both onsite and offsite and a fee; is that correct okay. Thank you. Madam clerk what motion. One other thing kicking around section 5. 29 sunset. Who is raising that. This is an email from our clerk to us. The Advisory Committee. Im sorry. The Advisory Committee i believe the office has decided supervisor kim not to move forward with that one the Advisory Committee no motion on 5. 29 dash 7. Thats right all right. So refresh my memory. Continue for one week. Lets do that. Supervisor peskin no supervisor wiener supervisor cowen 2 is. Thank you all right. Thank you additional business to come before this body . Theres no further business. This meeting is adjourned feel like it really is a community. They are not the same thing, but it really does feel like theres that kind of a five. Everybody is there to enjoy a literary reading. The best lit in San Francisco. Friendly, free, and you might get fed. [applause] this San Francisco ryther created the radar reading series in 2003. She was inspired when she first moved to this city in the early 1990s and discover the wild west atmosphere of open mi its ic in the mission. Although there were these open mics every night of the week, they were super macho. People writing poems about being jerks. Beatty their chest onstage. She was energized by the scene and proved up with other girls who wanted their voices to be heard. Touring the country and sharing genx 7 as a. Her mainstream reputation grew with her novel. Theses San FranciscoPublic Library took notice and asked her if she would begin carrying a monthly reading series based on her community. A lot of the raiders that i work with our like underground writers. Theyre just coming at publishing and at being a writer from this underground way. Coming in to the library is awesome. Very good for the library to show this writing community that they are welcome. At first, people were like, you want me to read at the library, really . Things like that. As a documentary, there are interviews [inaudible] radar readings are focused on clear culture. Strayed all others might write about gay authors. Gay authors might write about universal experiences. The host creates a welcoming environment for everybody. There is no cultural barrier to entry. The demographic of people who come will match the demographic of the reader. It is very simple. If we want more people of color, you book more people of color. You want more women, your book more women. Kind of like that. It gets mixed up a little bit. In general, we kind of have a core group of people who come every month. Their ages and very. We definitely have some folks who are straight. The loyal audience has allowed michelle to take more chances with the monthly lineup. Established authors bring in an older audience. Younker authors bring in their friends from the community who might be bringing in an older author. Raider has provided a stage for more than 400 writers. It ranges from fiction to academics stories to academic stories this service the underground of queer fell, history, or culture. And there are so many different literary circles in San Francisco. I have been programming this reading series for nine years. And i still have a huge list on my computer of people i need to carry into this. The supportive audience has allowed michele to try new experiment this year, the radar book club. A deep explorationer of a single work. After the talk, she bounces on stage to jumpstart the q a. Less charlie rose and more carson daly. San francisco is consistently ranked as one of the most literate cities in the united states. Multiple Reading Events are happening every night of the year, competing against a big names like city arts and lectures. Radar was voted the winner of these San Francisco contest. After two decades of working for free, michelle is able to make radar her fulltime job. I am a right to myself, but i feel like my work in this world is eagerly to bring writers together and to produce literary events. If i was only doing my own work, i would not be happy. It is, like throwing a party or a dinner party. I can match that person with that person. It is really fun for me. Iis nerve wracking during the actual readings. I hope everyone is good. I hope the audience likes them. I hope everybody shows up. But everything works out. At the end of the reading, everyone is happy. Working for the city and county of San Francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change weve been on the edge after all were at the meeting of land and sea worldclass style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the citys Information Technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at San FranciscoGeneral Hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house Senate Regional wearout system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of San Francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the citys future but for considering a career with the city and county of San Francisco