Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon. Supervisor cowen okay how is everybody doing. Good. Lets look alive were talking about land use transportation thank you, very much. So this the meeting will come to order the regular meeting of the sfauvengs im supervisor cowen the chair and supervisor wiener the vice chair and supervisor peskin and our clerk is andrea ashbury i want to thank jesse larson mark that are troifg via sfgovtv madam clerk, any announcements . Completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the may 3rd i 2016 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated thank you so much please call item one a planning code to modify the measurement of roof line no the c3 district colleagues weve heard and continued this i got a request from the sponsor to table this item before that open up for Public Comment. Item one. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed thank you so much all right. Id like to make a motion to table this. So moved. All right. Well take that without objection. Madam clerk are you with me call item 2. An ordance designating the0 to 92 steward Second Street as article 10. Supervisor kim is i imagined in route to speak to item number two but my name is to the Planning Department that will make a short presentation. Good afternoon. Shannon Department Staff im here to present the landmarking designation at 9092 an excellent the corner of steward the Historic Preservation commission at this for the program on may 12, 2012, in 20159 hpc initiated that and an excellent 2014 it was recommended to the landmark designation. The bureau net building was in 1903, 04 a salon an excellent the ground floor a small building and the offices of those an excellent the second story. It is local designation for the direct association what the kwaeshth and fire this disaster in San Francisco history this picture shows this engulfed in flames the burnett is a survivor of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake in the heart of burn district the building was the only smallscale commercial building in downtown San Francisco is survive in the downtown in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake the architecture is significant and one of the most prolific architects in the 20th century of San Francisco the storefront were alternated that has district for the association in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire no known neighborhood option the letter 2k5i9d 2015 from a trustee of the property is in favor that concludes my presentation. Ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you so much i dont think we have questions we want to commend bring up ms. April in the Supervisors Office to make a couple of remarks. Good afternoon, supervisors and land use transportation i wanted to speak on behalf of the supervisor kims office and thank the Planning Department and Shannon Ferguson and hpc for brought to your attention we support the left hand survive from the kwaesht o 1906 San Francisco earthquake in the Second StreetHistoric Preservation district. Thank you supervisor peskin. I want to say to the staff onto the Planning Department that the landmark designation case report was fascist read and a lot of 7, 8, 9 went into that i wanted to thank you and to the Historic Preservation commission for bringing that forward and thank you to supervisor kim and like to be a cosponsor. Open up for Public Comment anyone wish to comment an excellent item 2. All right. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed at this time thank you all right. Lets see is there a motion for this item all right. Motion by supervisor peskin and well take that without objection. That motion carries unanimously thank you now item number 3 madam clerk. Item 3 an ordinance with the two go prohibitions this is like da gentleman have you supervisor peskin. Thank you chair cohen and vice chair wiener for voting for this a wagon i nounlsz at the full board of supervisors on tuesday last there are some additional exemptions we failed to include in the original ordinance and those are included here in and i respectfully ask for your support to send 2 babe the full board as a Committee Report anyone wish to comment an excellent item 3 item 3 . Calvin will be speak an excellent item 3 no seeing none, Public Comment is closed all right. Is there a motion to move out of the committee as a report. Motion by supervisor wiener without objection thats the Committee Report. It passes unanimously all right. Madam clerk item 4 an ordinance for for the administrative code to increase the sustainability fees with the establishment of the advisory committee. Supervisor kim is the author and doesnt look like her office has any remarks anyone presenting. All right. Supervisor peskin. I dont care if deputy City Attorney kate stacy is here but we have a number of monthly technical amendments that are sitting before you the City Attorney can speak one additional one there are no through the chair to john gibner, deputy City Attorney is ms. Stacey joining us. John gibner, deputy City Attorney yes. I believe shes an excellent her way. Thats how we get things done. So there was one little typo that i noticed in rereading this over the weekend that is an excellent the findings at page 5 where oh, where did it go 67. 0 one 5 needs to be changed to a comma there she is i was stalling for 7, 8, 9 ms. Stacey sorry made that typo suggestion suggest to Public Comment and a number of additional changes on page 22 line 13 section 14415 insert the word income perimeters of the programs page 24, line 19 section 4 one 5 after Zoning District insert as they existed an excellent january 2016 and on page 26, line 17 the same words after Zoning District so is it read Zoning District as they existed an excellent january 12, 2016. On page 27 same section at the sentence notwithstanding it shall not pay a fee in the total amount greater than 33 percent of number of units constructed an excellent site from the same page after program add performances for the Small Sites Program on page 28 lines three and four add did sense such deadline maybe extend with the seeking of the validation of the citys litigation duration a litigation enforcement, if you will, on page 28 insert shall after deadlines such deadlines shall be extended and page 28 add the sinus the inclusionary housing some be the requirements contained in the projects approved and stick to page 35 line 7 unit supported by monies from the fund should be designated as housing affordable to delete qualifying protecting to moderated low income and insert the qualified households delete the word defined and in section 4 one 5 for no less than 45 years the same effect an excellent the later line 14 the principle project has been the demolition of selling the household at income levels for a income or price although, the thresholds for unit affordable to delete the word qualifying and inserted low income households ill keep reading the project sponsor replace a number of affordable units for a xhashld number of bedrooms delete 12 and insert 25 percent of all units constructed as part of the new subject should be affordable for slash middleincome households whatever is greater and page 27 as well all onsite united will be lower case affordable to low income household and insert low income household make is lower case a page 46 lines any adjustment insert the sentence any adjustment in the income should be commemorate for obligation for inclusionary housing is not reduce by a change of income levels and finally on page 26 line one jumping back and well hear about that at. This section will be revised to read notwithstanding provisions in subsections b two a, b, and c of section 4 one 5 proposing the buildings over one hundred and 80 feet as and so forth in the planning code except up to one hundred and thirty feet between the special use district within the height and bulk of the Building Height of one hundred and thirty feet and then at the end of that sentence add the sentence any buildings up to one hundred and thirty feet looked at within the special use district that allows the building shall comply with the provisions of subsection b and c of the section 445 for the periods so forth and those are the provisions that escalate depending on the year of one environmental application offsite are in lui of households. Do you have language for the last languages pertaining to the section youre reading. That is there. Question. Sure. Sure. Through the chair question to supervisor peskin the last one you read the last amendment you read supervisor peskin does that respond to the concerns that the Cathedral Hill association raised. Thats correct. Okay all right. Thank you very much for the introduction of many amendments i have a couple ill make after we take a vote and take Public Comment. All right. There anything else mr. Wiener okay question point of order shall i go ahead and make any amendments ill read them and well take Public Comment. Colleagues two amendments ive circulated to you and ill make an excellent the request of the supervisor farrell to changes to remove two changes the committee made the First Amendment an excellent lines 28 the fossils text will be removed any residential or predominantly mixed use development that as submit an environmental application after january 2016 and or june 6th him that replaces a nonconforming shall provide affordable units in the amount of 15. 5 percent of unit constructed onsite the Second Chance on page 28 and removes the last word of line 8 through 11 in section c the following text will be removed or for any Housing Development projects that other than june has entered into an agreement between the project sponsor and the city demonstrating the affordable units are not subject to costahawkins you should have that language lets go to p. M. Members of the public that want to speak an excellent item 4 as a courtesy remind you have 2 minutes. All right. Public comment is closed. Thank you very much i love it when the public engages. laughter . That was a joke okay. Okay yes supervisor peskin make and supervisor wiener and to supervisor kim and her staff and my staff sunny particularly to deputy City Attorney kate stacy and the members the community i want to thank you all i think weve heard done a remarkable fashion and look forward to hearing this matter at the full board of supervisors tomorrow. I want to acknowledge supervisor kims aids as well as my legislative aids and everyone has been truly remarkable in work this through supervisor wiener you have a few remarks. Yes. I actually have a question for the Planning Department so the legislation before us today putting aside the grandfathered projects that has been the discussions what should be grandfathered and under what circumstances this is in the transmission piece of legislation i mentioned at the hearing last year and other concerns has to do with with the fact we are setting a 25 percent inclusionary envelope level and not done a Feasibility Study or nexus study so my question do we know again putting aside the grandfathered projects only for future projects that well start 25 percent if not changed he know the board cant change those numbers at 25 percent the rate for the 25 or more units what will be the impacts an excellent the now of belowmarketrate affordable units produced in San Francisco will this legislation make more affordable units produced than the old rules were applied or a lower number. Good afternoon emery rogers Planning Department staff i dont think our office has the ability to project that into the future we have not seen the performa of the projects that will be coming forward but the Feasibility Study will help you to maximize production. The Feasibility Study didnt exempt correct. Correct. Were to vote an excellent the 25 percent 234r59 percentage four projects 25 or more without the Feasibility Study. Thats correct. Okay. So again without that Feasibility Study we dont know whether this legislation is going to lead to more affordable units fewer affordable units are no change. Thats correct it would be many things. I assume i believe we have a shared role of maximizing the number of affordable units created selfin San Francisco thats probable. Everyone spoke to that. How about Housing Production with all forms of housing do we know Planning Department know this legislation is going to lead to more housing created in San Francisco, less housing or no change. Certainly raising rates of inclusionary can result in the reduction of the an affordable units your producing for wlr units if there are projects that no longer pencil out that means no market rate housing and also no belowmarketrate because 25 of zero is zero. Projects an excellent the margin that pushes them into the feasibility give up their projects. Or if a 40 unit project is a 24 unit in order not subject to 25 percent that is fewer units of housing. Thats correct. Any projections any projections indicating that under this whether this legislation were seeing more housing produced or less or the same number amount of housing there the. Our department has not done the work the Housing Department did it spoke to the production of market rate and bmr under the charter. No Feasibility Study. Thats correct in Feasibility Study the xrol didnt have a Feasibility Study to it. He must not have my own of the mechanism the controller used is there a way to know what facts that will or wont have without knowing whether that makes certain kinds of projects feasible or infeasible. Thats the best way. Through a Feasibility Study. Which we dont have. Thats correct. Okay thank you very much. Youre welcome. All right. Actively im sorry one other questions are aware of any project in San Francisco that is 25 percent without some sort of up zoning. Were not aware of anything. Okay and thats you know okay. Thank you thats a telling answer. So colleagues, i supported prop c and continue to i endorse it, it is important to take the inclusionary percentage out of the charter and important to race the inclusionary rate when we putdown proximate cause an excellent the ballot i think lot of us were in the mindset that, yes, we should take it out of the charter and increase but do that in a way of actual analysis in terms of what is going to maximize the number of affordable units built in San Francisco and instead what we have a piece of legislation that simply sets the 25 percent with the blanket percentage for anything 25 units or more without diminishing between types of projects and a thirty unit or 8 hundred unit without distinguishing between parts of city where the economics are different in terms of how much lewd and none that have 3 is take into account thats the point of doing a Feasibility Study you get that kind of information and make a good judgment where you should have a onesizefitsall that end up been what the Feasibility Study shows or different ranges as far as i, tell no basis for choosing 25 percent over some other percentage whether it is thirty or 40 or 31 percent whatever the case again, we dont have a Feasibility Study and we wont i dont think for several more months we all want to maximize the number of affordable units not about the percentage it is the number of units we are producing and, of course, as mentioned zero percent or 25 percent is still zero is still zero in order to show were strong in affordable units has to be 50 percent affordable at 50 percent of the unit why not that or 35 percent or 32 or 75 percent we can that is but if it renders the projects infeasible with less housing few affordable units produced and so it really concerns me what we are seeing the fact that there didnt appear to be any projects that dont appear any projects in San Francisco that have hit 25 without up Zoning District can you see me concern this legislation can effecting be a de facto moratorium an excellent housing and thats the last thing