Govern everybody welcome to the San Francisco board of supervisors land use and transportation for monday, april 3, 2017, my name is mark farrell ill be chairing this our vice chair supervisor peskin as well as supervisor tang and joined by supervisor breed do i want to thank leo and jim smith from sfgovtv for covering this as well as eric schizophrenia and madam clerk, any announcements . Yes. Please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. Items acted upon today will appear on the april lovingly board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Okay. Thank you mr. Clerk a super long agenda of one item. Housing requirement and fee in divisadero and fillmore neighborhood commercial transits districts. As a result of Zoning District of divisadero commercial Transit District court. 0 integrity okay sponsored by supervisor president london breed so supervisor president london breed ill im going to turn it over to you. Thank you supervisor farrell good afternoon, supervisors and members of the public im glad to present this legislation to you today it will provide more homes for people along the dpris and Fillmore Fillmore street neighborhood commercial Transit District. Or nct that is a good thing for the neighborhood and for the city let me first make it clear before we get into the details of the legislation i want you to understand this legislation does one fundamentally critical thing it sets Affordable Housing requirement for Pipeline Projects in the fillmore and divisadero nct as at a higher standard that is required their taking advantage of the nct d controlled divisions that requires Pipeline Projects to provide 23 percent on site affordability or thirty percent offsite for unit that will include 6 percent for those at the 55 percent of ami, and thats basically a family of four making 59,000 a year up to 8 percent of the unit for one he 20 percent ami a family of for up to one and 29,000 a year and 9 percent up to one and 40 percent ami or one and 50 thousand for a family of four instead of the 13 or 14 percent onsite 2k3wr5irg9d in per prop p passed by the voter this legislation provides Affordable Housing for multiple levels of wage earners the former city law provided inclusionary housing at the 13 or 14 percent for percent of ami or less it is true this legislation im proposing today decreases the percentage of apartment or rezoned at the bottom of the call this fact has been the main point of contention that turns its back on the needs of citizens he contend were not thank you for the opportunity our back on anyone but trying to fully see the Housing Needs and trying to answer the need in the broadest and biggest way to help the kinds of families as possible find homes in San Francisco ill explain the reasoning behind that we know that the lowest income earns are in desperate needs of you housing those making less than 59,000 a year and expand into housing for those families fighting to get into the next level of income levels but your housing criticize is more complex than the lower income wage earners that are in the 55 percent of ami and below our hicks is not just as one data that the three exists wrenching and keeping the middleincome from affording housing it is families at nearly every level that feel that San Francisco is becoming a city of which we can no longer live a blast they cant afford thats why this protective opens of up the car share into 3 tiers seeking ways to keep the fantastic of San Francisco intact multiple funding the how are you trusting and the inlieu fees and the fees paid by Developers Anyone above the 55 percent of ami family again making over 59,000 a year a family of four dont qualify for those particular programs theres no help other than they earn too much money for a Government Program but not enough to live in the city those are people i grew up with in my neighborhood any friends who basically was displaced from the community who is a bus driver making over the 59 thousand a year with with two kids she tried to return to San Francisco and the development they was displaced from she made 600 to allow her to return to her home we know about the construction be workers the people that built this city and they make too much more Affordable Housing but not enough to afford the marketrate Housing Units that are being built my aspirin that works for the state and whose daughter is uplift out of the school because shell not afford the city and not qualify more Affordable Housing who is lieutenant for them building for them we talked about jurisdiction and the people moved out of the city but not a pipeline so those people can qualify and not to mention until my neighborhood legislation we had no way to give them a fighting chance of till assessing that Affordable Housing who is room 416 the halls of city hall advocating for them and illustrating for the interests of those people that continue to get pushed out of San Francisco protecting Affordable Housing is critically important i grew up in Public Housing and i know how important it was for my family the point is that so is making sure that there are other layers of affordability and were not funding it for or building is neither here nor there enough the best way to get it built to incorporated into privately inclusionary housing and that is exactly what that legislation does i miss my friends and communicated community and tired of this issue being used as a way to claim to do something that isnt i know we cant turn back the hands of time but start to get it right now i dont want to look back or the next jurisdiction and wonder who happened to my community and city the basic and narrow question today do we want all projects on divisadero and fillmore that use the nct for hire standards we feel the answer a unevolving yes, we should be maximize missing Affordable Housing in the neighborhood and now let me give a background of how this will work in 2012 voters passed prop c that set the inclusionary requirement in the charter at 12 be onsite and 20 percent offsite for a fee in 2014 i passed legislation creating made neighborhood commercial district on fillmore and divisadero in the summer of 2015 i passed the legislation to rise those to make them neighborhood commercial transit nct meaning residential sdenlt will be controlled by height and bulk instead of a lot ratio in terms of more Housing Units within the given Building Size without increasing height and without go increasing height with line of other intensity changes and the board of supervisors and Planning Commission supporting may be nct legislation unanimously the density decontrolled in nct help to create more affordable units at the total nuke of unit more Affordable Housing and cheaper marketrate housing without any height and bulk district increases for building respect ncts are a great first step but i want to increase the requirement of affordable units unfortunately, i received information that under prop c in 2012 that wasnt considered possible when i introduced the legislation but after careful consultation we increased the Affordable Housing under the strict controls of prop c in summer of 2015 he created higher inclusionary requirement for projects within the ncts that exercise the decontrol under the then operative nexus study i set the fee and at the highest level and the onsite under 20 percent within the neighborhood the board of supervisors then introduced what became 2016 prop c a Charter Amendment to undo 2012 prop c that is passed and the current citywide inclusionary rates are 33 percent for fee out or out site and 25 percent for onsite housing the residential prop c trailing legislation provided tiered grandfathering exemption for projects in the pipeline this means without my legislation the two counter projects in divisadero can move forward with only 13. 5 or 14 percent plus and not enough and ive always making mad made it clear i want want more and the Community Wants more thats exactly what many legislation schufz the legislation before you say in the Pipeline Projects to take advantage of the nct density decontrolled they should meet the 33 percent requirement i originally proposed in december of 2015 not get to use the control and benefit for projects not getting and density decontrolled i set the 23 percent inclusionary to break down a minimum of 6 percent of the unit to be important Affordable Housing earning up to 55 percent of area medium income, 8 percent of unit shall be affordable up to one and 20 percent of ami, and the 9 percent of unit to be affordable to households earning up to one and 40 percent ami this is geared more towards middleincome than other inclusionary housing policies have previously been and thats for a couple of reasons we are requiring onetenth of the unit in the project to be affordable compared to the law in 2012 prop c and even what is current law in 2016 prop c and two ive lived in the neighborhood my whole life and i think be far too many middleincome friends and families forced out by rising prices or even their own rising wages im committed to providing for opportunity it for them to find a home in their own Community Two projects in the pipeline right now an divisadero one at the 650 divisadero for 66 united and one at oak and divisadero 1922 quite a bit larger this legislation is the best way to insure this is a provide Affordable Housing for the broad range of residents using the nct zoning will hesitate 23 percent affordable rather than the 13 or 14 percent under the grandfathering and trailing legislation in prop c, 2016 to the additional 15 or 20 families that get an Affordable Housing unit that planes a lot because of preference legislation i pushed for 40 percent of unit will go to the resident of district 5 where theyll have a fighting chance of assessing the unit within their community that doesnt exist before the legislation thank you supervisors for you patience this is been a bit of a moving target since we introduced this before the Charter Amendment it changed the citywide standards do we want projects that use the density higher Affordable Housing standards or should they get lower grandfather rate my answer is more and ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. And thank you so much for your time but also i want to talk about an amendment but if there are questions im available to answer any questions first and then get into the details of that. Supervisor tang. Thank you for the author explanation commissioner london breed ive received emails i know you clarified it but anything you mentioned that fall within the nblths will have the percent onsite housing and would have been 13 percent if it had were it not for this legislation; correct . Yes. And two how many unit will those on the project sites. From the estimate aaron you, you might know the answer correct me if i am wrong the one on divisadero this project proposed 16 unit total and because of nct legislation the possibilities to build 66 unit as a result of this legislation there be be roughly 16 units onsite affordable units that are available this is basically a what this legislation does so the number of unit will be built will be the number of units that will be actually provided to the community as affordable units possibly. I dont know how far along the project at oak and yeah. I dont know yet. All right. Thank you. Supervisor peskin. Thank you chair farrell and through the chair to supervisor president london breed going through the history of this the 2012 prop c knocked down Affordable Housing by 20 percent so generally, the number we use is 15 percent Affordable Housing became 12 percent but in some cases like in about ncts there was actually a higher percentage to begin with so when we family fast forwarding to the grandfathering legislation actually, if i have this right might defer to Planning Department staff it was a 20 percent reduction from whatever the percentage was at the time that sounds muddy let me see if i can articulate that in the nlths there was actually a higher than 15 percent and higher than post 2012 prop c heroin 12 percent so the grandfathering took that take a look at it and in terms of i think that the grandfathering legislation depending on the year theirville evaluation was 1234i789d is higher than 13 and a half percent but. From my understanding and maybe can be explained by the Planning Department the range is 13 to 14 percent. The range is 13 to 14 percent if you were a the call back provisions the grandfathering legislation that attempted to capture the 2 hundred plus unit in the pipeline was not bans 12 percent but the percentage at the time and the ncts had a higher percentage of Affordable Housing required and the grandfathering acknowledged that. So i dont think there was a blanket all ncts 3 depend on the neighborhood and a specific. 3 favors of nktsd that had different percentages of Affordable Housing all of them higher than 12 percent is my recollection. I would have to go back and look at that i know that i think the mission did and then the missouri had higher inclusionary rates those were left in place those were on the development. It indeed happened in the case of 2015 up zoning that commissioner london breed conferred on divisadero. Yes. They conferred into the property but in the same time increase the inclusionary. So youre telling me that is the only nct that didnt end up with a higher inclusionary. Fillmore and divisadero not part of a neighborhood plan so in other words everything in the eastern neighborhoods we conferred up zoning and captured additional inclusionary when we up zoned planning doesnt recommend there be a recapture of Affordable Housing in that. No. And can i interrupt please and answer that two that of those a lot of the frustration from the nct in the first place because clearly when you are providing i believe is an incentive to allow for significantly higher number of units then, yes should be an additional requirement of Affordable Housing and under 2012 prop c a back and forth between the Planning Department and the City Attorneys Office we were told our office was told there was we couldnt do that we couldnt do that in the legislation specifically and so then later on there was you know again a lot of pressure if the community and we have continued through maintaining the conversations because regardless of whether or not we could do this in legislation the plan all along was do we we can to have the developer provide a higher percentage of unit onsite and probably have to negotiate that on a projecting basis that is upsetting and later on down the line this is when i introduced the 2015 legislation to do a higher than requirement thats why were here today and so you understand the frustration and the conversation miscommunication through the process. My recollection actually it is early on i think i just became a member of the board when you introduced the legislation to recapture some of the Affordable Housing i think i cosponsored that legislation if my memory serves me ill get a phone call from Dennis Herrera but nothing that prevented commissioner london breed from requiring higher inclusionary in an up zoning of those to ncts or the rezoning of those two ncts through the chair to john gibner, deputy city attorney. John gibner, deputy city attorney. You know, i cant get into the details of the conversation we had with the st. Josephs and the Planning Department but commissioner london breed introduced this ordinance before the second prop c passed which we drafted at her request but as supervisor president london breed said a lot of discussion moonts the participant what was possible to obtain the inclusionary to move forward with the 2016 that is substituted here. The absent the prop c this could have been done. Yeah. Okay in terms of it could be done at the time of the up zoning of the fillmore and divisadero ncts. Commissioner london breed introduced this before the second prop c so it could be done at the commissioner london breed said complications we were working out and the Planning Department to make sure that could make that. Your legal advice evolved over time. I cant say that i frank was not a party to those meetings so ill leave it at that. Thank you mr. Gibner i think for the purpose of conversation and maybe that is not important but i think that we should see these in the same way as we see the mission ncts that with the 2012 prop c were higher than 12 percent so. Do you know what those percentages were. 17 and 19 that sounds about right. I think 17 and 19 is what they are i think for the purpose of that conversation we should and so far as as it turned out jotting. More of it was also not trying to t