Skip to main content

tv   BOS Land Use Committee 4317  SFGTV  April 9, 2017 8:15pm-9:46pm PDT

8:15 pm
>> govern everybody welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and transportation for monday, april 3, 2017, my name is mark farrell i'll 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
8:16 pm
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 i'll i'm going to turn it over to you. >> thank you supervisor farrell good afternoon, supervisors and members of the public i'm 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
8:17 pm
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 that's 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
8:18 pm
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 i'm 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 we're 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
8:19 pm
and biggest way to help the kinds of families as possible find homes in san francisco i'll 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 middle-income 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
8:20 pm
blast they can't afford that's 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 in-lieu 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 don't qualify for those particular programs there's 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
8:21 pm
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 market-rate housing units that are being built my aspirin that works for the state and whose daughter is uplift out of the school because she'll 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
8:22 pm
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 we're 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
8:23 pm
communicated community and tired of this issue being used as a way to claim to do something that isn't i know we can't turn back the hands of time but start to get it right now i don't 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
8:24 pm
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
8:25 pm
decontrolled in nct help to create more affordable units at the total nuke of unit more affordable housing and cheaper market-rate 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 wasn't 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
8:26 pm
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
8:27 pm
i've always making mad made it clear i want want more and the community wants more that's 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
8:28 pm
and 40 percent ami this is geared more towards middle-income than other inclusionary housing policies have previously been and that's for a couple of reasons we are requiring one-tenth 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 i've lived in the neighborhood my whole life and i think be far too many middle-income friends and families forced out by rising prices or even their own rising wages i'm 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
8:29 pm
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 they'll have a fighting chance of assessing the unit within their community that doesn't exist before the legislation thank you supervisors for you patience this is been a bit of a moving
8:30 pm
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 i'll 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 i'm 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 i've received e-mails i know you clarified it but anything you mentioned that fall within the nblths will have the percent onsite housing and would
8:31 pm
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 don't know how far along the project at oak and -
8:32 pm
>> yeah. i don't 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
8:33 pm
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
8:34 pm
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 don't 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
8:35 pm
commissioner london breed conferred on divisadero. >> yes. they conferred into the property but in the same time increase the inclusionary. >> so you're telling me that is the only nct that didn't 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 doesn't 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
8:36 pm
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 attorney's office we were told our office was told there was we couldn't do that we couldn't 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
8:37 pm
the 2015 legislation to do a higher than requirement that's why we're 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 co-sponsored that legislation if my memory serves me i'll 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
8:38 pm
gibner, deputy city attorney. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. you know, i can't get into the details of the conversation we had with the st. joseph's 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
8:39 pm
department to make sure that could make that. >> your legal advice evolved over time. >> i can't say that i frank was not a party to those meetings so i'll 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 we're 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
8:40 pm
jotting. >> more of it was also not trying to throw the planning department under the bus but part of it was working with the planning department and trying to negotiate and figure out what we can do and get have not process i mean you know - so you know there were mistakes made clearly this is an effort to correct the mistake i think that's where we are now. >> one of the things that 1yu789d out at me let me see if i can find it supervisor peskin through the chair can you explain what you're trying to get at i mean, i understand it would have been better to have this done already during the time with an nct the betterment
8:41 pm
but we didn't i think i'm trying to understand what our suggesting is as it relates to - trying to look at this in the same way as some of the other ncts within the neighborhood plans and how that makes sense and what you're suggesting as a result of it. >> i think i'm getting at the stated contentions it a little bit this legislation they will be at 13 and a half percent one of the things that popped out at the me the sentence that said - if the board adopts the inclusionary housing that are higher than than section 48 the higher will apply at the bottom of page 9 a i'll make amendments
8:42 pm
to strike that. >> because let me just through the chair this at the time, we introduced it we knew there was a polk that there will be higher inclusionary raised the point is i don't want to keep on changing and changing but something defiant we'll make the amendment so we make it clear as a result of those are the requirement for those particular projects. >> rather than - because we're going as you may know at the board of supervisors make additional changes to the affordable housing requirements and i don't want to just keep on putting those ncts on hold this should have been done already and need to get this legislation forward this is the reason for those through the legislation.
8:43 pm
>> through the chair to supervisor president london breed are you saying you'll remove that sentence on page 9 a we're actually yes - specifically the amendments are to take 7 lines 8 and 9 package 9 lines 21 and 22 is so forth in the legislation this is a copy of the amendment. >> i'll look at those and through the chair to supervisor president london breed i'm not trying to be agree men active there are things going on here i'm happy to take them one at a time at a higher level we're having i think a large policy conversation as it relates to citywide affordable housing mixes that yourself and supervisor safai introduced and obviously supervisor kim and i
8:44 pm
have an feasibility version and can discuss the policy merits of that since 2002 when then supervisor leno passed i think unanimously the first inclusionary law section 415 of the planning code i believe at a time that was 12 percent for amis at 60 percent or less is my recollection of later on we had a san francisco area income and later on not able to calculate that we dropped it from 60 to 5 percent then up to 15 percent at 55 percent and then the 2012 prop c dropped to 12 percent or everybody took a 20 percent hair
8:45 pm
cut as we were coming out of the recession this is a fundamental change in the distribution and the mix of how and what ami levels the city provides affordable housing and i'm a little bit reticent to o to have a conversation i respectfully think this is a little bit of cart before the horse the large the citywide conversation of proper mix and that's a conversation that is had by the planning commission and presuming last night next month by the full board of supervisors but i'm reluctant to do it in a one of situation i respect and indeed i'm a co-sponsor of the original legislation to capture the up
8:46 pm
zoning value in more affordable housing we have seen mostly in
8:47 pm
district 6 but other areas is that where we have done ferreted the additional height we've been
8:48 pm
able to recapture significant amounts of affordable housing and we just saw it in the case of south van ness at the 25 percent so push a little bit to see. >> that's a much larger project. >> i think that was one and 40 unit so that may be but i'd like to get some analysis from staff or so some performas we can make that work at 25 percent and the large policy question about the mix i personally think that i've been consistent in saying this i'm hopefully, a resolution as to how we split the baby and i know that there is no question there is a need at all levels he except the luxury level that takes care of of itself but a
8:49 pm
large conversation first and have this kind of does conversation second for what that is worth. >> and supervisor peskin through the chair thank you for your input because i think that is really definitely the large conversation in terms of the split i think that part of my consistent push is what i've mentioned in my opening remarks i release we have and you in our history fight to make sure that you know the 55 or 60 percent of ami and below were included in those particular developments for onsite inclusionary but i think that part of my concern and we have this discussion about we're building in san francisco and the 50 percent of ami and below the comparison to the other categories of
8:50 pm
middle-income which is not middle-income in san francisco is not affordable to live here even with a family of four making over $60,000 a year or $60,000 a year like they're not qualifying for the affordable housing and more specifically as i mentioned the how are you trusting and the housing bond the nias all the layers that provide one hundred affordable housing projects in the case of you know the kennedy apartment in my district that was amazing 98 senior units most so for all one hundred affordable senior unit but the one person that gets a pension can't afford to live in san francisco a senior worked here at the department of health a few hundreds dollars
8:51 pm
over the requirement that's the problem for me and that's why from my perspective we need to start looking at a higher ami in the inclusionary housing because that is really the only way to fund this i know that is the bigger conversation we need to continue to have i appreciate your comments and your perspective around looking at the percentages and in this particular case i wish this was done should have been done not a lawyer and depend on doesn't and everyone to give us the best advise based on the tint of what we want to do i want more housing affordable housing and trying to sort of trying to push the limit on what we can do to maximize the affordable housing but also be more importantly want to make sure that we're viewing it so that the next layer of affordability it is so
8:52 pm
desperately needed so i'm open to suggestions or comments of ways to potentially looking at the 23 percent not certain what that means we are look at the nexus study and looked at it what we committed to when i introduced the legislation in 2013 what is a good mix and the area medium income of the neighborhood and what people are making and who are the people we're losing in the neighborhood 1922 mostly how we came up with the percentages of what can work to provide a real opportunity more affordable housing for you know just that layer of income levels that is missing because those are the people that who are again being displaced and so i appreciate that and happy to continue the conversation with the planning department and looking at the percentages you know i don't want to continue to
8:53 pm
delay this i want to make a decision but the right decision of what you know is the best thing for this particular case i do know we're having a larger conversation about this and but - i do appreciate your comments and feedback thank you. >> if i may mr. chair a few observation prop c of 2016 did two fundamental things number one, was - maybe i'll sound like a broken record the inclusionary percentages will never meant to be status things change cost of construction came back land values, sale prices it was never meant to be rigid the problem with the 2012 prop c was that it stuck it in the trunk no way for the legislative branch in
8:54 pm
communication with experts looking at numbers and what was maximum be feasible can change that the first thing it did took it out of charter had an unanimous vote to put 2 on the ballot and the second thing that said that until the board of supervisors acted it would be 15 percent at 55 percent of area medium income and then ladder on i think coming from the snapshot an additional 10 percent of area medium income up to that and, of course, we said subject to the feasibility analysis this is thanks to the controller and the technical advisory committee and outside experts that launched our conversation about the proper rate should be that's the conversation we'll have i think we're coming from the someplace
8:55 pm
we want to acknowledge and produce that middle-income housing but there is a vast difference between the pensioner you're talking about to have a few hundreds dollars over qualifying at the percent and taking the policy lead we're taking here of creating an entire layer at the one and 40 percent prop c as of 2016 was added we say hey we'll stick with the traditional rates by the end of my first tour of duty in 2008 had gone up to 55 percent and ladder on an additional 10 percent so i think we all are acknowledging that need i don't know i mean the fact that in this case we're turning that 15 percent that 55 to 6 percent at 55 and taking what is under prop c 10 percent at one and 20 and turning it
8:56 pm
into one hundred and 40 percent an analysis i'm interested in what you poke to supervisor president london breed about neighborhood incomes and i'd like to i haven't seen that data for this area but i think that that would be helpful if this data exists can be shared by planning with the committee pubically or i mean obviously any information it public information but like to see that data audience through the chair mr. starr do you have information handy for the area medium income of the neighborhood? >> unfortunately, your data didn't go by mcds so we have sort of the haight and then the western edition and overlap the divisadero is so the haight area medium income is one and 14
8:57 pm
thousand and little medium family income is one and 17 thousand but it is considerably less. >> can you repeat those for the haight and one and 14. >> one 14 and the one and 57, one and 8. >> i'm sorry the one and 14 for the households and one and 57 for the area medium income. >> and that includes the upper haight and yeah. the upper haight but to divisadero and captures the up to the panhandle. >> can't have that in the anymore immediate information. >> i don't have that. >> but how long will that information take to obtain. >> probable about a week i'll
8:58 pm
guess without having the data team here i don't tell you for sure. >> okay. >> the western edition is about to pop out. >> i can tell you a little bit about 9 data for example, with we did this thorough haight valley around the grocery store you know families protecting low income and a lot of seniors making if 11 to $24 a year next to the western edition in the same hear from hayes valley it was $83,000 a year in terms of afternoon area medium income households and for western edition is the area medium income is $47,000 and the memoranda family is 58.
8:59 pm
>> 58? >> yes. >> so for the western edition if you were to use the medium will be close to 55 percent of ami. >> for the western edition yeah. >> colleagues any further discussion right now okay. we'll move to public comment commissioner london breed appreciate the legislation here the efforts behind that anytime we're talking about assuring affordable and projects i'm supportive of that i think two things one you spoke about an amendment in our
9:00 pm
amendment one of my larger concerns generically if you change the goalposts on people i don't mind we have those policy discussions and a make that up front but changes the rules midstream run the risk of that pro bono process that developers think is discouraging for having more housing in san francisco i'm supportive of that amendment take that out to continue to kind of derisk the future for those individuals i think one question though i have about as we have the broader conversation and introduced the conversation and supervisor peskin introduced legislation now we're having a one of conversation a division to have one of discussions that will individual corridors or the other blanket conversation they go against each other i was thinking about that. >> thank you supervisor
9:01 pm
farrell fewer question the point this should have been done the goal was to try and a because we know there are two projects in particular we want to move forward we want to get them done and want the highest amount of affordable housing occupant as we can get the as a matter of fact in the case of 650 chris a project of 16 units was the larger unit more expensive with you know the 12 percent onsite affordable housing unions and the as a matter of fact they don't want to take advantage of the density increase for the nct legislation they can go back to project they're basically getting you know a huge - i mean this is changing a project from one amount of money to
9:02 pm
making something completely different and important that the give back the significant amount of affordable housing the maximum possible according to what is property as a matter of fact in those projects they knew that was happening and made adjustments to change their projects right away we we added the nct legislation and knew regardless of this legislation be required to do as much affordable housing onsite as those projects would provide and see this is i mean from my preservation owe get what our saying in terms of changing things we're at a point where i i get it i know you don't want to have the one of conversations it is important to move forward that we get going with should go that is definitive with the significant incentive their
9:03 pm
getting as a result of nct legislation. >> i appreciate that and i think this is a unique situation got caught in the middle of prop c i appreciate that and supervisor peskin to take it out of the charter i don't want the one of for the corridors will have a separate conversation despite the fact with differences on the board about the inclusionary requirements of the proposal front of the us i like we dictate it that way and from my perspective want to make sure that when we are going from my preservatives going forward and allowing this legislation to go through that we're acknowledging this is a bit of a one of to clean up the past and prop c having this discussion but hopefully as a board and body as a city and policy matter for pope people
9:04 pm
that are creating housing in the city we'll have a citywide and not continue to change the rules on people we want to create more chief administrative officer and go predictability whatever it may not be too high in the cost but create that level of predictability so with that, intention and so forth i appreciate the fact you've been working on this for years in our district and create more affordable housing for units here so with that, supervisor tang. >> thank you very much so just to clarify given the amendments being proposed for example, on page 7 deleting the language that says in the board adopts higher inclusionary housing the higher should apply at 23 percent it is higher than what you're saying it could have been which was 13 percent.
9:05 pm
>> 13 or 14. >> 13 or 14 without this legislation but for some reason citywide had a higher 2350b8g9d amount i want our requirement why you struck out or strike out this language. >> what was mention by the supervisor farrell i want these projects to move forward i don't want to keep on changing the rules in the middle of the game and this is legislation that should have happened before prop c was passed and a big part of holding off on trying to get it to have a clear understanding of prop c and a newer nexus study and figuring out what is the best method and how we create the maximum affordable units for the neighborhood they're impacting. >> i understand you know the rational for the two immediately
9:06 pm
pending projects but moving forward into the future and whatever reason the board ends up with a higher than 23 percent inclusionary rate that might occur strike 0ub9 will not allow for nothing with the fillmore and divisadero to qualify for a higher affordability rate is there any thought how you want to approach the future projects not with the two pending. >> mr. gibner that was mentioned as something that because we didn't want to keep on changing the legislation for those two particular corridors was of this should have already been legislation that had been passed and in complication with our office my understanding we were somehow this was recommended for us to do can you
9:07 pm
give me clarity on that. >> sure john gibner, deputy city attorney. so the ultimately whether to include that language this policy call for the committee and the board the board by a future ordinance could change the inclusionary levels that apply to the nct up and down in theory is in concert with the citywide inclusionary ordinance or not i understand that the when the ordnance was initially introduced the goal of this language was to insure that if prop c passed or post prop c legislation passed and the inclusionary levels were higher than proposed the - these projects will be subject to the higher level now the city has adopted the post prop c inclusionary levels in order to
9:08 pm
provide some certainty to the ground floor level of sobriety total projects the amendment will remove those inclusionary levels will automatically change. >> i i get it what supervisor tang is suggesting is there a way to make sure that future projects the requirement whenever requirement is the one especially, if it is higher the one that basically comes into play in those particular cases. >> yeah. if this is what you want to do leave this language in or could amend the future citywide inclusionary ordinance so is new hirer level applies to this corridor as well if you that's the choice you can
9:09 pm
make today or next for the board to. >> the concern they're pending projects we want those to move forward and there could be future projects that should follow suit under if possible a higher percentage of affordable units and they'll anticipate that, of course, and i think the goal is not to create a barrier with this particular legislation. >> right with the pending projects you reach a point after they pull the permit and rely on them we can't change the raise the inclusionary levels any future but in terms of future projects you can keep the ordinance as is that suggests for future projects the levels unite go up or address it in a future legislation. >> do you have a recommendation to specify any
9:10 pm
future projects or the way that the current legislation reads this could be pending projects as well. >> i think the best way to address that specifically if you're trying to capture the projects to include a grandfathering clause in this ordinance which will say any project that is submitted with an environmental application before x date say today - is subject to these levels any project that submit an application after this date is subject to those dates unless the board increases the citywide projects will be included in that level. >> that's basically, what i want to do for sure thanks.
9:11 pm
>> thank you supervisor tang. >> supervisor peskin you had a followup. >> i have a point of information that still commissioner london breed introduced this before what became the 2016 prop c was introduced so i want to keep the history right this is this was done completely before supervisor kim and i introduced the recommendation. >> i was saying that to mr. gibner. >> i'm not sure this may be a reservation after prop c passed but the substitute. >> may i have a motion through the chair to supervisor breed like i said earlier i don't know what the two projects are or what their status is i understand this is a 66 unit project in one of the two ncts
9:12 pm
but i don't know if they are where they are in the process whether they've applied or - >> the one on oak and divisadero i'm not sure where that is this is early but at divisadero is moving forward with the conditional use with the planning commission. >> okay. colleagues any further questions or comments or else there is some people i summary we have people in comment open up for public comment anyone feel free to line up on the screen side of the room. to come up if you want to speak line up against the far wall and everyone will have two minutes to make sure we get through everyone in a timely manner. >> mr. chair and supervisors thank you for the opportunity to speckle i'm my name is christian i'm an attorney in san francisco
9:13 pm
and a member of neighbors united my concern is i'm opposed to commissioner borden legislation simply because that delivers too much discretion and power to the developers that will result in the construction of more housing at a level that is beyond had me and many of my colleagues attorneys are able to afford in san francisco if we build more body cameras and rolls royce that will not affect the prices of some things we're talking about it will have more and more bent let me see and poeshz that will not transitional down to the level of people i work with and that's the end of my comments thank you
9:14 pm
very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm jen i'm a member of the neighbors united aids jen if you could pull that microphone down. >> i'm in district 5 and for about 9 years lived in them and want to say i really oppose this rate to developers and back to the drawing board multiple level housing is fine but don't steal affordable housing if low income people and give it to middle-income you steel it from developers that will be making money regardless so that's yeah. i just really have a question like why developers don't lose out in this field i them like this pits low and middle-income against each other and they compete for housing this is unconscionable what is happening in san francisco for
9:15 pm
many, many years and i just really want to reiterate the pockets of developers and market-rate housing we should be volley ball our citizens of san francisco over the profit be developers and basically is supervisor president london breed you promised united states the highest rate of affordable housing ever and i think that anything less than that and not acceptable >> hi, i'm renae i live in the you were sunset for 20 years i'm also a member of neighbors united i oppose this lastly version of legislation that as jan said was supposed to be the highest level
9:16 pm
of affordable units 6 percent is not feel like this is looking at 650 van ness that is two units because the new legislation is 6 percent at the 55 percent of ami and then the next level is one 20 and this is not middle-income that is high income this is a gateway to the developers please go back and look at the origin you know the preelection version of this legislation and either keep that or improve it thanks. >> good afternoon, supervisors supervisor president london breed, supervisor tang and supervisor cowen and supervisor farrell my name is rufus i'm speaking as an individual from midtown i grew up like supervisor president london breed i was in
9:17 pm
grew up in 1970 in the western edition divisadero i was living there i think you need to back to the drawing board and growing up up there i went by 650 divisadero and divisadero is changing ladies and gentlemen, and you need to back to the drawing board the developers in my opinion have having a field day with the board of supervisors and you know all the political vocabulary and changing the goalposts don't work so you need to back to the drawing board and be a xanax human being not as the board of supervisors one of our colleagues bragged by st. francis of assisi so if you brag about st. francis of assisi you should live by that you need to back to the drawing board and thank you for the opportunity to be here and have a good week.
9:18 pm
>> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is norman i've lived in coal valley for 20 years i'm a retired graernd and a member of neighbors united and here to on to the lastly give away to developers thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi my name is shannon i've been living in san francisco 12 years in the western edition well, i moved into the western edition 11 years ago and - our neighborhood is leading long term residents i i don't think this legislation does anything to address that concern i've seen over the past 6 years now neighborhoods one by one moving out of neighborhoods they come
9:19 pm
back to visit and stand on the corner to see glimmers of the community we used to have there this is now gone 0 i don't think that the proposed legislation community-based organization slightly far enough to address this issue and having worked with different organizations in the neighborhood looking at trying to provide services for low income people i can assure you, you there are plenty of low income people struggling to stay in the neighborhood they grew up in and depend on to live i hope you'll reconsider this and that's all i have to say. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> yes. hello i'm david wu born and raised in the haight in san francisco and wanted to state my opposition to the
9:20 pm
current legislation and largely see that as a give away to large developers there are a lot of campaign promises made last election regarding fighting for extremely high levels of affordable housing specifically for integrity district 5 that legislation flies in the face of this and we need stronger housing levels to be put in place that don't take away from groups fighting to stay in the city and take away from those that are already privileged or maybe privileged enough. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is laura please accepted this draishgd e back to the drawing board it cuts the inclusionary housing unit in and a half or raising the high level
9:21 pm
to 9 and 8 percent respectfully this is the statement of higher earns and on the with the 23 all of a sudden understood 77 percent that will be matters of and one and 40 percent means those homes are for people making above the 40 percent medium that is telling me one and 40 percent of persons for 8 house 200 and $50,000 a month but that you make 8250 you don't need a subsidy not what san franciscans voted for when we 2ku78gd prop u and most will not be family unit policy - in the city home sharing have enjoyed the profits displacing the long
9:22 pm
term renters and their profit margins are not questions when so-called affordable housing more than half the population has a bad policy calling it informational didn't a make it is we need homes but 0 what about 100 percent medium and gut the low end and call it affordable. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you supervisors my name is lisa i've lived in the panhandle for 3 decades a year and a half in december 2015 supervisor president london breed announced ore proposed legislation to increase the percentage of required affordable housing in new projects along the stretches of divisadero and fillmore at the stated quote most of all the
9:23 pm
history affordable housing ever in the city and county of san francisco that legislation was never finalized it's been missing ever since the press conference the original fillmore go legislation was written to increase the affordable housing requirement for developments that received a density increase due to rezoning again supervisor president london breed impacted this nct rezoning in july of 2015 the property legislation called for an increase from 12 percent to 23 percent almost double now it that the verse has created a new baseline 15 percent low income and 10 percent middle-income instead of the fundamental requirement the incarceration of that proposed will actually reduce the requirement from 15 percent to 6 percent if the intent of the legislation
9:24 pm
before you is to there the affordable unit this legislation is not it please vote against it and go back to the drawing board. >> thank >> my name is a tony robles, housing organizer with the senior & disability action collaborative. i'm very concerned about the reduction of the affordable requirements the folks that we serve at my organization the seniors and the people with disabilities got hit very, very harder nothing that slices and dies the affordability our folks among the poorest and the most in need are making like thirty percent of ami if not that i'll strongly suggest i'll urge you to go back and relook at this legislation thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> calvin i think the most
9:25 pm
accurate statement that is made so far was mistakes have been made i think your task is to not make any more the question of ami and making what is a regional number of ami applicable to real neighborhood is address supervisor president london breed and your own legislation you and supervisor tang legislation on the inclusionary zoning requirement that is good afternoon moe to cut to 20 percent no greater than 20 percent of market-rate any affordable bmr unit allowed in the language of inclusionary zoning ordinance your spoen not in this ordinances i wonder why you should pick up the language in 415 your and supervisor tang
9:26 pm
are having this legislation you good afternoon moe to analyze the actual affordable housing levels of the ami in the neighborhood and in no case allow to be 20 percent greater than or within 20 percent of market-rate and that includes allowing moe to lower the ami levels that is in the legislation you and supervisor tang are proposing to this board on inclusionary zoning district you should men, women, and children amend that go language into this legislation. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors dean i live between fillmore and divisadero and this has been a give away to developers from day one supervisor president london breed has only advocated for any affordability only have prefts from the community this has been missing in action for 15 months you notice not a chamber full of
9:27 pm
developers up here talking u talking about this is so painful they'll not be able to build of all the flowery it speeches in talking about affordability here and elsewhere known is talking about the profits for developers when supervisor president london breed chopped in half the housing for low-income folks and shift that over to household that make between one and one and 50 thousand their tripling the rent those folks will pay and the bottom line of the developers this is yet another give away supervisor president london breed rezones divisadero and fillmore to allow tripling and quadrupling the density without requiring go affordability it is nuisance to suggest that none knew you could increase the affordability nuisance as supervisor president london breed pick up the phone
9:28 pm
and talk to any advocate she'll be told as supervisor peskin referenced and in other neighborhood that 2012 prop c made clear that could be and should have been done this legislation was even worse the original legislation she introduced in 2015 let's get real affordable housing not those below-market-rate housing profit centers for developers thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors todd david on behalf of the housing coalition i that that data shows the last thirty years we've not built housing for middle-income people in san francisco and so you know, i do i totally support the sustainability i think that family teachers and working-class are having a hard time struggling staying in to so we totally support that there is
9:29 pm
a real effort to keep families and working-class in san francisco so we applaud you for that just a couple of concerns i want to raise supervisor farrell stated it well make sure we think about policies that we really try to get away from one of conversations i understand this particular policy has been in the works for a long time and so this is trowel a kind of unique situation but certainly bad for home creation in san francisco all levels of creation when not serving the marketplace we want to make sure that we have certainty that people stand and get financing to build housing there's a lot of moving parts to that we really want to make sure that certainty is there for as many as possible and one really kind of an open ended question
9:30 pm
with the nexus study as saying that was 23 percent is affordable rate i wonder what that is robust enough to support that number thank you very much appreciate it. >> next speaker, please. >> hello board of supervisors my name is hfa year and go to college and activist as someone that grew up here and loves san francisco and i think this bill threatens young people from accomplishing their dreams 40 percent of millennials instead of cutting affordable housing we need to expand is like supervisor president london breed promised as a hubby on the board of supervisors needs to
9:31 pm
2kr5ushgd and make us having feel welcomed and at home again, thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> laura clark i appreciate the spirit in which this legislation was put forward the intent to increase the amount of housing this is a worth geography by my understanding the increase of density will occur with or without the legislation that is conferred this project is being drawn as evidenced by the speakers into the debate we'll have going forward about what the made up of our inclusionary zoning will be and if we continue to pook the discussions on a casey understand this may have been planted inform a long time we five-hundred instability to our city hall we'll have a bloody murder of what the inclusionary zoning and the speakers have already getting a head start on
9:32 pm
that argument i don't want to see this project drown into the argument we need to move forward as quickly as possible and supervisor peskin said increases in allowingable density give us the ability for more subsidized affordable housing and any percentage and my made up of that percentage if we do up zoning we get for subsidized affordable housing it is 7, 8, 9 to get to work doing the real things that will have an impact up zoning the neighborhood and get rid of the institution of single-family homes that was designed to keep low income and minority out of neighborhoods see those are the things that have about a dramatic impact on the residents thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm clinton with town hill square over 20 years i want to
9:33 pm
clarify and understand exactly what we're doing this this how are you policy by antidote i feel we can have gone to an irish pub and had fun drawing the numbers with one thirty and one 10 and a bulls eye as a faicht you're the land use committee then he wonder do each the supervisors get a one of supervisor mark farrell may want a one of and supervisor peskin somewhere in his district none of us here are opposed to having the increased affordability especially the state density bonus in the nct with that said, i think it was at least one and year and a half we were promised a abrupt the housing abrupt is
9:34 pm
random numbers by an disposal evidence this is our affordability of make up for two projects that are going to change the basis of divisadero i'll suggest we hit pause on this supervisors the fact we're now discussing the weaken continental use is border line ludicrous that was not done but didn't mean we have to have nasty sausage and make up stuff i suggest we hit pause and have a comprehensive policy that makes sense and based on data and not stories and an dots who may or may not qualify for housing thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors be a long time will district 5 resident remember interesting is some 60 thousand units that have been improved lots of housing
9:35 pm
for the upper income people over one and 20 percent it is approved we don't have to rush anything through the car wash has one and 50 unit i don't remember exactly the numbers but 6 percent of one and 50 is a far cry if 15 percent we need more units for the people that are einstein below 55 and 60 percent ami and one and 20 percent don't need to jump up there we have one and 80 percent over our teetering for income for people of those incomes we don't need to submit more of that it is supposed to be about developers we want to have mixed income housing in the divisadero and fillmore not housing only for the rich that is part of what
9:36 pm
make liveable neighborhood not 100 percent affordable units in the bayview to help out the quote poor people that happen to be my friends and neighbors and getting evicted from our neighborhoods so what we need to do is look at the neighborhood amis we need to prepare reasonable policies that based on prop c and is applicable to citywide and get those numbers up for those specifics two specific sites at least to property levels you. >> okay. thank you any member of the public that would like to comment? number one, seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor president london breed. >> and thank you to the members of the public for coming out and providing some input i want to say i appreciate supervisor peskin and some of
9:37 pm
his comments that is as important to look at a little bit more data around area medium income and in the areas specifically we probably need more time and as supervisor tang suggested looking at grandfathering and making sure that future projects are not impacted and so just a little bit more work that needs to be done it appears that possibly boo before we move forward with the proposed amendment that we should maybe do a week continuance to give us time mr. starr you think that is property for the information i'm requesting. >> probably i honest i don't know how easy to get it data for the divisadero and fillmore district but i will doing everything we can within a week. >> okay. i also want to make
9:38 pm
sure that we have an idea or my colleagues on the land use committee have an idea of project in particular and why it is important to look at this in the particular way separately from the large conversation in the future so maybe a one week continuance before any amendment. >> okay supervisor president london breed is requesting a week for continuance. >> motion by supervisor tang and supervisor peskin. >> i'm happy to vote i was going to say that one of the comments that was raised earlier seemed to be worthy of considerations by the sponsor as it related to conforming to this legislation to the legislation that supervisor safai and commissioner london breed introduced as part of large
9:39 pm
conversation relative to i get it mohcd the ability to reduce the ami to maintain pricing that is below-market rate value in that neighborhood that might be something and along the same lines given what occurred and haight those two ncts might indeed benefit from different ami structures that comport with the surrounding neighborhoods that may be different from one another thought for this week and happy to vote for the continuance. >> okay i did have one question relative to the investing of this project on 650 presumably a number of things could happen the planning commission didn't have to hear this on thursday they grant conditional use that is subject to anything many board of supervisors chooses to do before
9:40 pm
that invests that's an affirmative need. >> from mr. mr. gibner. >> mr. gibner community-based on the record they may grant the conditional use authorization that the cu maybe appealable to the board the entire entitlement process has to sort of be completed before the project has any invested right. >> in terms of a building permit for issues. >> that includes as a first step going forward an appeal to the board or final cu approval. >> and the board can appeal to the board or the members of the public can appeal to the board. >> yes. the members of the public or 5 members of the board for a cu plan. >> okay so we have a motion by xhaupg
9:41 pm
and seconded by peskin madam clerk, is there any additional business to come before this body? >> there's no further business. >> all right. things everybody we're adjourned >> okay wednesday, march 20, 2016, everybody morning welcome to the admission giants sweep yeah. >> (clapping.) >> that is the third
9:42 pm
neighborhood that we've come in and done this program we're a doing 6 along missions and van ness we do extensive a cleaning and outreach and the cans which i'll talk about in a minute and also enforcement and so right now we have an enforcement as part of team and their all out doing outreach along this corridor as everybody's responsibilities and answering the questions and handing out a little newspaper with all the information in it as well but i really want to talk about yes, we can yes, we can is a pilot project that we're swedish up we started taking cans off the street we were told that keeps the streets
9:43 pm
clean we have cans on every corner and pilot that and measure that and see how it works at this time though i want to introduce our mayor former public works director mayor ed lee. >> (clapping.) >> all right. thank you eric. >> (clapping.) >> good morning, everybody. you know originally when i heard the phrase yes, we can i thought dpw was trying to cure cancer you know the men and women are dedicated dedicated to keeping our streets clean thank you finally and our police department, who is here as well keeping everybody safe and thing ecology and, of course, thank supervisor hillary ronen who right off the bat wants here streets clean that is worthy doing together so i'm really glad to be be her along
9:44 pm
phillip is about to explain our miracle mile along mission something we love in the mission district we want to keep clean keeping the city clean can't be the responsibility of our police department public works only about while they pick up the trash and don't a job it really is again keeping the streets clean and not trashing that it that in the first place so they come up and coin the phrase yes, we can with the emphasis on can to add 38 more trash cans along mission street supervisor i know you will appreciate that but more importantly it is about the education we need to do because why does trash let's itself on the street it didn't it is human beings that are leaving the trashes on the streets we should prevent that
9:45 pm
from happening that's why dpw wants me as the mayor and recotton as our 235ishd contractor and people in the neighborhood with architect and designers designing better streets request the supervisors to wshthd to educate the public let's leave the trash in the cans in the on the streets let's respect our neighborhood line the missions and the miracle mile coordinator and our businesses let's respect each other by putting trash where that belongs that is what yes, we can does and also the existing part the giants want to keep our streets clean that's why they entered into the program called the giants sweep and started their season i hope they sweep everybody in the baseball field but you hunter who is our, of course,ur

19 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on