So whatever the next meeting day is july 31st, that is two weeks from now. I could administratively dismiss it once i receive it. In the interim it is the hope that it would be dismissed. This is just a window of time okay. Is this a motion . Yes. We have mr. David would like to address the board. Sorry commissioners, when these cancellations come in, we do need to lift the suspension of the permit in order to cancel it. I cant cancel the permanent the permit. Is actually back in a reinstated state for like 30 seconds and then it is cancelled, just looked to let the permit holder look when we are in the middle of doing it. I can expedite the cancellation if i get a copy of the building permit, a cancellation form as early as tomorrow morning. It can be brought up through our finance people and then once i get it in my possession, i can go in. I would requested from mr. Rosenberg that i just let her know that we will let the system let the suspension cancel the project. That can happen before the end of this week. Thank you. We have a motion from president swig to continue this matter to july 31st so that we give time for the parties to cancel the permit. On that motion. [roll call] that motion carries 40. This concludes the hearing. We are done. Thank you. Good morning. The meeting will come to order. Welcome to the thursday, july 18th meeting. My name is supervisor gordan mar and im the chair of this committee. Im joined by supervisor aaron peskin, brown is running late and shell be with us in a few minutes. Thank you to this committees clerk, john carole and id like to thank kerwin cooley at sf gov tv for staffing this meeting. Yes, please ensure you silence your cellphones and speakers cards are part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. Items will appear on the july 30th, 2019 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you mr. Clerk. For item number one, since supervisor brown is a co sponsor, im going to hold off on that. Well call the items out of order. Mr. Clerk, can you please call item number 2. Clerk agenda item number 2 is a resolution regarding non renew of a historical property contract the owner of 960 market. Under chapter 71 of the administrative code notifying the assess Recordings Office and authorization the notice of the non renewal and record a notice of non renewal. As you may be aware theres a state law called the mills act, which we administer through charter 71, i think it is, of our administrative code. It is an incentive for Property Owners to invest in their Historic Properties and gives them property tax abatement for a rolling period of 10 years. During my second tour of duty on the board of supervisors, we granted one such contract to the old chronical building, it had since moved out. Today, it is a beautiful restored Historic Building with the Ritz Carleton residentses up above at the corner of market and kearney. They have received substantial tax benefits. The board of supervisors retains the ability to stop that tax relief at any time with a 10year notice. And insofar as they have now recouped their investment in that historical resource, i thought it correct and right that we terminate the mills act and recoup those dollars to the general fund. The Historic Preservation agreed with that and i believe ms. Fergusson is here on behalf of the Planning Department and the Historic Preservation commission and i will turn it over to her. Thank you, supervisor. Good morning, my name is sham on first thinfergusson. I have a resolution for non renewal of the mills act contract for 690 Market Street. The mills act contract for 690 Market Street was approved by the Planning Commission on marc. The board of supervisors approved it on november 18th, 2008 and it was recorded on the anniversary date of the contract in 2009. The ninestorey office tower originally constructed in 1889 to 90 and the a joining 16storey tower constructed in 1905 or subject the to the mills act contract. The eightstorey completed in 2007 is not subject to the mills act contract. Even though the Property Owner wanted it would be but we said no. The rehabilitation workout lined in the mills act contract has been completed and the maintenance workout lined in the contract is on going. As supervisor mentioned, the mills act legislation offers local government to qualified Historic Properties. Disagreement provides tax reductions to those properties who can allocate those savings towards Maintenance Plans to preserve the property. The city currently holds 37 active mills act contracts. So, under administrative codes chapter 71, the members act mils effective on the date it was recorded. It has a term of 10 years and one year is added to the term of the contract on the anniversary date, unless notice of non renewal is given. The mills act contract allows the Property Owner or the city to not renew the contract. Notice of non renewal must be served by either party before the annual renewal date. If notice is not served prior to the renewal date, one year will be automatically added to the term of the contract. If either Party Service notice of non renewal, the mills act will remain in effect for the balance of the period remaining since the last renewal. The Planning Department does recommend serving the notice of non renewal to the Property Owner of 690 Market Street. The mills act contract has provided an incentives for rehabilitation work and non renewal a chiefs a better value between the benefits to the Property Owner and the cost to the city. This concludes my presentation and im happy to answer any questions. Thank you ms. Fergusson. Just by a larger mills act context, some of these, particularly on a smaller residential scale, will completely be recouped in the 10year period. As a matter of policy, we should look at these 37 kilometres and deciding which ones we want to terminate and which should continue and that should be the policy of this body. Are there any members of the public who wish to testify on this item. You have two minutes. If you are developing a contract for Historical Buildings, and its for the benefit for both the Historical Building and the community, there shouldnt be no time limit period. There shouldnt be no deadline to renew it. If its a good contract to begin with, and an understanding to begin with, there should be no deadline and you are causing more confusion. In the end the owner is tied up with other business and the same response to conflicts with the deadline and that deadline is accidentally or inintentionly missed, the owner of the Historical Building loses protection. So there shouldnt be a deadline on the contract to begin with. Its a good program and its a good program for life. From generation to generation to generation. If theres an earthquake in the building it collapsed. You are making more work for yourself. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that wish to testify on this item . Good morning, supervisors, im going to speak entirely as a citizen today. Im here on another item but this caught my attention. Peter cohen. Ive been involved in neighborhood activism for a while. I think i remember this project and this is the Ritz Carleton time shares, right . Or whatever it is . And what was challenging at the time and i dont know if this is why the city is not renewing the mills act. This was pitched as a Housing Project and even then we had a housing supply need. The argument was this would be helpful to the Property Owner restoring the building because they were also going to be investing and creating more housing for our citys needs. Even though it was market rate housing, everyone knew it would be highend. There was a sense it was sort of an underlying logic in the city for going those tax dollars. When it was built as time share condos, a Ritz Carleton club, i dont think anybody was aware of that on the community side. It seemed a little bit kind of opportunityizing what should be a precious tool to incentivize Historic Preservation but the actual use of our Historic Structures in a way that has a public benefit. I dont know if thats how things played out for our electives but we were caught off guard about what was being proposed and hopefully the use of this mills act is essentially the city foregoing taxes will be actually used in a way that will really see the outcome of the building reuse having its greatest public benefit. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other Public Comments on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Any additional comments or questions for my colleagues . Id be happy to send this to the full board with positive recommendation. Great. Done. Welcome, supervisor brown. Why dont we go back to item number 1. Mr. Clerk, can you call that item. Clerk agenda item number one is ar ordinance amending the Building Code to wave specified fees for 100 affordable Housing Projects and accessory dwelling units projects for oneyear Pilot Program and affirming the Planning Departments determination under ceqa. Thank you. Well, first i wanted to thank mayor breed and her staff for her work on this legislation to wave Building Code fees for 100 Affordable Housing and also accessory dwelling units. Im proud to co sponsor this legislation along with supervisor brown. And i appreciate the opportunity for us to have brought this back to the j. A. O. Committee for a second hearing to consider some amendments and today im introducing throw amendments to this legislation. I want to change the date wait a minute. I dont know if you guys got this. Here is the deadline for you. So, i have three amendments that im introducing. First i would like to amend to change the retro activity date from february 26th, 2019, to june 1st, 2019. So that is a total length of the Pilot Program remains at about 15 months as originally contemplated and expected by d. B. I. Secondly, while i support the legislation waving building fees for 100 affordable Housing Projects, i would like to amend to include reporting requirements to understand who is benefiting from the fee waivers. This includes whether the a. D. U. Is a Single Family home or multiunit building. For the length of the time the applicant opened the property and whether they intend to representative the property. We would like to understand if applicants are individuals or large corporations and who own multiple Properties AcrossSan Francisco. As with any pilot, gathering and assessing data is vital to our decision to continue the program. Finally, i would like to amend to limit the eligible applicants of the fee waivers to singlefamily homes, multi unit buildings up to four units and not profit organizations. San francisco gives monetary incentives for a housing development, we need to ensure our dollars are truly meeting our housing needs. Since the launch of the a. D. U. Program, most the overwhelming majority of permits, a. D. U. Permits have been for multiunit buildings yet there are opportunities in my district and across the city to add density in increasing the housing supply in singlefamily homes or smaller Apartment Buildings. This waiver this fee waiver will incentivize a. D. U. Production where its been under developed. The fee waiver also insin ta vice victims who want to build a a. D. U. And are experiencing prohibitive barriers to entry. We should support everyday members in our community to stay in their homes, provide housing for their family members and create rental units for members of our community. Additional financial incentives would help immensely. What we do not want to do is to subsidize private developers for Real Estate Investors in large Apartment Buildings with an incentives, they do not need and can absolutely afford to pay themselves. The amendment is not perfect, my intention is to support homeowners and small Property Owners to create more housing and i look forward to seeing an increase in a. D. U. S and the results of the pilot so colleagues, i request that you accept my amendment. Supervisor brown. I really appreciate us having that conversation yesterday about raising the unit count. I know when you were looking at it, you were looking at if for singlefamily homes where the owner doesnt live there. And so, we talked about raising it to four. I have to say too, when i was out and about last night, i was looking at a lot of the buildings in my district and i was in another district too where a lot of the opportunities for a. D. U. S could be 10 and under. And i know thats where we look at our inclusionary and its a standard. I just thought, could we have this discussion about numbers and what that might mean today before we vote on this amendment . So, i am just saying, can we think about raising it to 1 10 . 10 units and under. We can have additional discussion now about the number of units in a building that would be eligible for the fee waiver. Its four units or in buildings of four units or less and theres an article from the chronicle that sparked my additional thinking about this from april 18th. New use for San Francisco garages and upscale apartments. This article highlights a Real Estate Investor that has added 12a. D. U. S to five different buildings. The one unit highlighted in the new a. D. U. The rent is 5,750 a month so its my strong feeling that for, again, for the Real Estate Investors who have been adding a. D. U. To large Apartment Buildings, they dont those are not the type of folks that really need a few thousand dollars fee waiver incentive to add a. D. U. S, i prefer to target the fee favor and really a public subsidy to expand a. D. U. S to Property Owners that really need that and it would help move the needle further on bringing more a. D. U. S on to the market . Well, i appreciate and i respect what you are saying. I think, a. , i talked to planning and district 5 has the most a. D. U. S and i asked them whats the average price. The average price in district 5 is about 2500 for a one bedroom for the a. D. U. S and a lot of them are in the larger Apartment Buildings, you are correction, absolutely. When you go out and look for an apartment in district 5, whether its an old victorian apartment, the a. D. U. At 2500 is between 1200 and 1500 less. So, they are affordable. Much more affordable and i read that article too and i think that was bernal heights, right. Where someone made a luxury a. D. U. Twobedroom a. D. U. And thats not the norm. That was something that was unusual. Almost all the a. D. U. S in my district, which has the most, and so im looking at the a. D. U. Numbers are one bedroom and studio apartments. And theyre not the luxury. People arent spending highend finishing on them and things like that. So theyre affordable apartments. Also, since seniors are our Fastest Growing population, these a. D. U. S without stairs, are really important to have. Ive been out and about in my district quite a lot lately and ive been talking to a lot of the seniors that live in apartments that are threestoreys up or twostoreys up and theyre flats and Apartment Building requests noso elevators and they would be happy to live in an a. D. U. On a ground floor. I just feel like were in a situation right now in the city that were really struggling to get housing and hopefully Affordable Housing. The a. D. U. S too, are also places where young couples or singles can go and its their first apartment or apartment that you can move into that is affordable. I just feel like, you know, at least bringing the number up a little bit to 10, so it would be 10 and under, its something that i think is really important to try to give us more Affordable Housing. Were always going to have the people that go in and take advantage of a situation and build that luxury a. D. U. In a very popular neighborhood and i think they were asking 5500 or Something Like that for it. I really also feel and i feel very strongly about this and i really appreciate that we find out, who is actually building and had that reporting. Who is building these a. D. U. S . I dont know. We all have speculations but we dont know. This reporting request, chair mar, is so important and i really want to thank you for that. Thank you. Supervisor peskin. So theres nothing in the packet that tells us how much the fees are being waved. Maybe we can hear from the b. L. A. And from d. B. U. As to how much these fees are. First of all, let me just say i completely concur on the 100 Affordable Housing. I do share the sentiment did not wave fees that pay for our inspecto