Transcripts For SFGTV BOS 20240704

For staff thanksgiving meeting. Do you have announcements. Board of supervisors are convening hybrid meetings request public ment providing Remote Access and Public Comment via phone. Public comment taken on each item on this agenda. Those in person will speak first and move on to remote line. You will heart meeting but muted in listening mode. When your item of interest come up and public ment is called those in person line up to the right and those online press star 3. If you are on your phone remember to turn down your television and all listening device. You may submit comments to myself erika. Major sfgov. Org you may commit comments to our office at city hall the address is 1 dr. Carlton b. Goodlett place room 244, San Francisco, california 94102. Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the agenda of september 11 unless otherwise stated. Madam chair yoochl thank you very much. Call item one. Item one resolution authorizing the acceptance and recording of easement by the city and county of San Francisco from synoor for 410noor avenue in south San Francisco and no cost to the city and county and to authorize the director of the property to enter in amendments orring modifications to the grant this dont increase the obligations. Members withhold like to speak, now is your time to press star 3 to be added to the queue. Thank you. We have Kathy Whitener i think on teams . To present yes. Good afternoon. Chair melgar, vice chair preston and president supervisor peskin. Items question approval to accept and easement for a Property Owner developer. For construction of 3 Residential Structures at 410noor in south San Francisco. Development will contain 338 units of housing. The easement is necessary the project is located within the upon 70 decibel Community Level or contour for the San Francisco international airport. The south San Francisco city council over rhode the determination and imposed a condition of approval requiring the Property Owner grants an easement to the city and county and the airport. This easement grants the city the right in perch taoist aircraft throughout the air space boost property. To implode noise, sounds and other due to operation of aircraft and protectless the city from lawsuits brought by the current or future ordinance related to noise. The easement is any and all future lawsuits from Aircraft Operations over this residential development. Im joined by airport Property Management staff and together we are available to answer questions you might have. I will note there is no fiscal impact of grant thanksgiving ease am there is no budget analyst report. Thank you. Thank you. Good grab a word [inaudible]. Go to public ment on this nouchl madam clerk thank you, are there mechanics in the chamber that would like to peek on item one . We will move to remote call in line we are checking. Thank you. Public comment is now closed. Id like to make a motion we move this legislation forward with positive recommendation as a Committee Report. Im sorry. There is an amendment . No. Thank you on this motion supervisor supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. Thank you, please call item 2. Resolution renaming a segment of palo alto to la avanzada street. To the intersection with del brook avenue renaming segment of palo alto between the intersection with del brook avenue for those joining remote loam press star 3 to be added to the queue you will hear you have raised your hand. Thank you. Madam clerk. You may remember that a few months ago we had an appeal of project zero palo alto avenue. The issue here is like many things that happen in the city are records are imperfect. Our maps currently say palo alto avenue all official maps the street name on the street says laafter zadeh the street that goes to sutro tower in there is development that is proposed for this area in great confusion among the neighbors. Because the street names are not consistent. This is. This district 7 office trying to get that athlete repaved for i dont know want to tell you how many. 10 years. And we were able to do that. But we need to fix the name on the street map of the i dont think this is controversial. I think this is something this we need it get fixed. We have jason wong from Public Works Bureau street and map happening. On team usa. And he will share a few remarks and hopeful low we can pass this. Jason, are you with us . Hello. Yes. Hi. Jason wong bureau city and mapping. This change is put forth patho ato changing a few [inaudible]. La avanzada is connecting to the intersection at del brook and the other section renameed del brook as it has been by the neighbors. And all city agencies and a crew from all agencies and neighbors that would have responded. Okay. Thank you i appreciate the collaboration, jason. So with that, madam clerk lets go to Public Commentful please. Thank you, are there members that would like to speak on item 2 today . Seeing none. We are checking the remote line. Zero in the queue. Public comment on this is now closed. Id like to make a motion that we approve this and send it out with positive recommendation as a Committee Report of the on that motion supervisor supervisor peskin. Aye. Preston. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. Motion passes. Madam clerk, lets go to item 3. Item 3 an ordinance amending the planning, build pregnant fire codes to codify the waiver of awning replacement fees and sign fees applied for during may to wave for business 69s and new awning installations during the mother of may of 23 24 and the planning code, build and fire code waivers pertaining to street light and awning replace am on the installation awning fees key to permit applications. In may rather than issuance in may. For those joining person now is your time to press star 3 to be added to the queue. Thank you. Madam clerk. A we have bell here from supervisor engardios office to present. Thank you. Good afternoon chair melgar and vice chair preston and president supervisor peskin. Today a further amendment to the Small Business fee waiver legislation you heard and that has been enact in the law. Small business month takes place each year in may as part of an among long benefit the city waves plan check and inspection fees for Small Businesses to make store front modifications. The supervisor engardios earlier ordinance waived fees for new awning installation for may of this year and may of 2024. And the ordinance before you today would further expand the fee waivers to business signs. Just like the previous ordinance this fee waiver limited to may of 23 and may of 24. The fiscal impact of the fee waiver based on the department of building inspection projected to be less than 20 thousand dollars each year. We believe that the fiscal impact on dbi the message of support this sendses to our Small Business community would being significant and supervisor engardio hopes to make these permanent but intends to revisit next year after studying the numbers are dbi and reviewing the economic conscience at that time. We would appreciate the committees support in send thanksgiving file to the full board with a positive recommendation. Im available for questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Mrs. Bell. As i see no questions. Lets go to Public Comment. Madam clerk. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on item 3 . Seeing none well go to the remote line. Zero in the queue yoochl Public Comment on this item is closed. I would like to make a motion that we send this with positive recommendation as a mittee report. On this motion supervisor supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. You have 3 ayes. Sthk. Go to item 4. Item 4 supporting california bill 532 introduced by ascertain scott wiener enabling the bay area to raise fundses to prevent a medium term superstition operation budget short fall requiring transit safety and reliability. For those remote now press star 3 to be added to the queue. Thank you, madam clerk. I was under the impression this supervisor mandelman was going to be here himself to present . But i dont see him here. I also have that direct tumlin was going to and he is not here. Should we defer this item a bit . Okay. Im going to out of deference to my colleague supervisor mandelman defer this a bit. So lets go ahead and call items 5 and sick together. Please. 5 is an ordinance amending the planning code of Development Impact fees exception of inclusionary housing fees the type of rates applicable Development Impact fees exception of inclusionary housing determined at the time of project approval. And also amending the Building Code allow payment of Development Fees deposited in the citywide Affordable Housing fud and appropriate findings. Item 6, is an ordinance amending the planning code to modify the index fee of Development Impact fees exception of inclusionary housing fees. Thats not the right title. Apologies. Ordinance amending the planning code reduce inclusionary requirements of the planning code. Amongst other things on the fwntd and making appropriate findings those remote press star 3 to be added to the queue. Thank you, madam clerk. Supervisor supervisor peskin, would you like to share remarks . Im happy to share if you want to bounce back to 4 with mandelman i can delay those as you see fit madam chair. I would rather have your remarks because there are other folks in supervisor mandelmans party who are not yet here. Understood thank you. Thank you madam chair and supervisor preston. Of items 5 and 6 are a project that mayor breed and her staff and my office worked on together with the Controllers Office for depending how you look the last number of months since the Technical Advisory Committee was appointed and seat in the october of last year or how you want to look for a number of years. And i wanted to reminds ourselves and sorry fisound like a broken record; as i walk us through 25 years of compressed inclusionary housing policy history. When i first became a member of this board of supervisor in 2 where are 01 supervisor mark leno authored and the board passd and mayor brown signed San Francisco first inclusionary law requiring on site afford okay housing and Market Rate Developments or off site or payment in lieu for such and at that time it was a 10 afford at requirement and over time by the time i left the board, at the beginning of 2009 that number crept up to 15 . There were tweaks to what was 415 of the code now 315 of the code. And or then 315. Anyway. And then in 2012, the powerhouse that were at that the time made a decision to reduce that number. In the wake of now great recession. From 15 to 12 . Which was the right thing to do relative to fiscal feasibility and Economic Feasibility for new construction starts in San Francisco. But unfortunately, froze that number in the charter. The economy took off. San francisco account have built thousands of more affordable but were not cap europed the board of supervisors could not raise that rate in good times nor lower it in bad times in upon 20 upon 16, supervisor kim and myself brought that provision to the voters. A slim majority of the board on the 65 vote chose to put that before the voters and did it in a way that really addressed the previous 16 years of history which was rather than politically trying to figure out what the market would bear. We accompany it with an ordinance that said on every 3 year basis the our controller politically neutral party under go an Economic Feasibility study. And determine where feasibility was. And the voters of San Francisco they vote for that charter change. We under took our first technical advisory process. Controller rosenfield hired century urban. Put some program terse which was our incollusionary housing rates were lower then and there they should have been. And that went into political negotiation and horse triding and ended up with todays rates and our current scheme. And would revisit it 3 years later as supervisor kim and my legislation envisioned but there was an interruption called covid. Controller and i were clear this we were going to delay that process. Not the most important thing going on in 2020. And what we have before us is based on the Technical Advisory Committee process. New century urban study and an extensive cest negotiations that happened in parallel to the Advisory Committee process where in members of the Market Rate Development community. Affordable housing, office and Workforce Development. And her colleague ted conrad. As well as controller rosenfield can our ted eatingen i want to thank the participates in the months of discussion and really very, very careful and delineate negotiations that ended up with the 2 part package that you see today. Which i want to note not only gives a haircut based on this Economic Science to the inclusionary rates but guess further and does manage we are not done which is to also put that in the realm of fees associated with new housing start in San Francisco. Off the moment that we are in which is not unique to San Francisco by any means. Most not in within any legislation control. We dont control Interest Rates or the cost of construction and those are the major things that have impacted Housing Development in the state of california and beyond. But we do control a few things including the fees we charge inclusionary rates. And i think there was a profound and correct acknowledgment in those conversations by the Market Rate Development community. That inclusionary house suggest one of the tools that San Francisco enjoyd and should continue on enjoy to add to Affordable Housing stock. Unlike a few representatives of the constituents showed up to meetings who thought entirelyly not the views of the responsible market rate community. As much as we can making development feasible. Thats had this package represents today. We looked at our allios various projects. I want to be clear that this is going to turn the dial for projects that are in the pipeline and projects that have yet to come in the pipeline it is significant but not going to be enough for everybody because we dont control Interest Rates and dont control the prices of statistic and bricks. It is going to move the dime of think it sensdz an Important Message that San Francisco is serious about going after it. That we are serious about 82,000 units and 46,000 units. And 46,000 affordable units i remind people and i have a small. Few mall amendments including a finding that reminds us not just 2,000 unit its is 82, 0 fix. Under arena goals. That is how we got here. I want to thank my staff who has been important to the conversations. Ann. Ted. Sarah. Bhit neil jones. The peculiarage before you today lefts for 3 years and bargain another pandemic and city shut down, well revisit in 3 years. And there are a few changes the process in section 415 because one thing i did learn long it is way the way supervisor kim and i wrote that legislation originally was when the process ended the tax was disbanded. And this actually keeps the tax in place. Which does not mean that the authorities the mayor, and the board of supervisors cant make adjustments to members but does not sunset or recreated you dont Vice President to wait 3 months when somebody remembers that january of 26 reasonable doubt aroundful so that is in here as well. And the office of am economic and Workforce Development have words to share. I commends the 2 piece of legislation to you. And thank the Mayors Office for their cooperation and various parties from the Affordable Housing community and Market Rate Development community for getting you to this point. Thank you very much. President supervisor peskin. So we have ted conrad from office of Workforce Development. Who will present and we have kate on stand by in case there are questions. Thank you. Ted conread from Workforce Development. I will not take much time. A few thoughts to share. You know we look at the piece of legislation as a package the housing reform plan and feel these are important and complimentary piece of legislation. President supervisor peskin did an excellent job of summarizing the inclusionary housing legislation i will not reiterate that. Id like to am talk about the impact fee reform legislation. The other piece. This makes a number of changes the way the city collects Development Impact fee and makes surety structures are property for the current phase of the Economic Cycle we are in. Predictability. Transparency and stability to everyone involved. Upon the first thing does is changes the way the impact fierce ~esque litted. They are escalated by the annual Construction Cost inflation mate. Forward looking Construction Cost estimate published by capitol planning. And it is designed to be used for plan and budget. The Current Practice of using this index to escalate impact fees results in undo volatility and a lack of predictability in the process. Legislation would change it so they are ~esque litted by a flat 2 . This is designed for clarity to all parties. Additionally the legislation would make a change to when fee rates are assessed. So currently, fee rates the fee rates a project is subject to would escalate with approval and First Construction document. This would change that so the pee rates locked in at time of approval thissed provide certainty to a sponsor, city staff collecting sdpees spending fees what the fees of the project of pay would be. Thirdly, the legislation would reestablish the impact fee. Deferral program. 2010 and 2013 the city came oust great resection this program would allow projects defer 80 to 85 of impact fees from payment at First Construction to payment at first certificate of occupancy. It would again the fees paid before properties in buildings are leased up. Allowing that in the process it saves on if anies costs. Improves feasibility and stimulate more to move forward meeting the housing goals and economic recovery. I want to note as drafted it would not allow deferral of inclusionary housing fees they would be due at First Construction document. The legislation exempts a certain types of projects that are we think key job creation projects from paying impact fees the next 3 years. Refail pdr in pdr zones that need another criteria and hospitality projects. Those are hotel, barks restaurant and entertainment use in c2 and c3 zones. The project it is would pay no impact fees. If they break ground in the in next 3 years and the impetus is to incentivize those and move forward. Create jobs good blue calor job in San Francisco. I want to note an additional item an amendment we are exploring and like to continue with this mittee. Thats to have impact fees with change of use. The director of office of mall business brought to our attention that changes of use from one to another in the existing buildings. Not associated with new development triggering impact fees that are considerable and dissuading leasing business this is would be vacant space. Upon given the growing vacancy in San Francisco and all of the challenges associated with economic recovery we continuing is prudent to explore every avenue for e eliminating roadblocks from folk who is want to lose. We are work width City Attorney to draft that amendment. I would will request dubcasion of the file to come back when that amendment is drafted and can discuss incorporating it. Thank you for your time and consideration of the 2 important items today. Thank you. Very much mr. Conread. I neglected say one thing. Go ahead and then go to supervisor preston. I want to open about it which is inclusionary housing has been thol Affordable Housing production, it has not been the main source of Affordable Housing production. And i note that you know nobody is happy about reducing 20 our current inclusionary numbers. But part of this entire conversation this is not new orleanses to the board was predicated on working together to find traditional sources of Affordable Housing funds for construction of new Affordable Housing which is precisely yet capitol planning mittee recommendd and the board voted unanimously to change our Capital Planning bond schedule to bring ford an Affordable Housing bond in march and to increase size of it. By 50 to 300 million. Ip want to say that is part of this package. Although not before us today will be before us this fall as we undertake deliberations to put this on the march 2024 ballot. Thank you. President supervisor peskin. Supervisor preston. Thank you, chair melgar. And thank president supervisor peskin and the Controllers Office. And the inclusionary housing advisary committee and the Community Member who is have been a part of this conversation to date. I see this size a fair low significant policy shift. For us. At the city and one that i think certainly and warranties making surety public is aware and making sure we get the things right. I over all, i think i would like to get clarity, and i want to appreciate being briefed thanks to Deputy Director top why and the team for briefing on friday answered my questions about the package but i think in reading throughout controller feasibility upon analysis and the 2 items on the agenda i department to get more clarity. I dont know if they are questions more appropriate for the controller and mr. Eagan or someone in the Controllers Office or oewd. But do we i think my pndzing we have, ewd here and no one from the controller . Okay. So let me direct these to oewd. I first question is do we have a projection of how many new apartments we will see built with if the changes pass . Thank you. Supervisor. We have planning here they have done a bit of analysis on running numbers and i think that okay. Vil carly in up and answer that for you. Awaiting approval or entitlement for the projects approved, we payment that there are about 1 where are 1 project this is may be eligible near reductions that includes about 71 large projects or projects that have more than 25 units and about 30 small projects. This is about 11,000 unit in large buck and he 566 in the small project bucket. And then for the project this is have not yet approved that are under planning review, there are 52 citywide that could benefit from reduction. 29 large project and 23 mall projects. Totalling over upon 6,000 units. Those are units and projects that may be would be likely be eligible for the reductions . I think and we probe third degree a little on friday with the oewd team that is different from projecting with this change, how many new apartments well see. Right . As a result of this change. Which i understand to be on the cost i think president supervisor peskin talked about the benefits of the inclusionary housing and other requirements on fees. You know for the establishment i asuit other end of the scale is new unit fist this passes well get this we would not get if that did not pass. Yea this , data is all of our these other projects we have on our radar. So i thank you is our best estimate based on the information we have about approved project and the information about projects under review by planning. I think as ted andan are discussed this there are a number of other fact thats right may be influencing the feasibility of the Development Projects. You know Construction Costs and enter rates and we also anticipate that overnight next 3 years there will be additionaling submittals for residential or mixed use projects that questions of law foil for inclusionary this is mates based on what information we have about the projects that are in the planning realm. I dont think so. This may be a question more this is about modeling the economy impact that may be is more appropriately directed to the meist economists when you read the control and mr. Eagans analysis, i believe when than i say regardless of when you do with inclusionary rate. Drop 3, 5 or eliminate it entirely, that the projection you will not see new apartments. Fwhon terms of ownership and condo units that may be, right a case this may be this makes manage feasible that was not before temperature really wanted to have the give this opportunity fiintercept this wrong, i think it is important to have on the record. I think from where i sit and reviewed on the record the answer is, zero. The answer of with this change, how many additional Apartment Units are we going to see built as a result. I think the projection is zero. I can jump in. The taxan likewised different prototypes for development. And analyzed the feedsability of emrehabilitatal and ownership at a variety of sizes. Small infill up to high rise construction. Their findings were that for apartment types of projects the the inclusionary rate there is no on site rate result in i feasible apartment project given the other inputs that are assume in the Residential Projects today. For condo projects that was a different analysis they determined that rate between 12 and 16 may be feasible for mall condo projects. Ted oconnor from oewd. I want to add the analysis studies prototypes. Every project is differentful different neighborhood. Different parcel size. Difference we cant possibly study upper project control and consultant arrange prototypes meant to sdprieb broadly the university of development we see coming forward to planning. And i think well is variation within Development Projects. Help financial feasibility of project dps a single biggest lever that we as the city can fall with regards to financial feasibility of projects. Is there a projection to the extent some will move forward that otherwise would not here. Is there any projection of the lost revenue from the fee reductions . Thank you. I think there is too much uncertainty in all of the too many factors to consider to measure the affect on projects moving forward that impact fee reduction would have and used for revenue reduction there is no study oewd or the chief economist or Controllers Office on that is proposed is a reduction in Affordable Housing requirements and a long list of fees. Right . And the cost and benefit of doing that a can iing cant factor what are we projecting we will lose over all or a net gain over all. Does not team like there are projections when we are losing from reducing the fees. Is that right . I think that is a difficult question to answer. On the other side an affect that would stip lit projects to move forward. Can i if i can jump in. I dont think im trying to find out the studies have been doneful i will tell you machine who worked on balof on the measures we get a projection from mr. Eagan telling us the costs and how much tell bring in and the direct and indirect impact and we have legislation before us that will change and policy questions on around the wisdom it would seem like the i dont continuing is a complicated question of has the impact of how much is lost per 100 units. What is the reduction 3 reduction the sustainability fee. How many dollars are we taking out of muni. When bleen p may be a discussion and debate to things we gain that off set that. Manage we waysod friday. Luce when reducing the fee there is is no projections from the economists on what we are talking b. The Economic Impact of that. Is this manage in the works . Is this not. Are we going to see anything of that type i energy on this there are different types of legislation moving forward around fees and we gotta know when we are giving up if asked to vote to reduce fees on developers. The city Controller Office and the ted eagan Office Issued a report or made a determineification they did not need a report on Economic Impact. I would love to see per hundred units even in the presentation today what is a 3 reduction in the long list of fees. That are Significant Community benefits. Then we have an informed discussion of weighing those against the the benefits that i know the legislation is trying to make. Let mow ask a separate question. And turn it over to the chair. Seems like the one impact that is not speck welltive but is certain is there will be an impact on the cost of land once the inclusionary fees are dropped about 10 . And these other fees are reduced that increases the price that the value of this land where developer to sell it. Is this accurate and has that been projected on what that increase is . Yes. That is accurate. Looking at the tax report that was put together by century urban and directored by the city economist. There was in most of the cases there was no recylinderial land value in prototypes. Even at a believe at rate of zero. Meaning the economics now are so challenged due to high Construction Costs and enter rates that there would be no amount. No even for free the land was free the developments would not pencel. So i think you know this affect of had the land prieszs will be for development is is difficult to say. Il note this the iceland in the free, though and the reality is the developer is not the only player in this market. Dwh the city tries to acquire land for Affordable Housing we are paying 25 million depending on the site and those numbers will go up. So what we say in the report is that even with these inclusionary changes mark for identification projects are all of them will not pencil. There will be a market to sell to the one game that is developing and thats Affordable Housing. And00 autoonly certain impact of this is going to be to inflate that price. That is again no one factor is determine third degree is a thing that weighs on me as we analyze this. Thank you. Thank you very much. Supervisor preston. Id like to recognize supervisor safai who joined us. Welcome. Thank you, chair. I appreciate it. Thank you to supervisor supervisor peskin for the work put in. We put the tax in place a time ago he talked about. The idea is and i think in general terms i appreciate the liven questioning from supervisor preston at the end of the day, i think we can sit here all day and debate whether or not what the impact could be but no one debates we want to build more housing in the city. And i think from talking to engineers, architects, builders, Building Trades everyone understandses that projects are staff exclude there is a host of elements that go in this inputs t. It is cost of construction the cost labor. The cost of the fee and requirements that are imposed by the city as oewd said the biggest levers we very much another one is the transfer tax and impact fees some of which we will talk about today. All of those thing and is tell you pedestrian Retirement Fund over sees 33 billion dollars of our money our members money it is i major, major impediment to investment in San Francisco. This it is not made up. This is actual investors from all overnight world and in our city. It is an impedament we will do manage here. I want to like to duplicate the file we can finish this conversation. Part of the reason why is i think there is potentially an oversight by the group. Small are projects were left out. Thousands of them remained in the pipeline and local density bonus program. Cut the ribbon last friday. 200 units. That was financed 4 years ago i 34 more in my district in the pipeline and others in the city under the home sf program that will not go forward under the current economic climate relating to the inclusionary rates. We propose simple amendments today which would mirror the reduction on the percentage of reductions on the learninger projects. Both for home sf and for the 1024 units. So. There are thousands of mall are project in the pipeline the impact will be helpful to stimulate the economy. We mirror proposed. So. Happy to take questions but appreciate the committee moving those amendments for the duplicated file. And we can move on. Thank you supervisor safai. I like to remark on this item. I will ask everask to duplicate the file. And move the amendment. This you suggestd and continue to the call of the chair until it is red. After discussion. By everyone. I will say, that you know we had a process for this. We had a committee that had appointments by the Mayors Office and by us. We voted on the folks that served on this committee. And there was a long process which people looked at the numbers. And i do see similarities in the effort with when we went through on the budget with a childcare. Tax. That was proposed by Mayors Office of incentive for leasing. That you know like this tiny reduction, half a on commercial tax. Incentivize up n. That insubstance we did not have a committee. There was not there was one memo done by teddy yen. No discussion or vetting. And i think this was a fairly robust effort based on 96 us study we had done a few times. Not the first time weer looking at the concepts. I do think that there is also a big difference in this when you say things dont pencel identity t. Is a point in time. Where as buildings last for a very long time and veteran an economic value that can be captured over that time in terms of rent. May not pencel out the day you get the severalty occupancy. When the market changes 6 months after or a year after that, it it is a very different picture. Not a static thing it changes over time. There are things that are are changing. Like the supply chain issues we are experiencing. The cost of labor that we are there is a lot of things that are involved in a pro forma. So i donning that this proposal i adopt to thank president supervisor peskin for all of the time and effort. That he put in it and the folks at oewd. I do think and i will say this strategy low housing the lack of Affordable Housing is the number one issue. Of in san frap. We need housing. We need housingal out income levels market rate and we need Affordable Housing. More than half of the obligation we have under our arena is Affordable Housing. I think to just finance through fees new development is not the right thing to do. We cannot put our egg in that basket. Then is it will fluctuate because of the market. So what we have seen throughout the history is that when we have budget deficits you want to invest in infrastructure the government must invest in when the market cannot. I think we need to find other source of financing. President supervisor peskin talked about the upon bond. We can do many other things and i will encourage us as a body to do those things to do make every effort. And i want to thank supervisor preston for efforts on prop i. Because i think that we need everything to go forward. To finance Affordable Housing the way that we need it and need production. I will punishment this item. Because i do think this folks have put effort temperature is a temp refer 3 year thing. I hope this advocates are mobile iegz to make sure that we have Going Forward a robust way to finance noordable Housing Production and support every effort we can to make sure there is funding available. I would add that you know the Affordable Housing units produced through inclusionary are one bandful like a fairly band. What is needed. I than we need a lot of units below that band. We need deeply affordable low Income Housing for seniors. We have an operating subsidy for Senior Housing that has not been refinanced since it started need what we need lots below this inclusionary band. Sxf then we than between the highest band 120 of ami and that the market produces in many neighborhoods about 170 there is a missing middle. For that i think we really need to produce financing and also redouble efforts to produce it we are not. So i this afternooning there is still more w to do. I think them this will will have an impact oog although we cant quantify how much. That does not mean we had not work hard on the financing. On the bond in marijuana and on the regional efforts. And also the state the state is you know has pushed us to produce a Housing Element. That complies with the policy of the state. But has not made funding available in the way we need them to. Than i have a California Housing Finance Authority this needs to help all jurisdictions that are compliant. We have not seen those effort in the way we need tochlt those are might have comments. Thank you. I will recognize president supervisor peskin first and then supervisor safai. Thank you. Thank you chair melgar and before you duplicate. We have a number of small nonsubstantive amendments. To the findings. I referenced on page 3 lines sxen 8 retriggering the number of affordable units to pre reflect what the upon Plaque Commission discussed on page 4 line 10. Amendments reflecting that the controller submitted the tax report. Which was not the case had this legislation was drafted. Thank you Audrey Pierson for drafting this thing and for the amendments. Page 16, line 14, amendments to the numbering of Fourth Amendment at page 13, line 7. To correct section 415. 51 b 1. And that correction is made along with some font and formatting changes. I would like to move those amendments before you duplicate the file after we hear from the public. Thank you again, ms. Pierson. Thank you president supervisor peskin. Supervisor safai. I can wait until after. With this in dam clerk lets go to Public Comment. Please. Thank you. Are there members that would like to peek on item 5 and 6 now is your time to lineup. Those joining remote press star 3 to be added to the queue. You will have 2 minutes to speak. Everyone. Im Cameron Robbins with the San Francisco construction and Building Trades and i business rep for operating engineers local 3 i stand with wlgd trade council and urge support for this item. We appreciate the spirit of compromise and focus on moving already entitled projects forward. There will boost our economic recovery and good create opportunities in the trade and thank you for this opportunity. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors. Charlie with Community Housing organization. This legislation proposed a dramatic drop in Affordable Housing inclusionary fees at a time had arein after Affordable Housing requires the city to produce 46,000 units of Affordable Housing by 2031ful according to mohcd there is 900 be million in funding gaps. And local funding gap 1. 3 and 2. 4 billion per year the next 8 years. Local funding is kohl volatile one Time Allocation most dryingum. We have not sufficient real prepared for the next 8 years of the cycle and 2031 is not so distant future. Requiring that we match the scale of public investments with the goals we adopted as a city. Need it create new tools. Ramp up investments and credit a system not over reline on market rate housing. We urge the board to move this forward only when well is a greater certainty that we have put in accomplice a funding transgender advances our goals. In addition, this ordinance does not offer the policy levers that are needed to aline with fair housing goal not guilties element to address the needs of geographies. We cause of action about sympathying this ordinance as is without steps to bring in greater Affordable Housing resources and to address the needs as we try to solve the puzzle we will take steps become from, chiefing affordant goals. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I feel like im wasting my time here because i think last year or this year at that time supervisor preston on tv i think he said 40,000 or 50,000 empty houses unit in San Francisco and he was saying we should use those houses. Thats when i advocate for. We dont need 2,000 house Affordable Housing. Whatever it is called 100,000 they cannot believe it. I calculated at Planning Commission [inaudible] do with the housing situationch and i said make 40 then and there more in the mission were part time jobs. Come to 1819 thousand dollars a year. People that work that 40 hours come to about 40,000 a year. Okay. They will not go to afford the housing i dont care you call it Affordable Housing affordable who. 300 million here contributing to your oafses to whatever. Campaigns and try to bring it here when i in to the meet and hear nothing but gentifiying San Francisco. Making it a paris and a rome. Where are they going to live. Most are per time. [inaudible] latino families want this [inaudible] they work [inaudible] if than i afford the preschool. Thank you for sharing your comments. Welcome former supervisor avalos. Council of Community Housing organizations. Supports this legislation in concept. We believe that unlook development there would need to adjustments. This is one way one variable that could be created. I appreciate the comments that were made by a mechanic about when are we losing or gain nothing this . I think the numbers are important. We believe that the passage of this legislation should be conditioned. Off set the loss of inclusionary housing or Development Fees. We think that is right and should be certainty about when that is. At least before the board. We have huge goals to satisfy 46, 598 units that have to be build. Every one unit, two affordable units. Is our system set up to do that . The state provides no resources to make that happen that forces to create our own resource. We need look under every cushion and make new cushion and couches to find the revenue. I encourage you to not pass this forward until we have a certainty in hand for that. Thank you very much. Thank you for sharing your comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors eric, representing our city San Francisco local grass roots organization. I have to concur with previous speakers that especially with inclusionary housing, when we have already been only producing 12 for decades; i hear the author of the second peeves legislation and a point taken that this is not the inclusionary housing fees are not a major driver. But creating it is per spepgz and opportunity for you big players to just spends less of Energy Building Affordable Housing is a difficult swallow for housing justice folks. And i also concur we need have fund nothing accomplice for are Affordable Housing. And reminds within a year we will have a small public bank and after that a large public bank. And that is where we get the money for the stuff without letting Big Developers off the hook for had they are responsible for. And i want to repeat it was said boy the chair, that we need more market rate housing. No, we dont. We have 150 . What we need for market rate housing we need that is the left thing we need more of. I would concur make sure there is superior fund to get Affordable Housing we actually need before we move in both piece of legislation forward. Thanks. Thank you. Are there other members to peek on 5 and 6 today. We will move to remote 25 listeners 47 in the queue. Good upon afternoon supervisors jake price on behalf Housing Action call nothing support of both items. I want to thank the urban team, tax members and city officials and staffs. For the thoughtful and collaborative work this went on throughout this process. We believe inspect improving the financial feasibility and predictability around Housing Developments in the city gifrn the realities facing the market and the 2 piece of legislation improve both of those. Than i dont solve all the issues, they are a significant step forward. We believe in following the map when setting inclusionary and impact fee rates andment as much as possible. While ensure feasibility of projects. And as supervisor preston note this is is the in the only change needed to make housing feasible. In addition we look forward to working on additional ways to improve feasibility and working toward generating income streams. We can build the need housing as all levels. Thank you very much. This is edrias iron works 377. I stand with the council and urge passport for 5 and 6. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Rudy gonzalez with Building Trades council. In the city of San Francisco. Thank president supervisor peskin and the staff involved in controlling supervisor safai somebody involve instead last negotiations i appreciate how the spirit of compromise is more than a sentiment it important al at all stake holders and departments and average. When we are talking about unlook a time line where we have entitled and feasible project this is cannot beirut weight not for a principled standpoint because you know only 6 of our high earning members can afford to pay rent in the city. We feel that pressure but unlook the different rate and different financing and just surgically address that dial. If we do that now and meet the moment we are in we can alleviate this crisis not on behalf of people america progress i mean people america their live limood and if than i can afford to pay for health care. We have 1100 members in the city who are out of work for 21 2, 3 years now with tense of thousands of units. Im jessy bloat. Im on the tax and have been since inception and proud to be i part of the group that recommended nkszing the inclusionary levels 5 years ago. Had men months of discussion from all sides of the issue and consultants. And unanimous in recommending to the board and recommendations to electric at reduction in inclusionary and look at tools like fees the way to purpipeline which is stuck. I work the founder of investment fwroup and build as much housing as anybody. Market rate and a thousand units under construction we financed before enter rates went up and another 1800 in the pipe line in San Francisco this will make a huge difference to the ability to move forward with the unit and it it is really crucial we do. Mented thank supervisor supervisor peskin, majors office and the participates including peter cohen. And [inaudible] and ted for the hard work in coming up with this compromise. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. This is go ahead. This is adam from d6. I think calling in definitely support this. You know knowing like supervisor preston said you want transparency and important to remember that if nothing happens zer over of zero is still zero. Going to what supervisor melgar said electric Affordable Housing can the number one issue. Housing over all. Comment i would mic make is love to see a sort of amendments ensure no one who violation of planning code or Building Code can take advantage. I think this is manage this is more to us here and d6 we have a site that was a pdr site that was illegal low remodeled into an office in violation of local zoning and prospect s. No permits pulled, nothing. And 3 years after the complaints planning is looking into it. But planning has so for declined to enforce it because they said this president supervisor peskins office is considering retroactive legislation for this one site to legalize it. I think if we allow im sure supervisor peskin has reasons but if we allow one like this to happen with bad actors. We are going to dig ourselves in a deeper hole. We need to make sure this this only, ploys to projects that follow plans and entitled. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your comments. Next speaker, please. When is this guy talking about in next speaker, please. Hello pat calling from d 9 and im calling against this proposed measure. You know right mou as other callers e louded we need 46,000 units of Affordable Housing by 2031ful and it makes no sense to cut in the requirements. Whf they build market rate housing and foordzable housing they have to build and makes no sense to lessen the impact fees for Public Transportation and you know be real Affordable Market Rate how doing built now is because there is higher enter rates. To try to tax thel problem by lowering the amount Affordable Housing developers are poseed build it makes no sense. Keep the requirements because you know the city is losing the working class. It is so expense testify live here. Only way well if i can that problem is building more Affordable Housing not less. We need get the 46,000 units in the next 8 years it is not the time to cut inclusionary rates. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your comments. Next speaker, please. Im rj ferrari im am i on in hello proceed. Thank you for letting me speak im a local 38 representative stand with build and Construction Trades i thank the Mayors Office and supervisor supervisor peskin. Thank you. Im peter lange a Business Manager [inaudible] local 40. We stand with the building and Construction Trade council in support of items 5 and 6. Appreciate the focus on moving them entitled for. We believe this will boost our economic recovery and good career opportunity. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello you are on the line. Hello. Hello, caller. Can you hear me. Yes. Yes. This is local 26 representative over 5500 members urge you to all of the and items 5 and 6. A lot of work for our members. We should pass it now and a lot of the [inaudible] entitled to thank you. Im gwen in district one serious occurrence over it expressed we need more afford annual house nothing San Francisco. We need bee dopely affordable we have thousands over 40,000 empty market rate u firsts in the city there is no electric there. There is a lack of true Affordable Housing for working people in the city and thats why it does in the make thens this legislation is trying to reduce impact fees. And00ue know reduce funding for the Affordable Housing everyone is in agreement we deeply need to solve the housing crisis. Please. Dont decrease the fees. And fight for the wing class and Affordable Housing in the city. We have 27 listeners with 7 in the queue. Hello. Im mary miles perform im here to say that 5 and 6 are shocking and grotesque give away. Discipline Market Rate Development interests. Totally inappropriate. It is totally exclusionary of people of ordinary means there are no Affordable Rentals built as mr. Preston pointed out. The Housing Element is not new t. Has been around for 40 years the board supervisors is very well inform body the requirements. And yet it is now snivelling the state is in the funding the hougz. You need to keep the inclusionary requirements in place as well as the necessary Development Fees that provide for the amenities of open space. Transportation and so on that are needed by people who live in the city. Other than the wealth that he you are catering to with the proposals. Thus, i strongly to urge you to vote down 5 and 6 and increase the inclusionary requirement to 20 . Which is about still not enough. Cant public low build the 46,000 units by 2030 you need to build to meet the state Housing Element. Law. You do need to get with t. On the Affordable Housing. We dont need anymore market rate housing. Fwhoo ed affordable how doing. Thank you. Thank you im john a representative local 38. Stand with the san fran building trade and support of both items 5 and 6. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your comments. Next speaker, please. Let me make it very clear. We need tow do a Needs Assessment on the thousands of rentals we lost in the past. Academy of arts. You cannot build it. To help create housing for all levels. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your comments. Next speaker, please. Supervisors this is [inaudible] affordable advocate for seniors and others on if i canned incomes i urge you not to reduce rbi collusionary housing requirements at this time. This would reduce a significant supply of fordable house when we need it the most. First it is generally agreed inclusionary needs of residential belling slow down. And even a total removal will not miraculously move construction out of the pipeline. Actually t is not the cost. Developers are witting for the determine workers will pay the high price market rate housing. The affordable units not be built because of this legislation could run in the thousands. Homes people are desperate. You should bodies more and at the same time, adjusting the ami levels down to match actual real needs. And meanwhile to suggest a commitment to local bond we make up for the loss of the units. The passage of such a bond issue is not a sure thing and if it were, property tax situation will not allow the measure to be low enough to cover the losses. The best way forward is to keep our requirements at present levels and propose a bond issue in addition for great amount as possible. And there is another issue this is equity and he equality. The intention in the word inclusionary. This is in of the San Francisco value and goals for people different economic levels to share the same building. So the balanceful your time is lapsed. We have 16 listeners with 3 in the queue. Next speaker, please. Peter with the Mission Economic development agency. We support this set of provisions and continuing is the right direction to go now. As an over all the package, we would also ask the supervisors to continue think burglar the short term sunset like i year time line. Something that would give us an opportunity to get the pipeline move and things rolling and give us i chance to think things through and a discussion in light of state stream lining bills which have and will continue to appears over ride most of overhaul Community Stabilization and affirmtive furthering fair housing framework in our Housing Element and local plans. So we think that inclusionary or some other strategy being be a few remaining tools availability under the law soon. In order to ensure we are maintaining the distribution of housing strategy. So we would hope we can finds a method such as a short term sunset or other strategies together. And we look forward to those conversations. Thank you. Thank you. Im a business representative for mroel 16. I wanted mirror what the rest of the building and Construction Trades councils affiliates have said. We are in support of 5 and 6 on the agenda. We got a lot of members out of work and they need to pay their mortgage and we are look for example ways to get them back to work. Any move forward is good to us. So, thank you. Thank you for sharing your comments. Next speaker, please. Good upon afternoon supervisors zack with Young Community developers in d telephone the city tasked with building [inaudible] over 8 years the organization focussed on identifying tools that would help ator the patterns of development we have seen the last decade it is. 85 of new housing built since 05 is in the central parts of the city so many amission became dog patch will mission and tenderloin. We see this legislation the left tools to incentivize develop exerts move to affluent communities. We will be the 1s to produce house and develop a plan to distribute new housing. Hope to be discussion using an equity 11s implementing lower rate in thes highest resourced neighborhoodses and equity jog fees. Incentivize development retaining affordability and mitigation and jog fees the bayview does not have protection of existing requiring hiring inclusionary rates under this legislation the bay vow have the lower requirements as the marina and other affluent neighborhood. We move to support should legislation if it included a year sunset to think how to counteract bills and explore to thes to sdrnlt housing across our city to protect our low inin communities. Thank you. Thank you for your mentes that completes the queue. Thank you very much. Supervisor preston. Thank you. Chair. And thanks to all the members who weigh in the. I want to give final remarks before we take what action we are going to take. I want to reiterate my concern bh what i see as really dramatically lowering our inclusionary house and Development Impact fees. I think it is a significant shift do appreciate the work that has ghn this. And i want to thank president supervisor peskin and everyone involved for attempts. And i think there are asspekts of this that are nuanced and try to exclude types of projects and cover others. But im struck by and i think my questions earlier revealed real concerned when has not been looked at in this. And i think00 automatic im also concerned that there has not been more of an opportunity for the public to digest this more of a presentation from our city defense. And i thinkeen looking at we can talk abstract about de feos upon. I think we should be talking about in role terms when we are reducing. Here and like the the fees we talked about inclusionary and significant list of 21 fees including sustainable and than i dont apply to each project. Somewhere market octavia fee. Alled be reduced under the support our muni bus and help essential workers afford housing in the city they serve and make our city more liveable. Green space invest nothing open space. I welcome a conversation what changes me need to make to encourage new development. But there are a number of external factor referenced boy presenters and the public. Costs of rates and Investor Expectations on returns of investment. Supply chain constraints. These other driving factors that are impacting and limit happening new Housing Development. I think we should realist be cautious not to create a race to the bottom twhp dmos the communities benefits Affordable Housing and equity requirements that many years with strong support from the community creating the context of development. When it miss to Affordability Housing and impact fees tools Community Members fought to include. I think for kneel me there is a high borrow not that you can never touch them is that the bar is high. Thats where im not seeing. Im seeing a gut level we need it easier im not seeing real strong justification to mote this high bar. Im struck about the feedsability study. Of the inclusionary housing will requirements on june 30 finding no increase in Housing Production if the legislation were to pass temperature is clear that turning the dial on inclusionary will not unlook the jobs in a dramatic change to things we dont control in the city. I dont see anything in the presentation laid out anything to suggest the changes would do that and unlook the jobs and folks back to work. Im concerned we are making drastic policy changes without justification or projections on the actual impact. And regardless of where one falls on this proposal i have to note you think we are doing this without giving time for advocates and other stake holders to understand this proposal and its impact. And i am concerned the controller and the city are not here to answer questions this there were not estimates or projections made on the impact for the proposals. And that. While i think inside the bodies discussing these things and committees there is discussion but not with the public and this is you know the 30day rule was waveed ghet here quick. Here we are. So if the public have after today the first public hearing than i will have i day. If this pass out before this is voted on tomorrow. So i think that for a measure that does not take affect until november on going discussions and negotiations about a bond and other ways to create Affordable Housing lost in the proposal i dont understand the if rush to new to a full board vote tomorrow. I want to note the council Community Housing Organization Presents period talked and sgsz i want to note the recommendation around equity competence retaining existing affordability standards in areas safer and displacement. That is wofrpth exploring. I think this makes good sense from i policy perspect itch. And i hope i will have time to consider that. Before voting on this or should this move forward and a duplicate. That would remain it committee. I also understand advocates are tracking state legislation to stroll line market rate and expressed concerns this inclusionary may be one of the few tools we have left to prevent displatement. We should make space with the conversation before moving forward and we are talking about legislation. My understanding not take affect until novemberment mae might make sense to have the legislative recess for conversations to occur and come back. Until september. President supervisor peskin noted we dramatically increased the Affordable Housing goal in the element to the tune 46,000. Correspond influentialing affordable how doing requirements without a mechanism in accomplice to support expanding Affordable Housing really could have the impact i think 91 of you wasment of moving us further from reaching our goals. Nooiment prepared support today but welcome fourth conversation. Thank you very much. Supervisor preston before i go to you supervisor safai i want to make a couple comments. I think that you know this process has taken awhile. Attach has been an open process. We did vote on the folks who would serve on this technical committee. The legislation that president supervisor peskin is then supervisor kim passed years ago. Include what this process was going to be. Deferred because of the pandemic but 91 of this is new or sudden. This has been going for quite awhile why im ready to move this forward today. That said, i do think that i understand advocates call for having a robust Affordable Housing plan before we move forward. I wish he had that. But i dont think it was backbecause of lack of time. I will say one thing. To the comments of the Public Commenters who and to you supervisor preston one of the things we should explore is ruse Affordable Housing requirements on the west s. Ed so that we can maintain them. And00ue know equity yours that is correct is a very robust policy discussion. Im not treed have t. Ed i would oppose it. I think that you know doing that would be against affirmatively fair housing west side resisted taking affordable how doing for years. And one of the. Campaign promises i made was to build more Affordable Housing on the west side. I think this we owe it to future generation and this it is fair. But with that, i will go and recognize supervisor safai before we take a row if we. Thank you. You wanted say quickly one of the chief offer everauthors of the previous legislation supervisor preston and the mittee and public, it was well articulated. We were at the height of and part of deal was we would create a number this we would gradually grow and have the town to take a pause. Including the impact fee and intrieshz supervisor peskin and i at the table. This process has been partial the tax the meetings are open to the public. We at the board appointed and made recommendations to 3 or more of the members. Mir appointed member this is process has been going on for months. The public had a lot of opportunity to weigh in. We lead up this this process i agree we need it make sure and everyone that said this, we are doing everything we can to increase the poof Affordable Housing. I approximately say we heard it from builders and others today if this does in the happen this will impact the ability of a number of projects to go forward and will proves units of housing. It is good legislation may not be desirable for many core values we want as much Affordable Housing as we can. This is where the market is today. We are at an Economic Uncertainty in the establishment so, thank you again. Supervisor supervisor peskin for leading that process and office of workforce develop and want planning and tax members and everyone involved in this. I think we have the best peeves legislation we can. Thank you chair for duplicating the file well come back and talk about the other issues. We can talk about that when we schedule next time. It is about creating balance throughout. Thank you. Thank you. President supervisor peskin. Thank you. I hear and appreciate what supervisor preston has said but agree with your words chair megafrm which is this is really a long time in coming. Is actually part of a pretty predictable process. It was delayed by covid this should happen like clockwork every 3 years pursuant to a study and tax process. And per of had this effort is. Take the politics out of t. Having said that, there was an opportunity in this process, which is a brown act public process. I will say to supervisor safai he is a cosponsor of item 6. I was involved in the first go arnold that supervisor kim got going in 2016. I would say same, had is these amendments should have and could have brought up in that process can these are late to the game, too. And this is i do realize that legislation evolves and people have late thoughts but given the tight rope that we walked over the last several among and when we got to im not inclined support them im not inclined sit down with everybody and reopen this path we have gone down and have done so executive legislate, affordable how does and market rate developers. Im not inclined respectfully, to i dont know what september will bring. Relative to look. Planning commission did not talk about them. It is important supervisor safai made a point and couple callers did, too this. This before us will produce more housing. And i think it is very easy to say that. And i think when i have been pushing back on asking questions about is the fact that what is in this file actually does in the show that at all. Right . I think we can we can have a conversation. I just dont think that is accurate. The folks proponents of this believe this might get us closer to a situation where had you know with the right changes to the other factors. Gets us close to a position we create more house and some of us are at what costs and balance those things. I think it is i think it does a disservice and i dont think it is consistent with when we heard from the departments and the controllers report to say the items will produce more house nothing San Francisco and we should agree that is not the impact of this. Unless there are other significant changes we dont control. Thank you. President supervisor peskin du want to make a motion. I would like to amend item 6s previously discussed with audrey not piersons changes i spoke to to for 15b1 and 403 and the findings and to the renumbering and font changes and to page 104 line 10 to show that controller submitted the report. Vote on those amendments first this is item 6 . And on that motion to amend the original supervisor supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. So then i will ask this we duplicate the file. And then du want to move it. The original. I would like to move item 5 and item 6 as amended to the full board with recommendation as a Committee Report require a roll call vote. Item 6, 5 and 6. 5 was not amended. Correct. 5, 6 amended with recommendation as a vote. Take a motion. Rmdz as a mittee report supervisor supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. No. Supervisor melgar. Aye. 2 ayes. Item 6 recommend as amended the original. Supervisor supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. No. Supervisor melgar. Aye. You have 2 aye avenue and one no with supervisor supervisor peskin in decent. Thank you i would like to make a motion the duplicated file we adopt amendments as circulated by supervisor safai. On the duplicate file to amend supervisor supervisor peskin. No. Supervisor preston. No. Supervisor melgar. Aye 1 aye with one no. And with supervisors supervisor peskin and preston in decent. Thats that. Will next in dam clerk. Lets go back to item number 4. One moment. Actually we have to there is a balance remaining for duplicate file the amendment failed would you like to continue or yes im sorry continue to the call of the chair. On that motion supervisor supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye supervisor melgar. Aye. Okay and going back to item number 4. Is a resolution supporting California State Senate bill number 532 introduced by senator wiener enabling to raise funds transportation operations and requiring safety, clean liness and reliability. Members who wish to speak press star 3. Thank you. Excuse mes, we imy recognizing supervisor mandelman. Thank you for introducing this item. The floor is yours. Thank you. Kwhar melgar and thank you for finding space for this on todays busy agenda. And thank you for hearing this. I will be super brief we have mta director tumlin and bart board present remote who can share why it is important and joined remotely by the mta morer and senator wieners aid if people have questions. The item resolution supporting sb532 by scott wiener enact a bridge tell increase to funds the transand i stave us service directions across the Public Transportation system. Our were transportation sector grad fully follows ride areship the Transportation Agency sfil face a fiscal cliff 2. 5 billion dollars projected short fall over 5 combreers it it is true state budget agreement will provide 1. 1 billion dollars for transit and 400 Million Dollars for agencies overnight next 4 combreers were grateful for it. That will not be enough to close the gap and prevent service cuts. Would help fill the funding gap for transit by requiring the bay area to raise the tolls for the bay area bridges by 1. 50 over the next 5 years. The tell increase will yield 180 milling annual competence 900 Million Dollars for transit over the 5 year period. In a mobile home directors tumlin and president lee can share more about the fiscal cliff and could impact their agencies and how this would help. And as i said seniority wieners aid is also joining remote from sacramento to answer questions especially on questions regarding equity provisions. Nobody loves a bridge toll increase butt impending and remaining fiscal cliff means there are not, let of good options and with that, i am handled this i would if you dont mind, invite director tumlin to speak briefly to folks who have a long agenda. Welcome. Thank you for having the hear and wing through your agenda so fortunately. Bring the slides up i have slides to show. So, as supervisor mandelman said we are here in support of s b 532 for bridge tolls and grateful to the governor and the legislator for the measure that they passed this month granting a significance amount of money to the state. Of that about 4 billion dollars is being restored to the transit and rail capitol program. 2 billion dollars a year. Unfortunately of this money zero will come to muni. The am amount of money coming to the bay area 800 million [inaudible]. We are grateful tell be coming to help directly support transit prescriptions of that about 400 million is upon expected to come to the bay area. And depenning how the form well is developed to distribute that we at muni expect to get about a third of it. And that means that the money that the state is providing is providing us about 1 third of when we need to avoid significant Transit Service cuts. However, it does bebuy us time before we make the cuts. A year to figure out had we can do short of cuts to sustain muni service. I will describe about hour financial situation. This is and to what are projected ecpend tours would have been. Bear in mind the cost deliverings muni cost labor and cost labor guess up cost of living a living wage. Unfortunately during covid. During the 2 of major tranceit faris and park dropped to near low zero. That have been recoverying and we are grateful for that. But our transit fare revenue is down and ping revenue is down the general fund ref now now are biggest source revenue is not expected to do as well as we were hoping. We have been sustaining ourselves with federal relief. Red line on this map is the so called fiscal cliff that is what happens when our federal money runs out. We have beeny out to sustain service we new the impact of covid would long last. Because we have been manage the agency efficient low and because i promised our workforce wield not balance the budget on the backs of the people who got San Francisco through covid, we have been not only spreading resources but making sure we are doing financial projections to slow down hiring in order to balance the budget rather than laying off our workforce and so when we are looking at is absent new source of revenue need to start shrinking the workforce and Cutting Service later in calendar year of 2024. On the ballot and november of 26 there will be a regional measure to help us bridge the gap and get us back on the path of financial stability. But we have a big transit trough shown in the blue line. We are trying to figure out the gap between the fiscal truffle and the service this san franciscans need. Part behalf we have been doing is everything we can to make our agency and service efficient. This helped a lot. But not solving all of our problems. We are work to bring in new source of local revenue every where we can. The state relief this passed again fills up i third. We are looking for the area in red fwlij gap without cutting muni service or laying off our staff. If from there on out,. Our future prognosis depends when is we do in november of 26 and whether we try to survive in our current level or grow transit or try to deliver transit at the bay area needs and that San Francisco needs for recovery. We dont ask for this lit low there are men who must drive across bridge and thes extra dollar 50 a day will be a significant can impact. Not funged transit am create worse problems. 50 of muni arriveders people of color and 70 make less then and there 50 thousand dollars a year this. It is about as of last month 420,000 people take municipaly every weekday. Down upon town San Francisco is depending on sustain thanksgiving muni service and growing and bart vulnerability is worse then and there muni. And downtown mechanic recovery is at least dependsant on betters recovery as it is on ours. What we are asking to support sb5 tloochl nobody is excited about raising ref now from any source the cost of not doing so is grirt than the cost of doing so. I will take questions or turn things over to president lee. We have board president lee. On teams. Yes. Hello. So good afternoon chair melgar and preston and supervisor peskin im janice lee im a proud district resident and serve pedestrian bart board of directors. I dont have a presentation but i have a few minuteses of things i want to walk through to supplement when director tumlin shared. I will say im grateful to come before the 3 of you in this mittee i know i dont have to explain why Public Transit is important. Yall get and you shown up legislate xifl in the community to support transit. Thank you. Of thank supervisor nan man for bring upon support through the board and introducing this item today. I appreciate your consideration of sb532 authored by ascertain wean and supports by ting and [inaudible] the bart board took action to support it early 30 month. And hope you pass this item to the full board with positive recommendation. My fellow directors and i bob sxours [inaudible] and the state working with seniority wiener and the governor to [inaudible] in the budget. Remiss to thank phil ting and leadership as budget chair in securing fundses to cover operating short falls in a signed state budget of the bart board passed unbalanced 2 year budget left month had a 93 million deficit for fiscal year 25. At this time we expected our fiscal cliff hit in early of 25. But the transit operations passed will allow bart to be whole through 25, and allocation clear i can make sure bart staff update you with an updated financial outlook. With all that said, bart still face a deficit of almost 1. 1 billion the next 5 years. Bart is taking measures to reduce the deficit and improve rider experience. I want to share a few highlights here. First we significantly increased the presence of unarmed safety staff. Crisis intervention teams and social workers and merchandise all of which are new programs established in the past 3 years. We are focusing Police Officer deploy am on trains and stations and investment to dpraesz recruitment without need to increase head count. Response times other best in the bay area and responding priority one emergencies in just minutes. Third, we are improving service to 30 minute wait times on weekend and evenings this will begin in september. Fourth, installing new fare gate in all stations with the first new one later this year. I have to thank pta in wearing those hat in your support of that program. Since we are reopening bathroom is and the embarcadero was opened this month. 6 we have just tripled the budget for bart Office Inspector general going to really next our inspect over site of bart and. Last plea train and station cleaning. We really need support to enjoy service cuts and close sxurs layoffs. These cuts could mean training els once an hour and lines cut. Like said birch recognize that bridge toll increases are not loved or popular. So i want to winds a deeper dive in equity relating to the scombil bart. Public transit is critical to low income and bipoc communities. I listed when could happen without funding we know who will be impacted at bart. Of the Customer Service latest demographics show who riders are 31 are low inin with house income of under 50,000. 43 dont have a vehicle. And 67 identify nonwhite. I can assure you that those demographics are not the same folks call nothing or writing [inaudible] im asking to you be progressive lead and think about friends, neighbors, constituent who ares bipoc dont own vehicles and low income will be impacted [inaudible]. When i first moved here i made 40,000 a year in [inaudible] and commuting to the city with bart every morning. I didnt have i car. I would save up change just to load up the clip are cart to get an extra trip i think people have fwhn this boat or train. If my transit trip and transit was no longer reliable option with the frequency ownership Weekend Service i would never have been able to keep my job and most likely had to move. These other choices that poor people need to make in Transit Systems fail. The bart board raised occurrence that many others very much i supportive of the amendments that build equity measures in the fwoil mitigate the impact on low income folks. And grateful that the leader hold 3 work shops about this and a workshop focused on equity. I am convinced we can figure it out. Bart has no low income fare option and 2019 support inclusion in clip are starts a 20 discount. Thank you for acknowledging this board acted in the Transportation Authority to sign on in spchlt legislation. Under the leadership of the chair for the on that day. But i do think it make sense for the board to sign on as a board of supervisors which is why thank you. Thank you. With this go to Public Comment. Are there members of public this would like to peek now is your time to line and up press star 3. You will have 2 minutes. Good afternoon again supervisors eric brooks with local grass rots our city San Francisco and the state Wide Coalition that works on clean energy and climate. California for Energy Choice to first, yes. Support this. Of course it is an emergency we noted do this. But to say that San Francisco has what is it a 15 billion dollars budget . We need a real conversation about free muni. Stop nickelling and diming poor people who ride the bus amount to 20 of the funds and nic and he will dime people driving across the bridge to jobs to keep the system going. It is the 21st century. We are 2 decades into it. It is time tom do free transit. And even though bart has been heffier we need do that one thing the bart director noted needs testing. If we know from comparing food stamps to social security, this means tested programs only for low income people get budget cuts and not being sufficient. That is another reason why we need to talk about free transit. Pay for it out of general funds california can afford it and so can San Francisco lets head in this direction. Support this of course. Unfortunately from had i read [inaudible] the reason there are drug addictions that increased after the [inaudible] because of the Police Presence when the police are around people get fluffer exclude stressd and have more [inaudible]. Why are the money to them . I found out that from coming to the meetings that many ambassadors rehired or [inaudible]. At the expense. I dont know. [inaudible]. Did dh pass or take the monfrethe police [inaudible]. And anybody answer that . Board supervisors did that pass to [inaudible] from the police [inaudible] for Ambassador Program did it pass. Maam this is not a q and a. I dont know [inaudible] nobody seems to know. That is wrong. I have been i [inaudible] and stay in the tenderloin and seen [inaudible] the ambassadors. Cruel punishment. This is wrong. Those solutions did not help thank you for sharing your comments. Are there other members of public that would like to speak for item 4 . We will new to the public ment line. We have 17 listeners with five in the queue. Take the first caller have you 2 minutes. Good afternoon im [inaudible] calling as an independent advocate for transit in San Francisco and in support of the bill 532 essential to keeping tractionit running and a critical [inaudible] bart. And other agencies before the funding measure in the november election of 2026. There are 2 real you feltic alternatives massive cuts or 2 the cancel plan capitol controlled by mtc and flex funds. That would cancel expend tours in the transbay upgrade and the long plan bart expansion. Cancellation set become our longterm hopes and vision for a Regional Rail system and mtc will not authorization the flexing of the funds. Climate changeingly not wait for our political realities. Sb532 has clear questions around typeset that need to be resolved t. Is not ideal source of revenue before november of 26 measure the source available to us. I encourage the mittee to adopt language or work with scott wieners office to adopt provisions quick are within a year. Over all to strongly support sb532 and make sure that public keeps running. Thank you very much the next speaker, please. Good upon afternoon. Friends of caltrain and part of a new coalition. In the bay area and around the state. Scott wean and others bringing in the area save off the fiscal cliff but because that will not does not solve the problem and outcome will be cut before we have a 2026 funning measure. We do support sb532 hands on muni and caltrain and some San Francisco without cars. San francisco would be in terrible shape if there were meters cut. All support measures previously mentioned and this is really essential to keep our transit rung please support. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon im zack the policy director for know transform we are an emotional voice for Transportation Coalition of advocates work to pass transportation measure in the bay area and sponsor of sb532 to provide the fund to get us there Public Transit at the core of the mechanic recovery climate goal and thriving region. Someone grew up in San Francisco muni made me who i am. From school to soccer practice. China town to city college i had access to opportunity because hi a bus pass. This opportunity would not be available to kids today like me. If we seat service cut this is dont happen will happen without sb5 tlochl the cuts lead to the curb. Congestion and bloat mission high. Funding is needed. We are working with seniority wiener and other add vocates to ensure it does not over burden those who must drive including lowering fines as well as impelementing discounts or toll caps. We are looking forward to working with the body to implement the best programs possible. 100 going to prevent increased ridership sb532 is a step forward furthermore sustain sxabl driving bay area. Thank you. 7 in the queue. Thank you employment to thank chair mefor and preston and supervisor peskin as well as supervisor mandelman for bring forward this resolution. And want to thank senator wean and staff for prosecute pose and director tumlin and president lee for work on both agencies, this is the positive thing and will help our Transit Agency in a time of need. Thank you for your support at the ct aboard and hope you support it along with your colleagues at the board. Thank you. Ful good afternoon this issan stazia what anytime low drive it work. Tan san from and fill gas tanks. So right now this is sb532. Only to today comments to require the mtc to study, design and implement equity based program. The dollar 50 toll increase. So im concerned. Im really concerned. You know you creative ways to get money. Bongds and this, that the other. Consider the people who have to pay that toll. The money out of the budget every week. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your comments, next speaker, please. Im call nothing support. I want to thank senator wiener for bring thanksgiving and supervisor who is are supporting it. We have 2 alternatives. And the Equity Consideration ineration it is fee are not greatest will hopefully they can be mitigated and bring the 2 years down to one year. Upon we need support Public Transit. Support our climate and bring back downtown. Thank you. Holeo. Caller . Thats the last caller yea. Sorry. [inaudible] im calling from d 1, thank you. Hi. This is gloria from d 10. Im not supporting this senate bill. I think San Francisco can solve the problem of getting low income residents from d 10 to the rest of the city let, lone get cross bridges where San Francisco policies have displaced many of our Friends Family members. Then when we come to San Francisco to deliver goods to your door that you need we have to pay those tolls. You are not home to receive your good and bring those packages or food back to the original places, we have to go across bridge and pay the tolls againful also, the black population in San Francisco has to go across the bridges to get culture. Music. Food. That we were used to before mass gentrification happened in the city. The tolls are already a burden for female toeen. To in to San Francisco for an event or to work. Im interested in audits and questions in hearings on mismanagement of funds when it come to transportation. Where a lot of projects that get contracts award exclude using up the budget. Instead of make thanksgiving an extreme burden on people who cannot afford to come across different bridges. Have a good day thank you. Next speaker, please. Communities and policy manager for [inaudible] transit riders im call nothing support of sb532. There are issues with the bill this must be addressed the allowing bay area transit to fail would be more dire. Riders is working with the bill sponsor to impelement considerations and improve ams. The fact is men muni riders are low income special severe cuts to service or increase in fares would impact them the most. We need a Public Transit network in San Francisco for the economy and for our planet. Sb532 is a perfect yet needed as of stopgap top ensure we have a versatile Transit System here in the bay area. Thank you. And have a good day. Good afternoon. Supervisors im robert im a long [inaudible] with [inaudible] we are in support of sb5 tlochl thank you to supervisor mandelman for bring thanksgiving resolution and the board for. I agree with bart director and mta director tim listen said. Economic. And also housing. Because downtown depends on transit to support recovery and much of the housing throughout the bay in San Francisco as well is concentrated around high quality and frequent trends. So i ask you to support the resolution, thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Call nothing support of sb5 tlochl i will not reiterate the points that the others made but as a Housing Organization we recognize the links with housing and transit and realize in order to grow equal low and sustainablely we need robust Public Transit network and this bill will help do this thank you very much. The valence yee street corridor removes 70 parking space but the director says that they need parking funds. So what gives in where is the money coming from. It is time to audit the mta. And find out where the money is going. Budgeting it important for those who need come over for from the bridge this it is a Motor Vehicle screen for the director. If you would come and come to meetings without head in his laptop he would realize it snot just about him but the regular people of San Francisco that need parking. Thank you very much. In next speaker, please. Good afternoon this is gene. Im a d 1 resident and member of save muby a transit organization. Im speaking on my behalf today. I very much understand the need for additional funding to support municipal and he bart i dont have i car i use Public Transit. I have concerns about the proposal. The twoyear period of time to resolve the issue is too long and encourage you to have one year and as several speakers address thered is a need audit at mta. There are questions faith the there will be recommendation in addition to supporting this legislation the state legislation that you also ask mta to do a financial and [inaudible] and a performance audit so we can better understand how municipal sespending mone. Efficiency can be increased and spending waste decreased. Police. Consider this side of the equation when you look at supporting the legislation. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi this. Is adam in d6 and i am call nothing support of the legislation. Then likes to see bridge tolls gun butt fact of the matter is you know we need municipal competence Public Transportation and we need it desperately if the city has hope of roaching vision zero and the climate goals even housing. We mode to have fast reliable convenient transit we are not getting by starving funding or by cutting lines. And just a fact that people who have cars and can afford to drive overnight bridge are more privileged. The average cost of no oning a car is 9 upon thousand dollars a year that is a cost this majority of muni riders couldnt afford. You pull muni transit lines away from the people they will not get cars to make up for t. We need more house nothing San Francisco. So that people dont have to move away from the city and we need more transit in the city itself. This is one step toward you know rebuilding muni and eliminating excess of vehicles downtown. You know the next step should be a congestion charge in downtown the more cars the more pollution the worse for people who live and work in the city. That com. Pleas the queue. Public comment is closed. Supervisor mandelman. I want to thank the committee for hearing that. I want to thank director tumlin and president lee for hers. And all the folk who is call immediate and senator wieners office and ask this the pleasure of the mittee you forward had to the full board with positive recommendation as a Committee Report. Okay. With that i like to make a motion that we sends this forward with positive recommendation. As a mittee report. Supervisor supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye supervisor melgar. Aye. That motion passes. Thank you. Supervisor mandelman, thank you. Lets go now to item 7. Item 7 an ordinance amending the planning code to create a family how doing opportunity special use district. And the amending the code to authorize the greater up to 4 units or 1 unit per 1,000 square feet of lot air individual lot in rh district the greater of 212 or 1 unit per 1,000 feet of lot area. And the 3 merged lots and im sorry. Losing my spot. This is a long title. Essential low the amending the planning code for sunsubdivision andeng zo map for Family Housing ordinance. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Madam clerk. I think we are almost there with this legislation. I introduce today in january. It got lots of amendments and a lot of feedback and good work from folks in the community. The Planning Department and my colleagues. I do have a couple amendments id like to do today. Theyre nonsubstantive and i would then turn it over to president supervisor peskin who also has amendments that are nonsubstantive as i understand it. And madam deputy City Attorney will confirm. My amendments number one strike through on pages 1, 5 and 12. The greater of. Up to 4 units or 1 per 1 thousand square feet of lot area. The reason for this amendment is this it creates ambigutey of the denseit limit when is there is a rear yard by striking that it caps at 4 units per lot max. Thank you president supervisor peskin. And amendment 2, page one, line 12 as to the long timing where the project does not propose the demolition of any u nits subfrekt to the reason increase limitation of the rent ordinance. Again. You know i was having a hard time figure out where this could help in role life should not being anything we dont want to open the door for demolition of reason controlled units. The 7ment to protect is spelled out on teenage 6, line 3 and 16, line one adding the language. Exempting certain eligible project this is donts propose a demolition of rent controlled units that is it for me. President supervisor peskin would you like to present your amendments . Yes. Thank you. Chair melgar i appreciate your indulgence and understand your frustration over the last couple of weeks i want to say i think that we are coming from the same policy place which is to increase density and do everything in our power to ensure that people are not displace exclude that we hang on to manage this we are not making anymore or much of combn anymoring rent controlled housing. Thats where the i have been coming from the left couple of weeks and i as frustrating as it has been, i think that this is better for temperature temperature has begins the opportunity to examine the language and see where we can make it better but also gave me and folks in the Northeast Corner of town the time to actually show that the and this gets complicated quickly this is aimed high Resource Areas but yet we have, there are an initial factors. Is there a way of doing that and keeping the map as it is which is to exclude and i set this forth in a last week i would work with the City Attorney to get amendments approves and circumstantial lit them. Put them in the file and they are. Come from the file and before the colleagues. The second one is precisely what you are doing which is to exclude projects demo reason control units. And those are in the long title. In the body. One mall change. 91 of substantive but wherever we can wherever we peek to the Regional Housing need allocation goals. I think it is important to state that if not 82,000 over 8 years 46, 598 of them need to be affordable topography extreme low low and very low income house holds so this is a statement to this end on page 5. Is what i spoke earlier, which is that the finding that the high resource neighborhoods 65 of the land limited. There is a further statement that is not the case in the northeastern part of the city. And then as i resielths is that speaks to the north beach special use district and special use district. Gives 10 more days to know if the principle for the demolition of a rent controlled unit. The language in and recital l was old and did not need to be in there. It was an in City Attorney agreed it was [inaudible] that can be removed. On page 7, there is a recital about our wish to discourage speculation and demolition and i bolstered this a bit. And um then getting in the meat of the actual language on page 8. Under eligibility well is a reference to the removal of the special use districts as i have discussed. There is the legislation was silent on it and as to whether or not existing units included unauthorized units and so what i attempted do here is put in a narrow definition of unauthorized units. Limiting it to an unauthorized unit this has been occupied boy a tenant in the left 5 years. I think with your language, and deputy City Attorney pierson, um may we can think about this and have 24 hours it think about this am assuming we send this out as a Committee Report. Language in 4 aabout the rear yard i think was only necessary if it minot be necessary now that supervisor melgar prosecute pose the amendments that would go beyond 4 units i think this may be extraneous and made sense if there were more then and there 4 units. The thousand foot thing a fifth unit to claire foil that to make it consistent that might not be necessary. On page 9, subsection c. Is really a clarification that for Group Housing this is not in the rh1 districts. That the density limits that are otherwise in the code shall apply. This can the bedroom configuration. This clarifies what happens if you have 3 existing units it did in the exact low make sense for 3. With exclusiving unit this is say clarification there. Under on page 10 subsection 6. Again this was silent on what an existing dwelling unit meant. This clarifies that on page 11. Relative to acerting this the project has sponsor has a look back provision i added the sponsor does it erndz penalty of perjury something i learned from sb9 and difference with multifamily and single Family Housing one year for single five for multifamily. Similar near vacant and abandoned property on page 12. Here is the fwig question really. Right now the way the legislation works is that a project can propose the demolition of right now in 11, it says the project cannot propose not eligible if proposes the demolition of 3 or more dwelling. You can propose later on in review and approval the demolition of less than 3 but subject to a cu. One possibility here im out for discussion it is in the in what i put in the file. We want to say you cant demo anything that is rent controlled. You are not eligible. If we do this it would obi have 8 other language. It is a choice. Nath is not in the amendments that are before you. But i wanted throw this out for discussion. Joy believe im sorry to cut you off i believe this is the amendment i just made. Well it is very similar but you med it in subsection d review and approval. If you you want to do it in eligibility. I have gone thinking we could do it in eligible if you prosecute pose to demo reason control you are not eligible here. For the stream lining you can do it but you go the regular way. Correct. You can still under dloe 17 say i want to demo a unit. Is that why dont we finish. All of yours. So one thing that i thought was important and by way, i really appreciate what you are doing in 11. Person once this was of litigation was resolved that we say regard will of whether the buy out agreement was file exclude registered with the rent board pursuant to section 37. 9 e subh the point being that some people buy outs and dont file them the way this is written is only if they filed temperature im saying whether you filed it or not, if you did a buy out. This captures you. I think is the intent i want to make it clear to say within the past 5 years or dwelling unit vacate in the the past 5 years pursuant to a buy out agreement the existing language. The code 379e may be amended from time to time regard will of weather it was filed with the rent or pursuant to code section then. 9e. So somebody can see it was a buy out and that they never registered it. Then on page 17. Is the review and approval language i had trouble and pressed this with the way this was written, which was not other provision was code and irrespective whether it utilizing a density exception pursuant to this section. No conditional use required. And so i now mrin whatted that was. I agree with it. I thought and she agreed that if we state today like this it would be clearer. Any other prosecute vifthz code the following shall, ply to any project this meets the criteria in subsection c. Whether a project is utilizing an exception to construct above the density in rh district pursuant to subsection d1 to 49. 94. That i think there is total clarity. This is the connection where you were saying any . I would i would be down with in 11. In which case we could take it make conforming things here and take it out of here the City Attorney is prepared to do. I spoke to the 11 languageful i did had this one thing that occurred to me after this got put on the, which was i then and there we all wish we could the City Attorney says no and i understand why. Cannot put elis in here. I dont want to do everything can you to discourage machine frausing this. I thought a way around that the City Attorney is not ready i wanted throw it out there. Upon is this we say that it does not apply to any project demo any unit this are or have been subject to rent control. 3 that in there. All the way to the end. And pretty straightforward it is language which is in a few place b and subc and to add the under penalty of purge reprovision. And um to add subdivision maps. On the next page better notice. That is everything that in the record. Not substantive and figure out the they and the d1 any and 11 any is a choice for us. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. Before i go to you i asked whether to put the demolition of units in the Eligibility Criteria or later i would like fwong what fb330 does whether or not that over ride its. We did duplicate the file there the be i hans to think about it further it will after both the planning. We will take another by the. Supervisor preston. Thank you, chair mefwar and i will keep it brief. You both have exhaustively addressed all the issues that came up in the last hearing. I wanted to close the loop the one issue not addressed by came up left time exported explain why the issue i raised based on concerns raised by residents of the haight was are we potential low and incentivizing speck later hi do a demolition. For like corporate rental situations. And i asked planning to give us more information about the riskless of this and whether we need to consider an amendment to address it i thank aaron starr within i day of that information around that. And i think based on my information you provided that risk is actually controlled by. Not allowed by the ordinance as it exists. And the short term rent will ordinance. And Short Term Rentals around only posted rentals. I think this our existing ilo and short term rental laws make it impossible to do the large scale you know, multiunits to built for the purpose of corporate rentals to the pent it is, bused we can revisit that. The ilo. Long explanation for why that is not among the many comprehensive amendments before and you haves thank mr. Starr and planning for this information. Thank you. Thank you very much. To both of you for your work and collaboration. And thank you mr. Starr for your support. I want to thank i see him in the audience for the long hours he has been on this, too. With that madam clerk lets go to Public Comment. Any members of public like to peek on item 7 line up. Those remote press star 3. Good evening. Supervisors iric brooks. And the coalition San Francisco ceqa defender. All 3 members deserve thanks and commendation for extremely heavy lifting over the last couple weeks to in in our direction. And but and i will not go over all the things we said over and over we disagree with in the concern version. I will say that we are just seeing the amendments they locked great. I concur with the elis language, add it now, we only seen these for a couple days. We need to take more time Society Public can weigh in and propose further improvements what is on the table today. It is not enough time we need it the summer. Need the august to go through this. On the noticing. I still dont i think most of the folks still dont think this is concrete enough. We dont want to leave it up to the Planning Department to come up with the rules around this noticing and would like to see that codified clearly even if you move this forward today get that more codified before it goes to the final vote. And then on speculation, may be with short term rent ag. One thing i do in my job is analyze the global Housing Market there is a danger of the Republican Guards and black rocks of the world coming in and corporateizing a lot of Single Family homes unless we have the look backs not only aweall at 5 years but 10 years. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. I would like to speak about the Affordable Housing i remember corrected i did not hear it spoke 10 it is a mandate and Affordable Housing provisions in this legislation . All you mentioned rent control as far as demolition. It is in the rent control i have been in that situation but when you tell people they can move build housing not that simple. Apartments illegal because there might be something wrong you dont have the money or just cannot be stretched the city says no you cannot have electrical outlets. It is very expensive and manage this met have the money for. And so i am opposed until this gets taken care of and people should not notified of demolition. It it is a dense population. But i support we have notification of any changes that eric said something about out of the rules decided Planning Commission. Why is that a week we hear that he meant this it is not democratic sounds like the mandates that xh manage im opposed to. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Madam chair, ken, im speaking on behalf of the San Francisco tenantune and senate everantidisplacement coalitionir appreciate the effort put in hearing Public Comment and novemberigating the issues. We want to submit the all right stating our passport for the legislation as amended. We think that it addresses 5 key points essential for our coalition. First had it does assure Public Notice for develop thes may result in loss of housing and or displacement. It required public approval of dem ligsz of rent controlled housing. Get to the bottom line that should be applied any legislation as far as San Francisco has control over our development process. Third protect existing tenants from displace am by the citys policy. With the prosecute visions to the extent we strengthen this with elis and appreciate and think those provisions are essential. It also protects future San Francisco tenants with rent control. And eviction control this is is key of the legislation. We applaud that provision in there from the stafrment this report Housing Elementy commitment provide protections to priority areas, thank you very much. Thank you. You can leave them on the ledge. Thank you. And is there another member that would like to speak for item 7. We will move to remote line 10 listeners with five in the queue. First caller, you have 2 minutes. Opposed to this legislation and opposed moving it to the full board as a Committee Report. The cosponsors conflat district 4 with district 7 with hoa and ccnrs the issue if the legislation is financial feasibility. When the planning support consultant analyzing sb9 consultant performs verbal gymnastics under ssb9 may be financial low fees act. This legislation buffer it is not for district 4. So who is it feasible for . If special use district. Should the special use district title amended to state the Development Project area and should the word family deleted from the title. Last week meeting [inaudible] speak urges the carve out for outside, district 4. And finally suspressing neighborhood involvement is suppressing local democracy. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors dick price on behalf the housing okay coalition. We need too ensure legislation intended build housing result in housing being built and if a proposal intended add gental density does not meet impact. I dont think that bodes well for the housing goals we have committed to. Appreciative of a lot of the effort says to address occurrence that were raised throughout the process. Want top reiterate the legislation needs to produce housing. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon gene. District one a member of board of sdreshths of planning associating for richmond speaking on my own behalf. I great low appreciate the amendments proposed more time is modeed rerue and responded to the legislation een with the new changes well is a need revise the legislation pedestrians by supervisor supervisor peskin comments today. I remain puzzled we are planning new market rate housing we are 40,000 vacants and 70s thousand in the pipeline and more potential low from empty office space conversion the foundation the legislation is built is shaky. There are other occurrence. The noticing requirements are too vague. Where does the Affordable Housing mandate with supervisor melgar stated earlier the citys biggest need. Legislation should not include condo conversion and language preventing wall street speck laters from buying and flipping this must include unfetered profit ooerg. Housing in San Francisco should not treated like real estate in monopoly. The changes in the legislation will alter a large per of the city. Changes to the planning code should be made after more time to work with neighborhoodses, environmental and social justice organizations. To help make it something we can be proud of. In a word, what is the rush . Please, vote. No on Family Housing ordinance today. Thank you very much. Thank you for sharing your comments. Next speaker, please. Hello. You are on the line. Thank you. Hello, my e steamed supervisors im in the bed sick im shirley residence denial of San Francisco born here 56 years ago and change. And i want to say i oshg poedz the legislation as it is today. But removing close and im proud of my supervisors all 3 of you. And plus. Because we are not there yet. But im encouraged and i want to thank our i want to thank supervisor supervisor peskin avenue comments than i represent me and a bunch us that are native to San Francisco that are not here that often. But i did want to say. Dean. Hats off to you supervisor preston. I wanted to say, we certainly have to change this language that says affordable. Thats subjective and who is it affordable for . So. I have been here all my life therefore i know rent low income, middle ask use the words this is a developer town. And you know, i am connected to some developers but fair is fair. And funky is funky. And this legislation as it is now is funky. So im encouraged we are moving forward. And i wanted to say thank you all and im look forward to you was especially following preston and supervisor peskins outstanding comments. Have i good evening. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Supervisor this is ises [inaudible] again Affordable Housing advocate. [inaudible]. Im here to urge to you continue this legislation. Until september. Um im not done. I feel rushing the head line and rushing headlong. In multiple rezoning plans Umbrella Network of redevelopment. Programs irrelevant bruto the attention of the public on may 22nd. And you want to thank [inaudible]. Attentive protections [inaudible]. And more changes today indicate growing Public Awareness of the bill impacts and unneeded consequence. The bill remains at the core a plan to benefit speck laters and the wealthy home ordinance. Unless, of course, the supervisors might want to add support and then [inaudible] free construction grants and affordability [inaudible]. There are [inaudible] provisions for 3 lot mergers. Group housing. Market price and conditionaledo conversion with [inaudible] Community Input and open space siren calls for a friend low speculator land mine [inaudible] market rate will never benefit [inaudible] for families of lower income home ordinance or [muffled] not demo stabling older housing alcohol result in transferring ownership of sudden front land. Out of the hands of fells and in the thank you very much. Time lapsed. Lets take the next caller. Hello [inaudible] [inaudible] speak for [inaudible] and myself. I prepared a letter i thank you all for trying to put this through it needs more time. We were not notified of this until may of this year. I agree with the majorities of things everyone stated. And this will change our neighborhood. And ruin the character and there are things that need to be considered notification to the neighborhoods. And demo manage because a developer can come in and build something this does not fit the neighborhood and ruin the feeling of temperature there is no need in my opinion from community over stated inflated and 82,000 units [inaudible] we need on the west side when we have 70,000 in the pipeline and tons buildings [inaudible] for built are going to be built. [inaudible] 171,000 units of new housing no need have 82,000 new homes this is like a land grab or money grab and dont need this we need to be notifyd and it is very certain that any of the housing projects demoed and built in your backyard and close to your neighborhoods. You would not want a [inaudible] or would not notify projects, demolition and ceqa. And the points of Affordable Housing. There is nothing affordable stop using the fwiez to build bigger and denser. Scrap this xrm rewrite it. Thank you. We are at 2 minute for Public Comments sorry i had to cut off. Next caller. Good afternoon imaly guaninedy a plan in china town. I want to express passport for machine mans legislation. We believe it is positive step to addressing the housing crisis and respecting the challenges faced by vulnerable communities. Appreciate megovern for a targeted approach [inaudible] help reduction started in [inaudible] and recognize and protecting theville tierce of the equity [inaudible]ing. The area does not include the tenderloin, china town, mission, bayview and cultural districts that are home to the oldest communities of color facing [inaudible]. The prop [inaudible] all aline with the prince pels of [inaudible] housing. As in the housing leadership. Rec recognizes the impacts [inaudible] in the communities. We appreciate the legislation retaining input and participation so the public process not to [inaudible] in areas. Appreciate the legislation for add nothing were additional controls and tenant occupied and rent control u mitt and adding other protections from the sud area. And so all the things woeldz like at this Time Committee to [inaudible] the legislation as amended. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Good evening. Supervisors mandelman and robert speak for example myself. I think there is aloft that is great about this legislation. I think it is irrelevant a language time coming that we open up the west side for more Housing Development. Greater share for share, shared of San Francisco Housing Development. I am concerned about what not about the legislation but what the process is of the legislation bodes for San Franciscos other obligations urn the Housing Element. We are prooveng i think sick among on this legislation and i want to reminds the board this we have not one but 2 major mile stones that are described in the Housing Element with the due dates. January 31, 2024. We have to establish a nondiscretionary path way for project applications that provide 20 foordzable housing on site and also for lower inin sites that have been reused from the pedestrian 2 how doing cycles. The same time the Commission Hearings on any code complying contract in the neighborhoods subject to the housing act through january 31, 2022. It is has been 6 months for had legislation to get to the point cocaine recommended to the full board. There is obviously it will be a break. This means we have september, october, november and december, january. 5 months to do the major events. Im concerned that we will noted reach the agenda item on january. Thank you. That completes the queue. Thank you. Public ment is closed. President supervisor peskin. Thank you. Madam chair. I wanted to actually riff off the last speaker a conversation i had with the director of city planning mr. Hillous. This board and the city and most mayors had a long, proud policy history of protecting tenabilities and rent controlled units in San Francisco. And obviously this is a function of politics and a supervisor or mayor that dont believe until that. I think that we. Actually in the third monday we heard this. All of the amendments have been both that came from the original sponsor melgar is the commit each have been aimed at honing that. In the process the charter sets when you want a member of legislative branch wants to amend any prosecute vision in the planning code the Planning Commission has 90 days to render any comments and suggestions. That is the wait system has worked for decades. Thereupon is important for mr. Starr, which is once the board supervisors makes a policy recommendation in a matter that and passes that. This is were transending this legislation. Them is about our continual policy since long before i came here on january 15 of 2 where are 01. I think would be good if staff put before the commission those recommendations. Which is everything we are doing here are like what supervisor preston poke to but did not do other piece are working around Short Term Rentals. You fwois should electric at that and planning staff say by the wait board of supervisors consistent low had the basic reason control human protection and we recommend this you recommend had become to the board. It would get rid of unnecessary fluff and i think as i goat toward retirement for the second time it is also helpful and we dont have this. But should at the same time refer thanksgiving to plan for example 90 days referring this to the rent board for 90 days. I read provisions and have not asked this. It says you cant demo a unit that had a low income tenant in it. When will steb that in planning . What are the mechanisms this will be enforce said. I mean as00 autorent board policy e sxrfl registry and what have you, i know this is another policy conversation down the road of means assessing. Chapter upon 37 code never about means. But it would be i think also good and may be consider as a board whether or not it is in the slowing the process down but we should be refer thanksgiving to the rent board whether add minsterable and policy comments. Im speak beyond this legislation. The rep we have with the bl, if we do something and establish as policy the bl, pits become on every legislation this is in the i policy matter for the board vote for it because you previously established that policy. More helpful and product exist mature if that was the relationship we w had with planning staff. Thank you terror that now i can restier. Thank you, president supervisor peskin i will point out i did attend the Planning Commission hearing on this legislation. That the commissioners did bring up a lot of these issues which resulted in a lot of the amendments. I think that is the commission is think burglar these issues and paying attention to what we do and say as well. So with that, president supervisor peskin just reminded mead i initial low introduced this january compleven today is july 24. It has been awhile. I dont think that we are rushing things we had a pretty long inclusive process. With that i would like to make a neegz we move the amendments that i read in the record. Do one motion for both. Yes. Okay. Do that. On the motion stated boy supervisors melgar and supervisor peskin supervisor supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. Thank you, i like to make a motion we move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation as a mittee report. And on that motion supervisor supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. Thank you. Madam clerk do we have that completes the business yoochl thank you we are adjourned. Thank you. Welcome to the Small Business Commission Meeting july 24, 2023. The meeting is called to order. This meeting is held in person in city hall and broadcast on sfgovtv and available to you online or by caller 4156550001. The Small Business commission thanks Media Service and sfgovtv for televising the meeting viewed on sfgovtv 2 or sfgovtv. Org. We welcome Public Comment. There is a opportunity for general Public Comment at the end of the meeting and opportunity to comment on each discussion or action item on the agenda. For