Transcripts For SFGTV San Francisco Government Television 20160419

Remarks. Im sorry you want me to announce item one. An ordinances amending the police code Entertainment Commission procedures. All right. Thank you, thank you very much and thank you for calendaring this item colleagues this legislation updates certain entertainment procedures thank you for supervisor president london breed and this legislation first codifies the criteria and procedures for waving the filing fee for loudspeaker permits amplification permits currently the criteria are not codified the legislation will allow for the waiver by the Entertainment Commission of the fee for loudspeaker permits for mroontsdz planted when declare a hardship for nonprofits and neighborhood associations the cost of permit is more than 25 percent of the cost of the overall events in addition pubically funded events the legislation clarifies how the neighborhood notice should our and replaces an antiquated requirement with be reminded to post notice at the proposed location in addition to send written notification to all neighborhood associations and merchant associations in the area legislation strikes a balance continue covering the administrative and enforcement costs making sure the waivers exist where amplification permit represents a true Financial Hardship that will have a positive activation of the public spaces and allow the neighborhood to have Great Outdoor events madam clerk you dont say listen cane is here and if no, i see supervisor peskin is on the roster. Yes. Supervisor peskin thank you through the chair i appreciate the updating of this ordinance i was around and one of the sponsors or cosponsors of the proposition f with the Entertainment Commission back in the day i had a number of small questions and because were not allowed to communicate with each other we constitute a quorum i had to call you and read the file i get to do it in public the 43. 1 a provision that says no filing fee shall be required in the permit application for angle event that receives funding and that raised questions in my mind Many Organizations that receive the city funding organizations that get the funding actually events that receive the funding and raise the question in my mind you shouldnt regardless of the source of revenue or income is why would we treat them definitely so that was my first question. So ms. Kane is at the lectern ill ask her to respond we worlt with the Entertainment Commission. Supervisor thank you ms. Kane i got our email but didnt read it until saturday. No problem we were doing our best to define a group of possible things that could come forward there is implementation we might refine a little bit trying to sort of engage all of the possible scenarios as you may know we done this informally and waved the fees internal but trying to come up with a sitdown we looked at what is making people ask for a waiver and where are those kinds of finks that make it fair across the board thats what were aiming at. So through the chair to ms. Kane i i dont mind you having the discretion to waive but the notion that we are waving just because there are city fund doesnt seem to make policy sense i mean nor do i understand the actual terms in the legislation which is events that receive city funding organizations that can debt events lets make up an example range contribute to the chamber of commerce to hold the chinese nuru parade that is an event from the city to an organization not to an event per say and starts to get us into the scenario our organization got 10 from the city now we want an event on grant avenue and you dont have to pay the fee the way it is written is i see that it maybe better said defined as event in particular even though wears city funding the organization or that again, it was an attempt by the City Attorney to get get our arms around in total the issue i dont have much of an explanation other than i think you understand the language i think supervisor wiener has some insight. I want to make sure i understand the concern supervisor peskin through the chair youre referring to the 43. 1 a filing fee. Correct. I read that as no fee shall be required unless a city events. Thats what it said city events do receive the funding that the organization. The intent if this is city funding connected to the event when a yes organizations that receive the generic fees but frequently organizations would receive city funding specific to an event heres the grant of 10 theorizing to help you put on whatever the event might, so yeah. I feel. It should be could be i mean, we could quibble with that. It needs a little bit of work but the intention is clear supervisor you understood that as the example indicates as such to make it more clear. Yeah. I mean, if we can define the word event and also is i mean is an organization my worry an organization gets a dollar the city funding and hold an event oh, we comply with that provision oh, you dont thats not the intent the way it is written you can think between a rock and a hard place. If i may make this is not some sort of broad waiver of fees for an event this is for one specific permit that is 200 or three or four hundreds. I just want to and should have gone over this in my opening remarks every office gets this with you Small Community event that not the mega Events Community events that are trying to do something for the neighborhood low budget volunteers and all of a sudden a 5 housing unit dollars fee they want to have a microphone or play you know whatever the case might be theyre hit with a fee and the Entertainment Commission has put in a spot do we wave it not wave it do they meet the criteria the criteria can be further defined if theres a way to define is better i dont have is a problem with that but this is you know really about trying to provide some better guidance to the commission when they should wave the fees. Through the chair to supervisor wiener im 100 percent supportive of the language that you proposed in 43. 1 subsection Building Inspection Commission 2 makes a lot of sense the provision that gives the director of the Entertainment Commission the authority to exempt various organizations from fees i just worry that the lunge in 43. 1 a i think just not to put two fine a point but number it is everything you need done and if youre amenable ill make a friendly provision to strike the 43. 1 language from provided, however, and just stick with the very broad ability it is being granted to the director of commission in 43. 1b sub two. So what ill suggest because you know, i think that was carefully crafted i dont know it was random we put it out of committee after Public Comment and that maybe over the next week we can talk with work with the Entertainment Commission to see if theres a moifrtd version to the full board that will satisfy the concerns raised id rather not stick is out or if i may through the chair to director kane do you feel that 43. 1b sub two to the provision that gives us the ability for exemptions those organizations set forth in the is enough. Well from where we are anywhere will be great i think we included it for a purpose if someway to move this along and satisfy our requests ill appreciate that. Relevant to staff time dont have to make a determination and understanding they receive city funds or make a detector or finding theyre not the proper organizations or Community Group i think everything in that money language in sub a is going to be in sub b two so i dont really see the differences for staff time in fact it modesty take more time to figure out in we get the city fees if theyre a nonprofit or Community Association and that way we wont end up in a situation people say we get a buck for a city and you have to wave the fee. Through the chair if you look at the b two, that doesnt fully encompasses what is in subsection a could could have a situation people get 75,000 or 3,000 for an event or yeah 3,000 on an event and 5 hundred loudspeaker fee is less than 25 percent therefore not waved therefore i think happy if you want to over the next week after we pass this out of committee to see if there is a way that can clarify that satisfy supervisor peskin concern without stripping it out i think that is the better way to precede. Im amenable to that. Parking garage madam chair, i have a second question. Okay. I certain agree that the language been there since the last time i was supervisor outdated and out mooted i agree that the language that supervisor wiener is suggesting by enrevoking the code section d make sense but im not sure why that will have the historic noticing regime for residents whether commercial are residential a notice for those things within wrfd and 50 feet may not be members of an association we did that in the planning code im not sure why were taking that out you if i might we wanted to update because the language in the code raw right now was very much like the best effort and we wanted the come compliance with that so we thought that is a better way again not only require the notice on the building itself but we also have our own guidelines for what we call meaningful outreach and those do include door to door not a leaflet but trash on the ground. It was out mooted and out dated but as far as supervisor wieners legislation is relying think planning code definition relative to outreach is not relying on the and for those of you in the public were not dealing with loudspeaker permits but applications for place of entertainment and it seems to me it seems to me it is unfair for the city to say that a Neighborhood Organization that is on the Planning Department list an individual residents or individual commercial tenant may or may not a member i understand there is signage but if were going to rely 0 on Planning Department definitions they require mailed notice to individuals ndz Area Services that provide that function so i will respectfully ask the sponsor that we include the planning Code Provisions that any commercial or residential occupant within one hundred and 50 feet receive notice. Can we include electronic as well. Electronic. I thought the electronic in the legislation seems to make great policy sense. So through the chair supervisor peskin can articulate the exact amendment since the Entertainment Commission has to administer those responses i would suggest that the noticing provisions set for under section 311 of planning code be invoked the three hundred feet radius be reduced to one hundred and 50 feet. Can you articulate our rational outlet. Im going with the rad as the Entertainment Commission has used for the last dozen years so i thought i would stay with the one hundred and 50 feats that are provisions in the Planning Department that used one hundred and 50 and i this one hundred 50 feet for a place of entertainment is appropriate and thats been the historic radius i thought we would use the 317 four the three hundreds feet radius and reduce it 200 and 50 feet. Supervisor wiener. So ms. Kane you mentioned electronic notice im not sure how you do that but im curious to know. Well, i mean again, we dont know exactly this is a little bit tougher if we require the mailing the way the Planning Department does it to try to not pile on an applicant we use next door that works well and we are the ones that have to 10 establish this is done so were upcoming the low standard to a higher standard to confirm what is accomplished if were going to go to something where well require mailing notice the way that planning side we have to do this through the service and labels and the way the Planning Department does it well have to mail. The way the Planning Department does it and the Planning Department staff are here for another item they took that bonus only the applicant and through that applicant can file an affidavit. I think. Sorry so it sounds like were putting undue financial burden on people that are going to do small neighborhood events. This is the place of entertainment not loudspeakers. This is micro are and the application process is expensive so our hopes not. What is the cost. Close to 16 hundreds for a place of entertainment permit. Supervisor wiener. Im not prepared to sort of thank this on the fly over the next days several an opportunity for conversation perhaps when emission cain as access to her staff and were able to approach this in an amendment to the 90s that make sense ill be happy to support that but not on the fly this is the first im hearing of this the brown act supervisor peskin youve noted not allowed to communicate outside of the hearing and events of the hearing but perhaps the next 8 days supervisor peskin and you can talk about had is possible. Absolutely. You know i want to make sure that will be going to be doable. Yes. Supervisor wiener. Is there how do you want to handle it. I know i would my motion ill make after Public Comment to i move we send it to the full board with a positive recommendation understanding over the next 8 days we are formulate some amendment. Thank you, very much for the comment. Thank you, madam chair im sure theres a good answer that same session sub h that says that gives the commission the ability to extend the 9 months deadline up to 3 years my question ms. Kane the supervisor wiener the maker of the ordinance what brought that about my life example or statistics why that 9 month timeline is two short and years to 2 years or 3 months an additional year thats a pretty long extension time. It does and anticipating that question i have a couple of examples you might be familiar primarily with things under heavy construction where in the past easy to get contractors to come or the Entertainment Commission turned over without a lot of physical change but as we see whole places like such as paradise lounge taking long time they strip. You all about the walls eats Entertainment Commission can precede with the plan it they will get a conditional grant but taken a a long time and not that close and we had to very informally give her extensions thats one e example and another one with a build out a bunch of those kinds of things in all parts it is primarily when people tear something down and redo it it takes longer the City Department tells them what they need to fix and go out and get bids it takes more time than 9 months. Through the chair to supervisor wiener how would you feel about better defining good costs. What. More specifically defining what means a showing of good cause. I actually have a lot of confidence in the Entertainment Commission in terms of the work they do with the permittees and i dont need to add additional definitions i think we the Entertainment Commission is the person responsible a thousands of variations and im comfort with the way the language is now. Subject to Public Comment make seminaries no pressing deadlines 0 on this particular matter im respectfull suggest rather than sending to the full committee but keep it in committee for an additional week and discuss those items that were previously discussed at the committee and continue the item one week subject to Public Comment. All right. Well go ahead and take Public Comment. Time for Public Comment a reminder youll have two minutes a soft chime indicates your time is almost up thank you supervisor cowen im speaking in support of supervisor peskin call for mailed noticed. From my prospective an Entertainment Firm is as much in business to make money then our retail establishments in my neighborhood i routinely get u. S. Mail noticed not flyers e. R. Handout in my mailbox notifying me of one hundred and 50 to three hundred radius from my residence to the extent somebody will be in the entertainment business to generate revenue anticipate hire employees at the, afford the notices any other speakers on this item. Okay Public Comment is closed. At this time thank you supervisor wiener to your name. Thank you. I know supervisor peskin indicated to make a motion to continue i dont see a reason to continue this is not Rocket Science and you know obviously this conversation with the Entertainment Commission could have happened at any time and plenty of time over the next 8 days for supervisor peskin to sit down with ms. Kane and talk about potential tweaks to the legislation im not opposed to making an additional amendment but dont see a need given this committee how it gets to hold this in committee so my motion to forward with a positive recommendation. I see dont see a reason to continue but move it forward. Ms. Kane you and supervisor wiener will work out the details in the next 8 days and id like commissioner peskin to sit down to see ill endeavor to do that with you ms. Kane a roll call vote on that item. Okay a motion to send with a positive recommendation has been accepted and unanimously passes thank you. All right. Could you call items two and three together. Item 2 a hearing on assigning from the bio report and item number two and three. Item for a bio annual housing balance. Okay supervisor kim is going to be speaking and moving the discussion on this. Well wait a couple of minutes for her to arrive. Okay. The clerk has notified me cpmc is not in here office and not on the way down so well take a recess at this time than all right. We will reinvite item 4 call back items two and three together. Item number 2 is a hearing on the finding from the bio annual housing report and item 3 a resolution ref the housing balance report. Supervisor kim thank you, thank you chair cohen this is the second hearing that passed at the board last april 2015 as really a point in time through the november 2014 prop k ill see how the city was meeting 32 percent of Affordable Housing and all new production and preservation as well as 50 percent Affordable Housing and madam clerk, any announcements . And wanted to acknowledge the hard work and recognize teresa and really grateful for the rich data that helps to understand the impacts to the citys housing shortage in order for the Planning Department to make more informed policy decisions howe hours that is coming down the pike as expected certain district that harbor the majority of development by vibrator of proximity to transportation we see had in district 6 and 10 but percentage wise we expect it all of the district should be able to off a positive housing balance the number of Affordable Housing produced or preserved to pass the amount of housing that is lost primarily to what we see with evictions and condominium conversion unfortunately, the back the majority of district have a negative housing balance if 21 percent to two hundred and one percent the good news is that we have had an increase in unit from the last time to the housing balance september 2015 now 11 thousand plus entitled unit as opposed to 9 thousand plus in september of the Previous Year which is an increase of over one thousand units and a housing balance increases by 17 percent over the year there is still plenty of work to do but good to know were moving in a positive direction and the Mayors Office and the board of supervisors had hsa have been pushing in the negotiations for the developers and pushing our voters and residents to give a little bit more in terms of public dollars for the housing bonds that passed in november and other forms of public dollars to make sure were building as much affordable and middleincome as possible and the fact we know we can only do the Work Together if were truly to achieve our goal of Affordable Housing and 50 percent affordable for middleincome housing so i the president to bring up the Planning Department to speak. Off im sorry director rahaim. No problem. Thank you for being here i was not looking in this direction. Thank you being here. My player were pleased to present the third housing balances report the first supervisor after the report the balance was passed and were on a normal schedule of 6 months we understand that the trailing legislation to update the specification of including the evictions in the housing balance report weve been doing that with the legislation to clarify that as well so i just really here to thank teresa a robust piece of work that happens every 6 months with lawful valuable information and thank you for her to put this together and introduce her to present the details of the report. Thank you director rahaim and thank you very much for your commitment to supply the research for this report. Good afternoon supervisors my name is teresa senator planner with the policy section im here to talk about the housing balance report this is an annual report mandated by the board to be heard annually representatives of the Mayors Office and the rent board are here to answer questions to any so what is the housing balance report in april of 2015 the board of supervisors approved ordinance 431 to add section one 03 to the planning code this new section directions the Planning Department to have a balance continue the new market marketrate and the Affordable Housing production the housing balance the proportion of now affordable units to the total of netted Housing Units over a 10 year housing Balance Period the ordinance bye annual report that was submitted to you a couple of weeks cover from the threequarters to 2015. We submitted the first in july and the second one in september of last year and we actually had our introductory hearing on the report in october of last year so why a housing balance when the ordinance is to insure the data are meeting the target citywide and informs the process for new Housing Development and to remind the supervisors here are 3 separate Affordable Housing tasht each with a reporting requirement the housing balance the Housing Elements that are to be dictated a production goal of 28 though new units to be built between will 2015 and 2022 called the arena over and over the Regional Housing goals 47 percent of this between 28 thousand units should be affordable to low and moderate households they 134i789 an annual report to meet the goal to the state department of Community Development the Planning Department prepares a report to the Planning Commission based on the production goals called the quarreling residential dashboard prop k passed by San Francisco voters in 2014 set a goal that 33 percent of net new units be affordable i believe this is the goal Point Housing balance report will be aiming for this also mayor ed lee by 2020 that set a goal of thirty percent affordable units the Mayors Office of Economic Workforce Development prepares a weekly dashboard progress towards meeting this goal so what is the 10 year Affordable Housing trend if we look at only new Housing Production the Affordable Housing made up 24. 6 percent or almost 25 percent of net housing built in the last 10 years the housing balance calculation, however, looks at beyond in any Housing Production in addition to new Housing Production the housing balance calculation looks at acquisition and rehab for existing housing rad Public Housing replacement rad stands for this is rehabilitation and subsidized projects and looks like with the permitted Affordable Housing units the the units are removed from protected status essentially rentcontrolled housing either through the ellis act or demolition under conversion or owner movein evictions it is called the net Affordable Housing stock foyer district reports this net Affordable Housing stock is seen as a proportion of necessary new Housing Units built and permitted and the figures for the 10 year reporting period is results in a housing balance of 18 percent this is in comparison to 15 percent that was recorded last year the ordinance requires that the housing balance is calculated by the board of supervisors district and any Planning Department districts the housing balance for the board of supervisors district range from negative 200 one percent and 49 percent in district 5 the negative balances are due to large numbers of units removed from the protected status relevant to the net affordable units built and the new Housing Units overall district 8, 6, 9 and 10 positive balances the rest have negative balances the next slide shows the housing balance by the planning district and again, we see a variety of balances. Im sorry can you go back to the previous slide. Excuse me the cumulative housing in the district. Can you explain the the reason for the negative balance. Yes. Yes. That is the number of units that are removed from protected status. What are some of the reasons and criteria to remove those. Those are essentially this is data taken from evictions no cost evictions primarily nofault evictions that are primarily ellis acted the units are elised out and those that are converted condos and the units where the owner moveins so he will relatively those are from protected status to a large number than the number of units that are produced in the district. Thank you. So basically, it is just for the planning district and again, it shows a range of balances. The ordinance also reports protected housing balance essential net not housing affordable units if projects that have received entitlements but have yet to receive Building Permits this slide is the projected housing balance is 15 percent the projected housing balance provided at the board of supervisors district and the planning district levels and that youll see in the report itself what is not included the housing balance orientals specifics it 3 Major Projects that have been entitled do not get Building Permits not included in the projected housing balance this is until facing those projects move to applying for and receiving Building Permits all tooth the projects will provide about 21 plus 23 percent will be affordable Hunters Point and Treasure Island they were specifically called out in the ordinance and not included in the projected housing balance are prongs currently under review there been 21 thousand 5 hundred units under review of which 13 percent are in 100 percent Affordable Housing projects and another one hundred marketrate 15 thousand units will be subject to this city inclusion housing means 18 net affordable units built on site under the requirements the second phase is the rent program that included over 2000 units in the projects again, all the coming into the pipeline but not included in the prolonged housing balance im talk about others balances this is a a bio annual ordinance in the the housing balance report comes out in the first of march and the first of september we appreciate the boards patience because weve had difficulties in meanwhile the deadlines given our current technical constraint and staffing constraint and that would be helpful from the deadline coincided with our deadlines for the Housing Inventory for example, the ordinance also meant an annual hearing to be conducted before the board of supervisors and the Planning Commission before the first of april this years schedule is slightly late we tried to meet the schedule. Whats the reason it is late. As i mentioned we have been having technical constraint. Such as. Such as the we are having problems getting data. From who. Collected from the department of building inspection and also matching that with the data from our departments it takes a lot of work to make sure that we capture all the information that we can simply because its just not easy to create the data as well wed like to. So is the dashboard an issue. Yes. Could be and also, we have a schedule we had for some years now we normally prepare the Housing Inventory and we have the schedule release of april one and having march one deadline pushes us a little bit too much given the staffing constraints were not were not able to prepare the report we were able to prepare with the Housing Inventory. Okay continue. So the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development the Mayors Office of Economic Workforce Development the recommendation stabilization board and the department of building inspection and the city environmentalists will present the stratus for having the housing balance with the Affordable Housing goals at the annual meeting should the cumulative balance fall blow a percent theyll determine how to bring the city into the required minimum percentage. Sorry the Planning Department office created and maintenance the website for the housing balance reports as riders by the ordinance the current report as well as previous ones can be download from the site and ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. If the services have questions thank you. Thank you i should reiterate again how helpful it is to have these numbers but for all of us to work off the same numbers in terms of how we calculate our production more Affordable Housing and in relationship to market rate housing and i think as we look at new construction we both look at preservation and very excited about the fact if last year for example, we were able to announce another building that was in the south of Market Stabilization Fund on top of 534 plus we are actually saving current residents to stay in their home often they lived in their units for thirty or 40 years but we count the units we are losing online usually as though nofault evictions or owner movein or condominium conversion i think that is important we look at the balance of both to understand where were at and while we want to be almost double our housing balance to thirty percent it is helpful to know the difference how we chuch the goal and it gives us guidance in future legislation in terms of how we build more Affordable Housing so is it having more of our general funds dollars towards Affordable Housing is it asking the voters to give back or developers to give back to get to the thirty percent i think this is in line with compensation fees that passed unanimously out of this board Going Forwards to the voters were having the feeling in terms of what we can Ask Developers to build for onsite Affordable Housing and this measure will be an important element of how to get to the 17 percent housing balance were building today so at this time through the chair. Supervisor kim i have a question throughout in the presentation i asked the question when this was made she indicated the times and schedules were for the peshdz dont sync up awhile it is important and great to have those numbers but from the schedule is not in sync i dont understand why i think your office was kind of inflexible and having an april one deadline according to this to push forward to the march one deadline do you recall. We asked the report to be submitted by march first and the board of supervisors to have the hearing in april like were doing today; right . Perhaps you can come back to make sure this can sync i i up so were not having it late in the month of april and at this point lets go ahead and take Public Comment. Public comment is open ladies and gentlemen, if you want to comment on the items the matters youve heard. Thank you chair cohen im patrick the first housing balance report in july 2015 showed that the cumulative balance was 21 percent the second report is september showed is it dropped to 15 and the third it back up to 18 percent to peter coming down the pike recorded in april through examinerer it was down and the recorded balance was the projected balance was 11 percent and the third report in large reporting the reflected balance is now up and between the two and three report for moderate income saw 28 point decline from 15 hundred and 50 units no september to just 11 hundred plus unit in march while the combined low and very low income households saw only 7 point plus decline from seven hundred units down to 4399 units and also between the two and three report the moderate income households dropped if 24. 6 percent of the total affordable units to just one percent in march while the very slow plus jumped from 75 plus percentage to 39 puss in march as from the city is fiscal year only on low income. Are you converging didnt we have this conversation. Your Public Comment is also for the public to hear. Next speaker. Again and again supervisors i primarily am here to just i think give proposes to the staff that is kind of mindnumbing work this is only the second or third report so a methodology that to the previous speakers point there is a little bit of a difference in the way the data is organized that explains why the out put it different but the methodology is fine tuned i think that is important we all recognize how hard that is and how important it is very, very informative we have one set of numbers to tell us how we are doing in all the Public Policy debates over policy a or policy b at the end of the day, we want to know how its stacking up and this housing report helps to what were doing terms the providing brick and mortar housing this is not close to thirty or 33 or 50 or was the Housing Element but San Francisco still stand out ahead of the pack so we set your own goals tore getting higher and setting ourselves a leader get to 33 or 40 or 50 percent well continue to pull the state with us thats something we should be proud of but we have a displacement crisis the report looked at the loss units unit taken out of price control thats what were losing as san franciscans and we have to stop the displacement and speculation and think with about both of those solutions thank you. Next speaker good afternoon, supervisors with the well action having the housing balance report has been a big progress theres two missing items that i feel that should be addressed at some point perhaps some way to be added one of them is that building housing that is larger vacant, i. E. , private tiers and first and second homes doesnt add to the Housing Stock in San Francisco really theyre vacant and the second is the number of units that are lost to and or and equivalent services which is somewhere 2w7b 2 and 4 thousand units thats not an insignificant number so we need both more enforcement of b rb o had units running underwent only to vacation and other visitors to San Francisco none of those are legal and we are thats a loss of Affordable Housing right there thank you. We need to see those things take into account thank you, supervisor kim. Next speaker yeah. This is a good report i think the focus on housing balance percentage is to the point oakland last year had 90 percent Affordable Housing sounds like wow. 90 percent but we had fewer 200 homes built total housing balance we can get to 100 percent of 5 homes and well still be in a big problem it should be Housing Production monitoring that should be the focus of analysis and conversation thanks. Any other speakers all right. Public comment is closed. Supervisor kim thank you again, i want to thank the Planning Department for your work in putting these nebraskas numbers together in response to one of the members of the public the analysis of the balance and the number of unit that are produced and constructed and were certainly doing i think significantly well and better this year for construction and production that is as positive for the city in response to the timeline for the reports we received the report on march 31st but keep in mind this is still a new process for the Planning Department theres a lot of numbers and data to go through were happy to hear the item in april and continue on and more routine and were able to add up the numbers in a quirk fashion but i have to say that is a heavy lifted and a lot of new data to calculate and i want to appreciate the department for the work theyve put the resources to make that report possible and this responsibility will help to guide and drive future Postal Service of policies of the board and the Mayors Office to make sure we are a city that everyone can afford to live if if youre a workingclass or a middleincome and not by throwing today is it is a very important part of the work and want to recognize the Planning Department and director rahaim and the colleague for making this happen colleagues i dont have further questions or comments i imagination members of the committee dont so ill suggest to file 24 item. All right. A motion to file this item lets see supervisor wiener and supervisor peskin supervisor kim has asked us to make a motion to file the item supervisor wiener made the motion and supervisor peskin has graciously argued without objection this is filed thank you very much supervisor kim and the Planning Department hopefully, well work to streamline all of our collection of data all right. Are you guys ready to call items two and three together all right. Excuse me item 4. Item 3 the resolution receiving the bio annual housing report. Supervisor kim. My apologies for item 3 that we move that forward with recommendation. So moved. Well take that without objection. That that item passes for item 3 ladies and gentlemen. Item 4. Please call. The administrative code for the inclusionary housing for the Economic Feasibility study and with the housing for the Advisory Committee and also this matter has been notices to increase the fees and this establishes a body suggesting for the rules committee clerk. Thank you very much supervisor peskin is the author of this item supervisor any opening remarks. Im the cosponsors with supervisor kim i believe that supervisor kim has opening remarks i have plenty of additional remarks. Thank you supervisor peskin actually, this is a very appropriate followup to the report that was given on how were meeting our goals of building 33 percent of Affordable Housing and 50 percent of middleclass ive middleincome this has coming up come out of long series of negotiations that has followed a ballot measure that was that the board put on for the june ballot to eliminate the ceiling weve placed in the city chapter in terms of how much Affordable Housing for the marketrate Building Inspections to build in San Francisco assuming the cap at 12 go percent you can go above not below what preceded the Housing Trust fund we saw one of the hottest and strongest housing this market has seen in San Francisco and through many of the negotiations that has preceded we know that marketrate developers can do more than 12 percent given the market but also in many cases the value on the Land Developers prop c roves the cap and sets an sdrmz of asking the developers to go back to 15 of the Affordable Housing we know that developers what manage and on top of that acknowledges not just workingclass residents but middleincome residents are similarly getting pushed out of the San Francisco on top of of the 15 percent for the developer to do this in that discussion a big question of how we treat projects have gone into the pipeline but not approved that have not limited to their epa that is a discussion that followed i want to thank many of the Developers Working closely with delegate habeebs and i, we move that the developers that Everyone Wants to do more regardless of requirement was 12 or 25 percent we also wanted to acknowledge that Many Developers submitted in their proposals do have notice their inclusion rates are going on and around land purposes that make it difficult for them to meet the 25 percent now projects moving forward the 2016 has notice of extension and the citys expectation of inclusionary housing is the expectation for them to work the numbers within their development but were projects in the pipeline that didnt have notice of that that we would not set the same rirmentsdz but yet we were pushed to ask them to do more i have to thank the developers for saying yes, we want to do more and make it work within the project we have in place and that is the ordinance that is before us today that is a essentially call do grandmother proposal but a way to figure out though to have the inclusionary housing to a wide variety of projects in multiple neighborhoods and in the best fashion possible we really handled this legislation with a scoop he will not a hammer not treat the projects the same thing differentiate between 2013 or 2014 or 20152015 and think about the eastern neighborhoods and make sure that theres a slightly graph of parcels that are exempted higher affordability so this is the ordinances that is before the board today it is not perfect but it is a great negotiation and compromise were building more Affordable Housing and would have been expected and with this ordinance so were able to do it in a way to be feasible for developers and put skin in the game in terms of the process so again do want to thank the Mayors Office and the marketrate Housing Developers and agreeing to figure though to do more and make up for the units weve lost from 15 to 12 percent but coming before us with the ordinance that is before us today so these are my opening comments and commissioner peskin my coauthor if you would like to make further comments. Thank you, supervisor kim chief sponsor of this legislation i think you summarized 2 but i agree in 2012 when the previous prop c went on the ballot that reduced the 15 inclusionary housing requirement to 12 percent albeit out liar areas none knew at this point what with the best of intention well enter one of the largest booms in the rentcontrolled housing since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire today, well talk about for the one and 10 anniversary of that major schematic and fire fended and hats off to the Fire Department for the one and 50 anniversary the Chinese Hospital we opened and it was built originally 91 years ago so a great day in San Francisco but the reality is in 2013, 2014, and at or near in 2015 the developers would have made their net and paid in their loans and folks from the executrix trades would have they jobs our jobs as a society to make sure we get as much Affordable Housing in new marketrate construction so indeed that the people who build those projects the police and fire and other city workers that serve the san franciscans can afford to live in the city and county of San Francisco and that will only happen if we step in and make sure that that 12 percent that has been made and legitimately should not have belonged in the city chapter since this chapter was introduced on september 15th supervisor kim and myself working in a very collaborative process as representatives the mayors and representatives the building and Construction Trade and representatives the marketrate Housing Development have coowned with that piece of legislation pursuant to a legislation that supervisor yee offered that was voted for unanimously by this board and this was the resolution i called the road map to peace that laid out how we do that i believe that we have all endeavored in good faith to come up with the trailing legislation i think it treats the pipeline appropriately and treats the Pipeline Projects in a way that is not going to end up with a demolition of new Housing Stock or the loss of jobs for the individuals that build those new projects i think that is done in a way that will capture Going Forward the amount of Affordable Housing that we can and should construct in this great city and county of San Francisco i want to thank eric who has represented most of the albeit not all of the organizations and individuals in the marketrate Construction Industry i want to thank michael who ive kept awe pride e prized of our communications and thank you to mayor ed lee and ken rich for working with us in a good faith collaborative congressional centennial fashion and i believe that as the board of supervisors put this measure on the ballot unanimously i have every confidence with a few minor tweaks we will pass this trailing legislation unanimously thank you, supervisor kim for your leadership. Supervisor wiener. Thank you very much madam chair colleagues this important and impact full legislation in its current revised form became public on thursday afternoon i dont think we should be asked to vote on this legislation a mere 4 days later this is perhaps the most significant piece of housing legislation that well vote on during our tenure on the board of supervisors one that will determine how much housing is San Francisco going to produce to meet the needs of growing population and how much Affordable Housing are were going to produce we owe it to the public to have a fair and transparent process that was not happened here i dont cant support this legislation today i supported placing prop c on the ballot i agree with supervisor peskin that we need to remove the affordability percentage from the charter i support raising the affordability percentage i support doing it in a way that will maximize the number of affordable units we produce in San Francisco yet i also support doing this in a thoughtful way one that is based policy, one that is based actually maximizing the amount of Affordable Housing, one that respects the rules and notation of fairness and based on economic and financial feasibility so we dont kill promotions and actually undermine the production of Affordable Housing this legislation is bad housing policy and will make our housing crisis even worse it results from a series of private backroom negotiation with certain favored developers graisht in some projects while not grandfathering in other projects it dramatically increases the inclusionary requirements adding Million Dollars no costs the projects that were already fully approved by the good faith reliance on existing rules and requirements and for future housing creation this legislation one size fits autos not studied realize on random numbers that has nothing to do with with any analysis of what will actually maximize Affordable Housing production in San Francisco current projects the projects in the pipeline the legislation creates convoluted grandfathering grandfathering language resulting from the backroom deals where developers they win and loss inform policy basis to explain why some developers are grandfathered and others not and it gets worse the legislation goes so far to have the inclusionary requirements in some cases doubling that requirement and imposing millions of in cost for the projects already been approved youve heard that right the projects that followed the rules that went through the Community Process and approval progress went to the Planning Commission that got approved those fully approved projects are now having to meet the change this is not Good Government how we should be doing things think outside the box on that basis the lack of policy based fair and clear grandfathering provisions the legislation should be rejected in its current form yet the grandfathering issue has attracted the most tension and activity the problematic part of legislation is in terms of its long term the impact on long term housing policy in San Francisco future projects because is one size fits ought to determine whether or not those projects will be feasible at 25 percent the legislation treats a thirty unit project dentally to an 8 hundred unit project again, no Economic Feasibility study and it is important this is the elective equivalent of throwing darts at a dart board it works well, for dart scheme but not appropriate ill note no nexus study on this legislation colleagues, we all want to produce the highest numbers of Affordable Housing yet to achieve that goal we absolutely must know what is economically and financially feasible if a project becomes infeasible or if it shrinks or reluctance to 24 units or less to come in under the 25 percent trigger few affordable units will be produced artificial 25 percent of zero is still zero this is a significant risk if the future of the de facto moratorium in San Francisco it moves us to the days when we produced this housing as a our population was growing by leaps and bounds which directly led to the housing crisis and the displacement that we are experiencing today this legislation will make our housing crisis every worse and will make our city even less affordable than it is today i will not be supporting this legislation thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, supervisor farrell has joined us. So colleagues first of all, i want to associate myself myself with many of the comments from supervisor wiener were in a housing crisis and housing crisis across San Francisco doing everything we can in terms of policies here at the board of supervisors and inside of city hall that encourages more housing kiss e chris, i building we need to build more Affordable Housing in the city not less supervisor wiener touch on the perspectives on that overall i want to mention in terms of grandfathering legislation i appreciate some of the comments of my colleagues and supervisor kim about projects in the pipeline and people that have made Financial Decisions nevertheless their projects and put money on the line only to have not only projects fully approved but magnificent decisions make a good e made only so have us change the rules midstream people have put skin in the game and this is not applying a scalpel to the pipeline this is a hammer on Affordable Housing in San Francisco i know in my district that is the potential to put the hammer on over one hundred avenue, i building we owe it to the people in the town we maximize Affordable Housing and create a process that is fair and visual so people know the rules they have to abide by people in the city of San Francisco when they have a choice landowner or developers have a crisis between residential or commercial our history we want to encourage residential building within our city limits and in some instances it is much easier for developers or landowner to build commercial given the hoops and now 0 move we are impcos and give the housing crisis we have to have residential along the way in march in board adopted the resolution im glad to adopt a policy that maximize inclusionary housing requirement it was adopted unanimously with the understanding the trailing legislation by a further resolve grandfathering class it allows Economic Feasibility with projects in the pipeline my fears this is constructed as supervisor wiener mentions some Developers Left in and some out depending on the whims of the colleagues thats not how to promote polly will be a supporters of that and my fear that legislation the way it is drafted will not achieve that goal it will kill be not only market rate housing in the pipeline on line sooner than anything else and established city policy to eliminated the nonconforming uses and support housing especially on the opportunities we shouldnt loss site of this policy i want to say i understand there are amendments to project suggested later on im in full support we need an honest discussion i ago that 4 days is two soon again especially in the pipeline cant think of any reason not to support the people to get housing online as quickly as possible so have more commercial uses and in the process killing affordable units in the city. Thank you supervisor peskin. Thank you, madam chair if i may through the chair to supervisor farrell is sounds like youre speaking about amendment relative to a specific project you said would be residential or commercial that is a large site in your district are you referring to something in particular. To my colleagues commissioner peskin both at a citywide and project in particular in my district a strong invested interesting interest yes. Through the chair to supervisor farrell what project is that. Is it a project up at laurel heights. Okay laurel height is a big area can you be more specific you or supervisor cowen is going to introduce an amendment to accommodate it. Ill suggest two amendments i fully support im not a Voting Member of this committee but at the support two amendments one in terms of issues within the 4 days weve had to look at this legislation that we have been able to look at that is detrimental and in Affordable Housing in district 2 and other parts of San Francisco. Im not sure that was responsive to my question but im sure well find out what youre referring to if i may through the chair to supervisor wiener and supervisor farrell raised highlevel issues which is in reveling i was not a member of this body i believe most of you were when you choose to put on the ballot proximate cause which reduced the percentage of Affordable Housing from 15 to 12 percent. Absent Economic Feasibility study. Ive heard words in the last few minutes if my colleague supervisor wiener he hold in highest esteem this is the subject of dealing with specific developers and offering them specific things ive not heard examples whyd with the grairthd legislation does is it says if youre in the pipeline remembered we voted for a resolution we would well get 200 units out of the pipeline we voted for that how did we do that we did it uniformly we did it fairly we do it in collaboration with the Planning Departments and the that in collaboration with the folks who developed those projects, we did it in collaboration with virtually outline of the building and Construction Trades albeit not one for the head of the voting Construction Trades doesnt speak so far one union i went or respect that having said that, we all unanimously voted that we were going to get approximately 200 units of additional Affordable Housing out of the pipeline and whyd we have in good faith worked to do that how did we did that not by choosing politically connected developers but like this we said if you were in the pipeline which we did quite geniusly in the pipeline if you filed angle environmental application if you filed one prior to republican youll get a with only percent bump none claimed calendar year 2014 a one half hour binge no complaints up to january of 2016 when supervisor kim and i introduced this Institute Charter amendment youll get 2 and a half percent bump how is it picking favorites or through the chair to commissioner lee youve give me examples sfashthear i h without further ado, you e with all due respect you sued me of hypocrisy if youre getting getting ready to introduce a backroom deal for a specific developer for a specific project that was not covered and quite uniform very generous compromises we brought up to bring the people of this town Building Construction workers everyday people normal folks approximately 200 more united of housing we should have gotten which this board i was not a member put proximate cause on the ballot supervisor kim. When they put their name on the cue they can respond supervisor kim. Actually supervisor peskin covered many of my points the grandfathered legislation is uniform how it treats our developers the bumps are exactly the same depends on the year you submitted your education a i think that is a generous trigger there be up to this time we could have made accident grandfathering bumps we choose a piementd that was early on in the process generally when you introduce legislation in this case we actually were generous we didnt pick the date in december we picked january 12th the day we submitted the institute for prop c at this time we felt it was fair and the developers did what the expectation was and if they submitted their e a it was the beginning the Development Process with the city the very giving you understand the expectation of the city in terms of what we exterminate you to build omitted in the Board Members have issues with 25 percent they should have voted against prop c negative impact february i dont like this hammer it is was development of construction that was the moment in time to say i dont like this what were doing today, were taking care of projects in the pipeline asking them to contribute more we worked the developers in the pipeline they agreed and they wanted to contribute more Affordable Housing they believe that is important to do and they did it in a way they felt it was reasonable given the fact that many of them have skin in the game and have actually begun a planning process with the city so i think that is important to note the krivendz im hearing hearing how there is is not a fiscal faubd that was agreed two months ago at the full board of supervisors in february and my colleagues had an opportunity to vote no on prop c and say they dont support building more Affordable Housing but prop c they said well go do a go Feasibility Study and we can who well lower the number to the maximize that we think that marketrate developers can do and that is what that process is for so anyone that is concerned b about projects that came in after january 2016 they will be taken care of by the Feasibility Study so if youll say i submitted my e a last week and in fact, only one marketrate project since january telephone, 2016 only one since january 2016 well and we discovered through the Feasibility Study that will be pled by july 21st well not make you to 25 percent we need more Affordable Housing and our goal to get the maximum that we can expect in terms of what they can build thats what prop c is so for mono that has concerns about that that will be taken care of in the future there are really none on this board that wants to halt construction or development we all agree ear a growing city and we have to be in balance and not leave anything on the table we want the marketrate developers to contribute and not just marketrate Housing Developers as supervisor wiener appoint it is the city and Property Owners through the housing bond and through set aside at transfused, it is general fund dollars all of those things and developer fees that are helping us build more Affordable Housing it is also the contribution of a private community as well and im actively proud to say the developers that i district recommend i want to appreciate thats the work of all the negotiations now in response to the facts if some of my colleagues say on 4 days to consider the amendments it went under the Planning Commission the Planning Commission made a series of recommendations and in fact, we actually put most of amendments in and theyve their typical we bring this to those the Planning Commission they make the recommendations and ask the sponsors to consider a serious of amendments we make those and it comes before the Land Use Committee ive not heard any containments so suddenly 4 days not enough weve done it multiple times before it i think is no a genuine criticism this happens amended and if you get the planning report those are the ones through the Planning Department i know that Ann Marie Rogers is here to talk about the process long with the amendments they have proposed which supervisor peskin and i committed and adopted several of. Thank you supervisor wiener. Thank you very much madam chair you know supervisor peskin has raised the prop c issue in terms of putting the affordability thresholds into the charter and i want to just note that that prop c was quickly adapted during times was passed out of this board unanimously supported by the mayor, supported by the business communities, by the Affordable Housing community, came out of actually a broad based transparent process i never heard supervisor peskin exclaim about prop c when it was pending at this board or during the protection maybe i didnt hear all i agree that percentage needs needs to be taken out of chapter i dont agree can supervisor kims statement this was the time to complain about the 25 percent when we put proximate cause on the ballot the whole point was taking the percentage out of the charter and establishing and temporary 25 percent threshold with the understanding that there will be trailing legislation that would then establish a more wrote a broadbased approach understanding not all projects are the same i dont know that is the case if you didnt oppose prop c you can have an opinion about welcome to the one line fits all it is clear this legislation as present to us today without naming the projects is exempting certain projects from this increase is it so very, very clear the office of the legislation ive been talking to Different Developers nothing in appropriate but we know that they have been all sorts of negotiations in recent days and weeks in terms of what different kinds of xoems exemptions will be and what the cut offices will be and we know there are winners looser so not adequate 24 was drafted in the ivory tower and sealed off by the projects happening and not happening we know that was krachtd very much with the acknowledge which projects will be bend and which projects will not be benefited i do think with should be attending otherwise. Supervisor peskin. Thank you, madam chair i first want to reiterate what supervisor kim said which is this trailing legislation didnt come along 4 days ago that was introduced a month ago it went to the Planning Commission the Planning Commission wrote up a staff report the Planning Commission reviewed it can supervisor kim and myself made changes with all due respect to my colleagues disingenuous to say it arrived 4 days ago the changes were changes that happened though the introduces processing that is a piece of legislation that has been around a month but through the chair supervisor wiener please tell me what are those projects what change needs to be made to this legislation that is not uniform supervisor kim stated i stated this is being done absolutely uniformly pursuant to the unanimously passed reserves authored by supervisor yee we were getting approximately 200 units out of the pipeline that led to the one bum and is 2 and a half percentage bump so, please if theres a change your proposing that you on is parse of this backroom deal tell us what it is yes have i gotten calls from a number of developers who would like to make more money or who will be invented not one of them actually on one of them who previously spoke about who is a day late a directing short said this will kill the project not one of them which is why youll hear later on today from the representative who represented the maufrtd Housing Developers many of whom have long histories in that town that they actually port in compromise so, please through the chair supervisor wiener what you r are you talking about. Supervisor farrell. All right. Id like to take a second to talk to our in response to some of the comments id like to ask a few questions by the Planning Department it was referred to by one of my colleagues only one project that has filed an application since january 12th. One marketrate project. My understanding it is incorrect that there are now been a number of projects filed since then i want to make sure we have all the facts as you. Director rahaim with the Planning Department i believe that there are 5 projects filed since that date im actually checking the data but 5 projects since that date im not sure exactly on the totals. Ignore him. I think there are 5 projects since january 12th. A rhetorical question in terms of this these provisions to our Planning Department as well were you involved at all in those discussions who grandfathered in or out. To the best of my knowledge i believe there was information traded in terms of data i dont believe there was discussed about the character or the types of grandfathering that is to the best of my knowledge as and i as written something your supportive of. We certainly were here to present the Planning Commission proposed changes to the legislation some of which were incorporated into the revised draft. Lets that speaks for itself and thank you for that just want to conclude i think we should respect the people that want to speak in Public Comment but i believe we need to promote building more housing especially in the city of San Francisco and legislation that come down forward that kills over one thousand units of Public Housing and one hundred units of Affordable Housing well not be supporting here at the board of supervisors. Thank you, supervisor wiener and after this supervisor wiener comments well go ahead and go to the staffs presentation and take Public Comment. The planning staff there are various categories of grandfathering do you have a list of which projects falls into the categories of grandfathering how much can you go through publicprivate to start. Good afternoon emry rogers planning staff i do apologize attire staff has been working on that and came out friday after 5 so the first public discussion of it and the commission was not able to hear the information so there are 3 proposed tiers that are described in the grandfathering the first will be for the projects prior to 2013 and that year or prior and we have there are 200041 potential units in the first year between january 2014 to the ends of that year there are 18 hundred 78 potential residential unit in that tier b and tier c all the 2015 and up to the first two days of this year there are about 8 thousand 1 hundred and 23 dwelling units. Do you have a list of projects that are not being grandfathered. So of those potential projects not grandfathered a total of 5 thousand 200 and 46 potential dwelling units. Is that because i know there is building over one and 20 feet at all or taller no grandfather and thats right building over one and 25 feet with. Im sorry one and 20. One and 20 feet or higher. All right. So if you have a building that is your proposing one and thirty feet and you filed our environmental application in 2014 what is your affordability percentage. Defense in the Zoning District also. What would the range be. And it this for grandfathered rate. The new permit rates . For a project one and thirty feet tall that filled the environmental application in 2014. I believe that will be 25 percent. Right that was my understanding so for that kind of project they get no grairthd at all so even though they have been in the pipeline for several years they purchased their land based on certain assumptions without affordability, they went through the process, theyre now do 25 basically doubling. So my incentive should the Economic Feasibility study has not happened yet; correct . Thats correct. So how obviously a project becomes infeasible you could you know we instead of 25 percent say 50 percent or 75 percent has to think affordable some point the project is economically infeasible so without that economic faibd o faeshd how do we know from particular type of project that you know 15 percent is the highest feasible or 25 or 35 or 50 percent how do we know if we dont have the Feasibility Study. Supervisor our right the feasibility is difficult and depended on the project with the economics the building prices of the Reality Market and unless our developer returning the performa we dont have the understanding newly we do our own Feasibility Study. Weve not done. Thats correct. Do you know how the number 25 percent has come up i know for the Charter Amendment the goal was to take the percentage out of the charter to ed set a temporary 25 percent with the understanding that we would then presumably both into through an analytical progress to say this kind of project 35 percent is the right number or 40 percent whatever the case for this project 25 percent maybe 21 or 19 percent to that was my understanding of what we are going to do instead putting in the grandfathering for the existing Pipeline Projects that will eventually be out the pipeline and built or not built and further projects so this imposes on all of them if 25 unions or more inclusionary percent of 25 percent and what it sounds like that number was i made a comparison throwing a dart at a dart board 25 percent may sounds like i sound good but ive yet to see any analysis that links 25 percent to what is feasible for any kind of project we heard the other day Treasure Island was here for 8 thousand units project an upcoming e up zoning and all sorts of economic advantages that the projects dont have they tell us they were struggling to hit the 25 percent theyll do it because they have to but struggling for a large project so it is twoub well be asked to vote on prevention to set for future projects and projects 25 percent threshold in no connective Feasibility Study whatsoever to determine whether or not it is feasible for those projects is the Planning Department able to say whether this legislation will maximize the production of avenue, i think our shared goal so have the most affordable units possible so will this legislation maximize production of Affordable Housing . Supervisor it might be good do go into the presentation part of the presentation theyre no support of that because of the long term it sets out the best practices model for doing a Feasibility Study and periodically and professionally updating it so they have any additional recommendations when necessary said theyll support it but want to see it into the legislation some have happened but overall the structure will set the model. Supervisor kim members of the jury that and, of course, it is good to do periodic analysis but the board of supervisors has to make the provision for 6 months or 5 years there was an analysis suggesting maybe instead of 25 but maybe 17 percent or whatever the case but in a political situation to lower the affordability percentage we heard from supervisor peskin krivenl criticism of the board in 2012 so am i correct it requires large project authorization a political decision by the board of supervisors or the future board of supervisors to make those changes not like the the Economic Analysis happens in the future not selfimplementing. Thats correct no selfimplementing nature so take another ordnance by the board of supervisors after the Feasibility Study was complete and we get a lot of reports from different depends suggesting we make changes to the legislation that often doesnt happen you dont need to respond to that. Supervisor peskin. Madam chair. Thank you. I know we want to hear from the Planning Department relative to the presentation by from the patient members of the public but if i may through the chair to supervisor wiener a couple of things first of all, supervisor wiener i think you made a serious allegation which respectfully youve get to refute weve spoken to the uniform way this policy is being applied but your line of reasoning and our line of questioning does not deal with the reality and the reality is that you are one of the lovingly unanimous members of this body that voted to put what is now prop c on the ballot that measure very clearly said that we were going to take this out of the charter you stated youll agree and set an interim rate of 15 protecting and moderated income vote for that we all voted for supervisor yees legislation that said that on or before the 31st day of july of this year 2016 we would have a fiscal analysis conducted by an trusted independent corral that informs the board how well deal with that Going Forward i want to read to you and to the public the language if this matter that is before us it reflects the language that was in supervisor yees resolution it sets forwards the good faith spirit of the negotiations that have been ongoing and it readers federal, state, and local the board of supervisors has proposed this is on page 43 of the trailing legislation this board of supervisors has proposed to the voters a Charter Amendment that will appear on the june 7, 2016, ballot the cheater amendment will authorize the city to enact i ordinance subsequent changes to the Affordable Housing requirements including to the minimum or maximize Affordable Housing obligates awe applicable to the Housing Stock and on march first, the board of supervisors unanimously adopted the resolution 80 delaying that it shall be city policy to maximize the economically feasible percentage of air force and market rate housing to create housing for low income and slash middleincome households and two in the voters adopt this on adjoin 7 the board will adopt a further ordinance requiring the city 2k789sdz to have a Feasibility Study to maximize affordability in the Affordable Housing requirements this is that ordinance and 3 the future ordinance will create Advisory Committee to insure the Feasibility Study is a result of inclusive process the purchasing purpose to set the Affordable Housing ignitions in San Francisco at maximum feasible for the housing for he workingclass and middleincome housing set forth in the charter and with the guidance with the nexus study you referenced that will be periodically updated and it goes on to say at subsection b well do a bio Feasibility Study and ill read you, you all of that but everything supervisor youre speaking to is actually the subject what you vote so far not ones but twice the subject of the trailing legislation i have no problem if you want to oppose it but in substance of what you sport if you want to make a motion to theres the Affordable Housing so forth to uniformly apply that at one and a half and 2 1 2 youll make that motion well vote on it here quite frankly the thing i think you owe the supervisor a response to youve yet to give how your allegation with the backroom deals is true give me one example. Not today were about to again to the presentation from the Planning Department keep this moving. Thank you, supervisors moores planning staff im joined by the Director Director rahaim and the Mayors Office of housing Sophie Hayward so today, im here to represent what the Planning Commission has to say they considered it on march 31st of this year and recommended a approval with a number of recommendations as you may know the voter removed this for the chapter this ordnance establishes the new rates and creates grandfathering and a message for the periodic updates because of this the Commission Recognizes this as perhaps one of the most important observances of the year this ordinance energies the city to maximize the production of Affordable Housing and inclusionary housing with the most Affordable Housing with the market rate housing can only happen if we establish a review and update and this ordinance does that from the inclusionary rates are too low theyre not providing as much Affordable Housing and from the production is low so it establishes the best practices not only by the regular study of and investment and response to feasibility but also establishes the best practices by Building Public trust given the importance of the Feasibility Study the ordinance establishes an open and transparent process that will be reviewed by people with Technical Expertise and in the two prond approach with the transparent process the ordinance follows the best practices and set the needs for inclusionary housing on behalf of the Planning Department i commend the sponsors in the long run the city gets the most Affordable Housing no matter the marketing condition this was amended last week and somewhat different but you have the commissions full recommendations in your packet and ill hit the major points we thank the sponsors for the approving the equity and the new version as postages in the umu and the family zone and grandfather rates further and likely due to the speed of the process the first version has some of the grandfathered lowered rates set lower than the existing rates this is corrected and now the existing tier rates of nuke reflects the capacity within the districts today the new version only to in association with the concessions and the density the project itself so the commission made recommendations the most important ones we would like to drawing your attention to include the following the commission requested additional equity and viability to be grand parented raised and namely the muck is outstanding were involved in the 2020 fetter effort to stabilize the Small Businesses the second request that the commission id like to directing your attention without the fooebd that demonstrates the specific needs to differentiate the building types the commission asked for the building over one and 20 the same until studies that can for the rates by building heights and number 3 the projects which have been completed