Skip to main content

tv   BOS Land Use Committee 10515  SFGTV  October 8, 2015 3:00pm-5:11pm PDT

3:00 pm
>> all right. ladies and gentlemen, good morning the meeting will come to order the third-degree tomato supervisor wiener the vice chair and to my left it supervisor jane kim your clerk victor young thank you to jim smith and leo from sfgovtv for their broadcasting this meeting mr. clerk, any announcements? >> yes. completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the pocket 20th 2015 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> all right. thank you very
3:01 pm
much please call item one. >> an ordinance amending the planning code to correct the errors part of ordinance. >> okay. >> update the code and making the language supervisions for the clarify tax. >> thank you very much i believe we're going to hear from aaron star from the planning department will be present on this item welcome. >> thank you very much supervisors aaron star supervisor for legislative affairs this is an ordinance to impact the ordnance repealed in part of article 2 to update the code language and make non-substantial language it clarify the text the planning commission heard this and voted unanimously to approve that and recommend were added to the ordinance before today it is a
3:02 pm
straightforward piece of legislation so my presentation is short i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> okay. thank you colleagues i don't know if there is any discussion if not open up for public comment at this time public comment an open. >> thank you, ma'am planning i want to also a true relationship our treasure awhile we look at weighing noblz and the weekly buzz actually to any girlfriend for the noble prices against hock destiny and self-- missionary parkway based on what was on lucky boat as things matters all the way being in danger everyone should have
3:03 pm
reasonable success and later in life of intelecommunication of falsehood we'll support for having a moon and sun go our planet of force to remove of education to gentlemen of statement for revises and having a way of speech and this banging being a proper measure a complete- upon contributing high levels of back to one is holy and extend to a border of universal whole that part of december new for true self-nature and physical nature for the showing of true forces to complete oneness. >> is there any additional
3:04 pm
public comment only item one seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you very much colleagues may i have a motion on that item. >> thank you there was a motion open up for public comment by supervisor kim we'll take that without objection. that motion passes nauchl mr. clerk item 2. >> item 2 a resolution oppose the sdrrmz in the zoning planning area that is boundary by market street on the north and fulsome on the south and stuttering on the east and between montgomery and third street on the west and the area boundaries by harrison and second street excluding the rooftop broadway-sansome apartments between mission and other portions in zone one of the transbay development plan. >> new supervisor kim is the author of this she'll offer remarks. >> we're still in negotiation with the stakeholders in this
3:05 pm
interim control i'd like to make a request to continue for two weeks. >> the motion was made to continue to two weeks until october 19th and we'll take that without objection. that item passes thank you. >> oh, let's take public comment let's go back to item two all right. seeing none, public comment is closed thank you there was a motion by supervisor kim to continue this item until october 19th and that motion passes unanimously all right. thank you mr. clerk, call item number 3. >> item number 3 the ordinance amending the planning commission by the transportation sustainability fee and spunt proclamations of the transit
3:06 pm
impact fee with the sustainability fee remains operative. >> thank you very much colleagues a continuation of the previous hearing and discussion i think so we have staff from the planning from planning from mta and who are here to answer questions and mr. victoria wise times to make an announcement why not have victoria with the mta okay. let the director speak and come back to you thank you. >> thank you, madam chair and members the committee thank you for your time in considering this item i want to reinforce a few things the measure that was introduced by the mayor along with the planning department and the mta was the result of a considerable amount of work literally over the course of
3:07 pm
many years it was analysis both the techniques and the feasibility study but even more so lots of discussions with lots of different stakeholders and trying to incorporate feedback and trying to run numbers and find as someone said a sweet spot of the right level to set those fees and the right way to assess them and the rate uses upon which to assess them we at the municipal transportation agency have a invested interest and generating revenue but we want to make sure in the context of the other fees the city assess in the cost of doing business we're going about this in the most thoughtful and deliberate way the work that was done i believe got to what was a strong proposal - there were
3:08 pm
certainly people on different sides thought that which is too much or too much grandfathering or two little we took that feedback and came up with the final feedback i said there are legitimate questions about some of those dimensions what is covered whether the fees are at the right level and the grairt adams or subtracted i know you had a number of questions at the land use commission and the planning department staff has worked hard to get you the answers they're here with the staff and the transportation authority ready to answer any other questions and provide any other information and if there are some things that need to adjust a little bit one way or another certainly an arena for the board of supervisors to weigh in i want to reinforce there was a lot of work at
3:09 pm
analytical and are stakeholder work we brought together by our staff over the course to get to the comprehensive product i'm hopeful without too much unbeknownst doing of those years of work we can get to consensus on city hall and move forward so i want to hour and reflect all the many yea of hard work that was done to try to get the best possible painstaking understanding people have different ideas the staff are here to provide information and thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you for your hard work. >> ms. wise you want to introduce the line up. >> members of the board director reiskin recovered much of it i want to add in addition
3:10 pm
to sfmta we have staff from the district 2 and the consultants for the feasible analysis we're ready to answer any questions or provide clarification for the materials we sent to you covering the grandfathering like post secondary hospital exemption and questions around feasibility particularly around the eliminations of the credit and the increase of the fees for different criteria so thank you. >> thank you so i have a few opening remarks. >> jump into i will notoriety all of my comments from the last meeting i have of the opportunity to communicate and talk to many of the stakeholders as well city staff about this legislation i do want to acknowledge the hard work the mayor's office put
3:11 pm
together a piece of legislation the harrods on this matter is in no way in a gated only fair to weigh in to the piece of legislation and so as i previously mentioned san francisco is growing at critically rapid rate and much of this growth is occurring in the southeast neighborhood and devil the housing it critically important when there is a housing crisis, however, the infrastructure that supports 24 growth is critical to the liveability and health of the neighborhood this committee heard false imprisonment articulated the challenges we have with the developing infrastructure in the eastern neighborhoods to serve this new growth we need to really get this right and i belive we can
3:12 pm
thoughtfully increase the impact fees without discouraging much of the needed development now colleagues, i have circulated a few amendments for your considers the first removal of the planned area credit which is only page 8 beginning on line 3 this will modesty increase the fees and keep the dollars in the neighborhood and releaving the strain 1 please turn off all electronic devices. plus million dollars a year remove the credit developers will not pursue the projects in those areas i roll call disagree the removal of the credit results in a rultsd in an increase an $0.97 and those are
3:13 pm
the areas that have all accepted most of the city's development in the most dire need of infrastructure improvements the second amendment i've proposed to increase side threshold for pdrs exemption from 8 hundred ground square feet to 15 hundred ground square feet this is a priority and will generate only a negotiable amateur of money consistent with the pdr policies we've taken the third amendment i'm proceeding i said last week the hospitals should prepare to pay fees we appreciate the charity care they generates a significant number of trips and has a significant impact i've asked the hospital to work with
3:14 pm
us on a standard that reflects unique situation, however, a they've not been 80 able to come forward this will remove the exemption for hospitals those large trip janitors should pay fair share and open to an alternative proposal in the absence of the feedback from the hospital we need to make a statement those entities pay their fair share so i will supervisor kim's name on the - okay look to supervisor wiener if you have any comments to share. >> sure thank you very much madam chair, i want to not go into the same level the subscription but i'm excited about this legislation going
3:15 pm
forward we be wouldn't quibble about this and that detail but not to miss the force for efforts for the trees the fit in the history of san francisco transit impact fees will apply to residential promotions and this precarious transit fee tsif han has been on the books for 35 years and not employed to residential that was an adoption but the fact we have an in terms amount of remain development in san francisco i've supported we need more housing 90 in san francisco we know when we have more residential development in the city it is important but it has impacts and is as a result we have impact fees we impose on
3:16 pm
residential impacts around the affordable housing and around various other needs is an o suspicion that residential development does not pay impact fees we're bringing people into an area there are impacts on transportation system including auto trips and crowding or increased ripen on public transportation and important to develop to help pay for those needs not to pay on their own and the lions share of our transit system is funded by this taxpayers this is an important step forward i'll note we went through this process in a more limited form 3 years i offered renewal of tsif we had fixtures around hospitals should be
3:17 pm
exemption from the transit impact fee i took the position and figure out to remove the exemption for the impact fees in 2012 i figure out the good fight and a lot of the balanced a 9 to 2 vote the only members e member of the board of supervisors that voted with me to remove the comments was former carmen chu i want to thank her for standing with us although we sufrdz when we moved that the t s pi keep in mind that message that the board of supervisors sent loud and clear that people voted not to keep the hospital exemption k exemption as a result we worked to keep the exemption to the
3:18 pm
seismic retrofit and we agreed with the hospital on that expended exemption i was then surprised to learn i had a number of colleagues that voted to keep the hospital exemption three years ago and now advocating to remove the exception that's fine everybody is entitled to their viewpoint i wish that we all had been together to remove the exemption three years ago that's life i'll stand by the agreement he reached with the hospitals before we introduced this legislation to extend their exemption from through the seismic deadline i'll not be supporting the exemption of the hospital today although i maybe in the minority there are other
3:19 pm
amendments i'll describe and top after opinion the first student housing not built by nonprofit universities should be subject to transit impact fees we have a dramatic shortage of student housing in san francisco it is very negative impact for students that can't find a place to live in their cars or just to go to college long commutes i offered student housing legislation to try to remove some of the obstacles and make that cheaper and easier for universities to build their own hours instead of tossing their students into the universal pool student housing before any of us on the board this is at previous board of supervisors exempted student housing entirely from the inclusionary housing no
3:20 pm
affordable housing fees to make it as inner expensive as possible to build housing we shouldn't be have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the impact fees to student housing to the universities so i'll be offering an amendment, in fact, i'll also be offering an amendment one-half had a lot of - minor amendment around requirement to perform economic feasibility study every 5 years and this amendment will change it to 3 years and i'm want to hear what the proposals are in terms of i know there will be proposals to increase the square footage of transit impact fee assess and perhaps around grairthd so once those are proposed i'll have thought i
3:21 pm
have ideas how to approach that to accomplish a lot of the goals while also respectfully the needs of feasible projects and finally i just want to note i mentioned this briefly last week that transit impact fees as important as they are a tiny tiny piece of the proposal for the plans the total amount we'll get palace in comparison to the needs we have and those are largo coming from taxpayers so from various ballot measures that will moved whatever we do let's keep in mind the big picture the people that are cheer leading this their equally or more passion when it comes to
3:22 pm
airbnb public decisions to invest in our transportation system because that is what is going to decide the transit system that meets the needs of the people in san francisco thank you. >> supervisor kim. >> commissioner avalos. >> go ahead. >> thank you chair cowen first of all, i was here last week and want to residency my comments first of all, thank the mta and planning and mayor's office and the development community for coming together on the tsif a lot of work that was done and crafting the legislation that is bring your attention today, i think this is significant especially setting the precedent how to collect fees on development and how development can help to cover transportation costs in san
3:23 pm
francisco last week, we offered a number of ideas i've been calculating for amendments some of them have been talked about today, i know we've heard clearly from ed reiskin from the mta about all the work in establishing the fee as is and i understand also that within city hall and city departments there had been a lot of discussion the right way to calibrate those fees i see that the decision has come together and the deal that was made in the mayor's office with the development community and the mayor was a deal that was maids now what is in the legislative process to discuss what is the proper way to calibrate those fees and now in our hands i want to make sure wear hearing clearly from the people that
3:24 pm
worked on establishing the fees or the rational and what was feasible to the developments of different size to school bus a new fee and have that guide us while we're setting the fees at city hall and the board chamber so here are the different ideas i have in place for amendments that i maybe sitting in for supervisor kim and who has to leave later in the meeting today before we finish so i might be adding those actual amendments i agree with the elimination of the area plan exemption i agree with eliminating the hospital exemptions as well and looking at an overall tier structure for the tsif that will based on residential and the
3:25 pm
non-residential for the size of the projects in the residential and non-residential and kathy is here for details with that after public comment and i also want to look at how to grandfathering the residential and non-residential based on july 1st of 2014 and also the introduction day for the new tsf that was july 21st of this year so that will be looking at grairt for residential and non-residential i also have a concern about how watching from the prospective of district 11 in the southern part of san francisco we've haven't seen a very equitable way of shairts sharing the resources in that part of san francisco how to looked forward to the study between the planning department and the controller's office and how to make feasible tiered
3:26 pm
approach to create incentives in part of san francisco that see development happening in single-family homes providing in-law unit apartments for typicallyers rather than remain and commercial space that will be transforming in the future an amendment that way in that direction move forward so those are my openly comments and again, thank you to the mayor's office and the planning department and mta for their work and looked forward to the discussion here and at the full board of supervisors about the tsif. >> thank you very much supervisor kim. >> thank you just in case i'm not able to make an it through public comment i want to move forward my position on the tsf and recognize the staff at sfmta and the planning department as well everyone that's been working on updating the tsf and
3:27 pm
it has been going on for many years i want to clarify when the amended version came before us in the board of supervisors a few years ago we voted against it not because we were not against a particular exemption or non-exemption like the hospital there are a number of groups that were constituent like the nonprofit affordable housing and every single member of the board has a variety of reasons they voted against the version we wanted more time to who determine who should be paying for tsf and therefore i think every category was left open in terms of where individuals supervisors stood including the nonprofit hospitals there or agreement around a number of things at this point i support eliminating the planned area credit being it
3:28 pm
looks at this is the area where we are increasing the density and growth and make sure that we are investing in the public transit pedestrian and bicycle safety needs and of the growing neighborhood and second looking at as commissioner avalos mental illness i'll be supportive creating a structure for residential so keeping buildings of 99 units and under at the current proposed fee and raising interest by one thoroughly for hundred and above for the non-residential looking at the balancing the feasibility study and the nukes i think we can significantly raise commercial non-residential fees by $3 for large promotions and i'll be supportive of that. >> i also supports the tiered grairt of residential and non-residential as proposed by commissioner avalos i certainly think that any
3:29 pm
developments that have submitted after july 21st should pay hundred percent of tsf as the ordinance was introduced on that day as supervisor wiener mentioned i'm supportive of excluding the nonprofit higher education institutions that have to summit an im p a small group of institutions in that grouping the case that will be most impacts it is imperial they built student housing on site so students can stay on campus and go to class and that is the city moving forward in a positive direction so those are my quick thoughts a lot went into this and the amendments in no way counter the good work that was done with the years of bringing this proposal forward that braid
3:30 pm
really want to say insure wear advocating for the highest possible fees that are feasible for our developers and stakeholders and balancing the needs of the residents in this yoga city we're trying to improve what already exists and insuring the sfmta to make sure the future works thank you. >> at this time i think we should go to public comment i've got several mr. yip i'll call you up last i have several cards that are ahead first charley frost (calling names)
3:31 pm
okay charley. >> thank you supervisors i'm vice president at u s f many folks have faibd talked about last week u s f is exempt if 9 charitable exemption it's disappearing and modified now thank you u sf has many projects like student housing expansion and housing is one thing the biggest challenges to the city we are hoping to build housing if a couple of phases mrs. an additional hundred square feet of classrooms and at&t other facilities to meet that to accommodate displaced functions the cost for the tsf could top $8 million those costs are significant to usf it will have
3:32 pm
a beneficial impact est has limit the growth on the campus to accommodate the st. jude student bodies we have many that live on campus and working to relocation students and lessen the impact usf was the first higher education san francisco public utilities commission to purchase muni pays for the students this has been in place and provides muni with 6 point plus million dollars and it provides subsidies we respectfully request usf be exempted as proposed by amendments from supervisor wiener and supervisor kim thank you for your time. >> madam chair i'm bryan former executive director and
3:33 pm
the former executive from the st. mary's i understand the service and chariot care has been here since 2 hundred plus this is subject to the fee no different than a fee and directly impacts the service to the community and undermines the charity care with the city government and others community organizations i'd like to give you one example from my personal experience prior to my hiring by the board of catholic it which i shouldn't we've been struggling struggling with it in debtness he was told our market-rate couldn't afford that as far as i am concerned
3:34 pm
found out and offered us a space on hayes street we stated there for 3 years and went back to serving the poor and marginalized we couldn't have made that recovery without as far as i am concerned help and in a form of transportation the impact fee would have been in place they couldn't have helped us this will be great for the health care mission and it is not for the relationship between the city and nonprofits thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> madam chair and honorable members of the committee i thank you to mr. kay hill for testifying no better champion marathon through the nonprofit hospitals we did seek to engage in a dialogue around what can be done
3:35 pm
because hospitals do not right want to shirt they're responsible the challenges we have where with respect to the nexus study there say we view as fundamental questions namely the employee ratio is off we know the employee ratio is a bigger number than identity in the nukes u nexus study the connective feasibility study that purports to impact the impact fee on the industry the prototypes for the development and not a single hospital is in the mix so it ignores the state seismic requirements is a larger footprint with the same number of trips that has been our one ever our issues with this ordinance it doesn't understand that net new construction can mean the same
3:36 pm
number of employees, hospital beds and trips thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors abby digit health st. francis memorial hospital we want you to support the amendment as written regarding the hospital exemption i think it never keys to amaze we we don't know the health care dollars dollar is our dollar we pay from our insurance premium o are noted for profit money and got going to wall street but back to the technology and the capital at any time of our hospitals that is tremendous we're on the verge of converting to electronic health records and
3:37 pm
driving the capital costs for hospitals we must school bus and to keep the institutions going when we add on infrastructure fees like transportation that will go back to the mix and the only way we get money through you been insurance premiums having there is no other source of revenues for hospitals as the city use shiners for the retirees that cost will be passed to the city no net gain the city will continue to pay those dollars through the insurance fees that that pays for its employees a little bit of a shell game we need to think about that we may be believing we'll get additional revenue but indeed it is going out the other way thank you. >> madam chair and supervisors i'm sister marla son for
3:38 pm
community health for as far as i am concerned medical self-center in 185 had the sisters were invited to san francisco to visit the dying patients in the first county hospital the marvin stat hospital on stockton and vallejo today all hospitals in san francisco are blessed have to such unbelievable medical experts and care for the people of san francisco but all hospitals provide spiritual care and at dignity health the program is elevated to a certificate program that trains the visits the clinics at as far as i am concerned and st. francis and all of the hospitals have a student and chaplain that visits them in their surrounding two days ago on saturday they
3:39 pm
participated in the southeast family health fair one of the obligations of the hospital in san francisco not only take care of the people that come to hear hospitals as patient but take care of the exultance they're in as far as i am concerned provided diabetes survey and also a stroke preservation health education those services show the commitment of the hospitals to focus on the totals person body mind and spirit please help us so we can continue to do this work and vote if i may an scaping the exception for not-for-profit hospitals thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please good afternoon, supervisors my name is stuttering phone call i participate in the community outreach for chinese hospital compliance hospital works together with all the other hospitals in san francisco we work collaboratively on many
3:40 pm
projects such sf free and health issues it is important that the hospital continue to work together for awareness and education and sister mary alluded to the fees do jeopardizes any collaborative or community efforts hospitals always are working together and continue to work together please support any of the exemption for the hospitals thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi good afternoon madam chair and supervisors melissa time to reiterate what what my colleagues not through the sutter development it took many, many years and with the negotiations with mta and the board of supervisors and the city that came up with a $16.4 million pay throughout the 10 years of the development agreement money going towards public safety and bart and other bicycle studies so i ask you to
3:41 pm
hold on and hold the the fee and work with the other hospitals thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> madam chair and board of supervisors john san francisco consortium i'll not repeat but remembered the board of supervisors the charity care and the community benefits are critical if we do anything to take away the money our paints will suffer the crisis and i understand the consortium directors understand the importance of how the transit fee but not at the expense of the health and welfare which i shouldn'ter care is the way our patient but for in patient care
3:42 pm
so several years ago a collaboration with the hospitals we did a speciality care program and operation assess every year draws on communities benefits we thank you and ask that the hospitals be exempt. >> thank you, mr. yip. >> i haven't called you yet i'd like to call up mr. peter cohen and (calling names). >> good afternoon, supervisors good to see you peter's cohen would you be able organizations we're here sounds like a good movement of sensible amendments you've decided last week and i think generally support all of
3:43 pm
♪ combination as we mentioned last week is a question of how much revenue we'll get from the tsf fee towards the totals costs of transportation needs at this point a number of $3.3 billion as supervisor wiener said the lions share for funding is going to fall on the taxpayers that is absolutely true the fee is 23 percent of total costs are nexus study that means the other 77 percent comes from taxpayers in combination with the general funds in the fair balance we do encourage you increase that fee level and for the proposal is where it is it is i'll say that is smart to think about tiering development and other types of development
3:44 pm
impact fees not all development is the same i understand that intuitively and in the feasibility study it shows 10 different tip lolgz 10 commercial as we move forward how the scales of the small medium and large development whether residential or commercial can absorb supervisors that is how you of the do sweet spot to different types of development and you'll assume it a good step in the right direction for the two tiers thank you >> good afternoon ken cleldz representing the releasing and the commercial developers you've been reached out to for a long time by sfmta first of all, i want to thank the director and people on staff for the mta to
3:45 pm
really reaching out with regards to the fee increases as you may know what is proposed a 22 increasing on new commercial development and we accept that we would absolutely categorically reject supervisors with respect supervisor kim's 50 percent in the transit can impact fees that is onerous keep in mind it didn't on pay certain fees but for public art and others all kinds of fees so transit is simply one of the those fees i think you also should remain we're blessed with a very, very low employment and the union hall's halls are out on the job and stimulating our local economy every building that goes
3:46 pm
up in san francisco adds value to the tax base let's not discourage that that's my proposals thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm peter straus from the san francisco transit riders and i'm going to just focus on a couple of key power points this afternoon first of all, remember this is a fee not a tax we're just seeking to recover the expenses that the development encompassed on the city and the small portion at that secondly, as peter coming down the pike mentioned this is a revenue measure and as such one thing that the feasibility analysis suggests a nuance structure particularly with tiers is able to recover as much
3:47 pm
as $25 million or more in cash flow would you tell us interfering with the ability of the development community to serve our city we ask you to remember we would like to have a floor of $20 million for cash flow that is feasible and fair transportation is a battalion issue you've it is encouraging the process you've been making in the last week all of you i'm hopefully and optimistic it can come together on a proposal that shares a recommendation that conforms to those perimeters thank you. >> thank you very much mr. coming down the pike. >> good afternoon, commissioners since elevated to commissions tim we've gotten the presentation from the planning over the years our members are
3:48 pm
strongly in favor of the ideas of development funding better transit no argument i'll finds myself agreeing with my friend peter's cohen the housing coalition talks about a fee florida unlike the feasibility analyze sets that that is the rate that maximize rates to the city that's the right thing to do and you can willie until i didn't raise a figure is not how it works as an f to put this in scale last week quick study after the first hearings i got responses if 6 projects of the total city fee load the fee loads they're paying across different housing fees and the fees that the city is charging might be shorthand for city
3:49 pm
taxed running 95 thousand over hundred and $30,000 per door and i think a lot of what we're doing as mr. cleveland said a great economy but going on a wing and prayer and somehow the new residents will want to pay hundred and 10 or thirty thousand dloorz dollars a door on new tax that risks the feasibility certainly the project on the margin that are smaller scale and lower cost construction outside of the urban core it is harder to build those projects those are the ones to go ahead so i'll urge you to stick with the feasibility study shows thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm kathy the policy and program
3:50 pm
manager with walk sf i'm here to express our support for the transportation sustainability program and the fee while we on the promissory note program is a fantastic way to move forward we would like to see administrations to the fee to make it more robust to insure that the city can provide funding that linebacker will create a sustainability the first to increase the mitigation rate above 25 percent and having projects pay only 25 percent of their impact is not enough the planning department originally recommended 33 percent or up to 33 percent which we support for projects for which it is feasible second we're asking that the 50 percent reduction for grairthd be reduced to 25 percent projects that are already in the
3:51 pm
process that have started the application process after july 1st of several of you mentioned we support that and finally something i haven't heard mentioned the parking parking being included in the square footage which it is not in this current proposal only a stand lane parking lot it janitors trips by cars their some of the most expensive trips in the transportation network so we think that all parking should be included in the square footage for the transportation sustainability fee we applaud the preamble the fee and hope you'll consider those modifications thank you. >> thank you, mr. lazarus. >> jim lazarus chamber of commerce i want to remind all of you that those revenue screens for
3:52 pm
transportation and transit are part of a package the part of package we've supported over the years such as that fee and vehicle licenses fee we worked with the coincidental to pass and the governor to sign and the savings and the muni issue last year, we need to look at those as those kinds of package the proposal that was continued a couple of years ago went far awe fields we asked you not to support that we support the version in sfmta to the planning commission and to you this knowledge and open to changes to that we believe that small increases in the fee structure as the calory suggested make sense we believe that unfortunate educational institutions and their shoubz
3:53 pm
projects should be exempted and the hospitals fees detailed and, in fact, the suggestion of up to 5 hundred square feet of small promotions inclusion but ask you not to unrail the coalition that is build up on traffic and improvements in san francisco over the last exactly and urge you to be reasonable in any change you make to this legislation. >> thank you, mr. yip. >> bruce lee ends the dragon fire a couple of police officers take on dangers for people in their state of mind for their wisdom that is why is works in the housing execute for people in time of their personal adjustment for terms and personal unwith that said and favor for hospitals striking
3:54 pm
works for challenges are typical and easy on to you to keep over mind unstable that is why it is totally unnecessary please allow for people having true freedom so one ask joy the process for ones destiny in good connection to trends in time. >> thank you if there's anyone else that wants to comment please come at this time. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm alice rogers on south park and here to stand up for james suggestion we increase the funds on the transportation sustainability fee i live in central selma it is ground zero for what happens when you don't plan for center
3:55 pm
years and decades in advance our congestion is beyond max our air quality is impossible when i different my house and vacuum my house weekly there is so much black stiff on my floor and what i breath is ten times more p than that that is a health issue as well as a congestion issue please seriously consider higher fees and their speaking around the corner on infrastructure he's been blogging on this topic for a good long time and a point he makes is that is from projects that extremely disruptive in the short time and their expensive but in the long term they are even more disruptive if people are worried about money spend it now so you don't have to extend that later
3:56 pm
thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors steve i want to speak a little bit about the grandfathered july makes sense and people on notice that the ordinance is being introduced at this point i urge you to keep the 50 percent the doctor for projects in the pipeline before that date that is fair the projects could perform their projects and aware of the fee when they made their lands deals the city not to slow down the projects the proposal by the sfmta is feasible and urge you not to void any significant increases maybe we're in a bubble now but those fees to make sure make sense in the next busts the reason were in the country now job growth
3:57 pm
has been since 2010 we need to do better and make sure the housing pencils in when we're in the beautify as well now so the projects can be built when the economy is weak this unfair you were burn of fees will be user u unfair the modest of the increases and move the grandfather date up to july 2015 but keep the projects in the pipeline thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon eric a gi a real estate developer and i'm here today to just give a little bit of insight from our world we work with the city and supervisors and planning department on a number of policy items we eye to bill a one for one parking now a 50 percent we have
3:58 pm
hundred percent bike parking and electrical car charges and filters for the meters that are imposed to high traffic that is the way housing policy transportation policy is done on the level with the developers i think you can give us a lot of run room years in advance we can plan for it like every others policy reducing parking and increasing electrical cars and impact fees to pollution we work together and try to accompany with solutions not a penalty again i'll support not making large substantive changes, however, we'll work with the board and city planning for
3:59 pm
long-range planning to work together with transportation in the city thank you. >> thank you okay just want to circle back to anyone that is interested in speaking on this item that is the last time we'll be taking public comment public comment is closed. >> madam chair i'd like to note that supervisor kim has left the room and supervisor president london breed's as appointed commissioner avalos in her place. >> thank you mr. clerk for that information commissioner avalos. >> thank you chair cowen i want to thank everyone from the public for speaking i'm going to insincerity one thing and let my colleagues on the committee before me if we're going to be looking at ray's fee levels today even though we could have a discussion on a lower fee or than what i might prosper or
4:00 pm
another colleagues, can we take that same house, same call? colleague whatever we do will trigger a continuance i believe if we can indicates the highest fee level we'll go for we'll not trigger a a the 0 continuance only a one-time continuance and we'll set a lower fee less time to deliberate on many ordinance i'd like to propose if we're looking at a fee increase question go to the highest level that we can and then questions about of the committee can accept a lower fee at a later time but safe us time moving forward. >> thank you commissioner avalos supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much so he wanted to you appreciate commissioner avalos sdreb in
4:01 pm
detail his property amendment and too i want to respond to my prospective the first with respect to the increasing the per square footage for both residential and non-residential as i understand commissioner avalos is proposing residential to keep the per square footage rate as $7.74 between 21 and a 99 units and for projects of hundred units or more to raise it to 874 by one dollars; is that correct. >> that's correct. >> the incredible of one dollars for above hundred. >> that's right. >> i support that i'll support
4:02 pm
that both amendments on the non-residential and commercial the which is always paid tndc to increasing the square footage by $3 for projects under hundred thousand square feet this is a pretty massive increase particularly when we have two others impact fees coming down the pike in the near future and as supervisor yee has property flower mart childcare fee and tend to so residential i'm not support to support of $3 and $6 when what i
4:03 pm
will support a $1 commercial for projects hundred thousand square feet or greater so that's what i'm prepared to support for commercial and then for the grandfathering i, you know, i really tonight struggled with this one when i did legislation we take typically for example, the water recycling legislation and had a pretty generous graisht legislation for the packages in the pipeline a those projects pencil out in a certain way and they team with their funders and been incentive not for the new projects but the projects in the pipeline sometimes for years because san francisco, of course, takes a time that are an
4:04 pm
thinking godly millennium of time to get projects built years and years particularly for projects even in the process and as a result change the fees in the military of the process or changes the rules of law in the middle of the game can be problematic so i would be prepared today to support no grandfathering projects that entered the pipeline after july 26th of this year in terms of the dates of this ordinance that was introduced and now any others changes to the grandfathering provision i think grandfathering provision was the one exemption strikes a very good balance in terms of a 50 percent discounts a 25 percent depending on how long unifying you're in the process and for projects once again we
4:05 pm
introduce this legislation an july dwight 2015 for anyone to enter the process they knew the rules were likely to be given the ordinance was introduced and we shouldn't be creating incentives for developers to rush their projects into the pipeline during the part of legislation it is a very bad incentive to creates again i'll support latin-american the graisht projects after the introduction date of this ordinance i'm confront with the rest of the grairt provision eaten i did mention the other i believe two amendments that i have distributed in terms of encampment the student housing and having it to be an economic
4:06 pm
feasibility study ever 3 years instead of every 5 years and then i also indicated in terms of the eliminations of the hospital exemption i'll not are supporting that but the exception i've articulated before i support the increasing the triggering from 8 hundred to 1 hundred square feet is a very good idea and then for the area plan credit i'm open to that we've got more discussions about that. >> okay. is that it. >> yes. >> great commissioner avalos. >> thank you. well let's i didn't go into details but my amendments i can do so supervisor wiener touched on that we agree i'll go with the
4:07 pm
exemption for all of nonprofit secondary education institutions as well as the feasibility that's his second amendment i'll be okay with the pdr adjustment that chair cowen is put forward as well as the area plan exemption she's pit forward as well so and what was the other piece supervisor cowen. >> the removal the hospital exemption i'll be support supportive of your amendment as well i want to as we're talking about the hospital exemption i want to talk about what happens three years ago three years ago there was an effort to charge hospitals and nonprofits so hospitals including nonprofits hospitals and all nonprofits that effected schools that
4:08 pm
effected smaller institutions it that and have a lot of cash flows with the nonprofit hospitals and there's a lot of push back from the members of the board of supervisors that didn't want to see nonprofits that didn't have a lot of cash fwloe to be paying the fee and wanted them to the exempt we talked about how to study that as wear performing and recrafting the transportation sustainability program that's why we got to this cross i believe some of the hospitals that are big chip generates and nonprofits they pay for the fees and why latin-americans the hospitals for the tsf i was looking at a number of the ceo's and their salaries for a lot of nonprofit hospitals and they're very distinct from our local
4:09 pm
nonprofit likes chinese hospital ceo you mac upward of four and a half millions as their base pace that is a gift of ditch category from hospitals working hard on schesht care i'll be not supporting hospitals exemption and we will be seeking to lament that at the committee or the full board and so i'll go into the amendments i have and supervisor wiener you mentioned that on the tiered industry for the overall is it fair to say, you said the way the amendment i've crafted is the it only the increase to 874 dwlrz per square feet is only to the second units above hundred units that's not how i contrasted my discussion but i
4:10 pm
didn't craft my amendment it will be of the 874 applied for the whole project for development that is over hundred unions so you're clear he indicated that the opposite so that is what's before us i'll reiterate the amendments for residential 21 to 99 units we keep the flat fee of 7 there's plus per square feet and then over hundred units we'll raise the fee to 874 over the entire project not the portion above the hundred that's my amendment and for non-residential where it is 8 hundred to 99 plus to raise the fees to $3 i believe supervisor
4:11 pm
wiener you said that would be too high for you the overall fee is $21.04 and square feet and the other tier for non-residential over hundred thousand grow square footage to raise to $24 plus the 21 and 24 square feet is 24 feet of the nexus. >> so that would be one of my i think our first amendment that i expect we'll have contention over the seconds tiered approach for how we grandfather residential i'd like to see that since we have been are working on the the actives was before us 3 years and in the pipeline tennis e since that time this is a
4:12 pm
program that we've been working on the remainder would be part of new t s p to anticipate the developers will anticipate what is applied for their projects so what i want to see not only to make sure they're paying the full amount of the t s f but 50 percent of t s if if the projects before july 21st, 2015, if they present projects after that they'll pay 75 percent of t s f and projects submitted after july 21st e 21st 2015 the full amount and supervisor wiener you said you'll support or jeff cohen a similar approach for
4:13 pm
graisht non-residential the same dates and the same percentages would apply so 50 percent before july 1st, 2014, and after july 2014 and projects submitted after july 21st, 2015, again, the full t s f those are the amendments you'll be seeking. >> thank you, madam chair and commissioner avalos for this clarification in terms of fwrairthd i completely understand the point of view on that i do think in terms of when you're talking about a multi year the t s p this is in process for years but also as we see in the process it is a little bit unpredictable what will coyote of the process so i don't know anyone two years ago
4:14 pm
could are predicted this is the garth provision and the square footage and this and that and so i on the current grandfathering provision don't appropriately balance given the 25 percent discount or 50 percent i think we agree to disagree on that one in terms of itself appreciate the clarification on residential so my concern with the way i've couched it so if you are buildings 95 unions you'll pay the lower fee the 774 if you go up to one hundred and 5 units within additional unit of housing 874 excluding the first hundred so if you cross that threshold that retroactively increases the fees for projects
4:15 pm
that are maybe around hundred if you're debating 90 or hundred units that might be enough to you push you over the evidently with 90 and a lower impact fee for the city for less square footage being built so colleagues i've distributed to you two additional amendments which reflect go when i indicated as being on a feasibility to commissioner avalos promoted in terms of of the grandfather and the per square footage fee so those i won't repeat them i described them before you distributed to you in writing and ask you to consider them. >> okay folks we've got a lot of amendments on the floor. >> i personally have articulated my amendments i think we're clear i'll not go over them i
4:16 pm
suggest we go amendment by amendment and we can vote them up and down in and out okay >> fair enough. >> so first of all. >> let me chair cowen start with what we know we have agreement on and get those out of what you'll probably support that. >> i'll do my best i don't have any notes organized that way what i'm going to do is i'm going to work from the t s f and again down the list and when we get to a competing provided for example, the residential and non-residential fee 0 ouch your proposing we'll take a vote and on supervisor wiener's my apologies for not grouping them
4:17 pm
together the first amendment is the two eliminate the area plan exception we have a roll call vote. >> please bear with me. >> i know it's a lot. >> this is a votes on the elimination of the plan exception by commissioner avalos commissioner avalos supervisor wiener chair cowen. >> thank you and i think that i also maids that is one of my proposals not in addition to commissioner avalos you said commissioner avalos proposed the plan area exception. >> oh, yes. that is a proposal was there. >> add my name add my name.
4:18 pm
>> oh, a co-sponsor. >> just for clarification chair cowen distributed it in writing maybe we should clarify i thought i was voting on you madam chair. >> that's what i was trying to articulate you said amendments promote by commissioner avalos to eliminate the exemption and it was more of a oral that amendment. >> the city attorney has dratted what the mayor the same thing language that was in chair cowens elimination of the hospital exemption or the project area exemption. >> ask to voted on each one to be clarify. >> would you like to resend that profess vote so i can clarify the question.
4:19 pm
>> motion to rescind unanimously approved. >> okay madam chair, i move we adopt the area plan and elimination per what the chair distributed in writing that amendment through the chair was distributed. >> a clarification for the city attorney it is the same language of the amendments you've amended so to have it classified. >> gentlemen just about same amendments only question for the clerk who is making the motion to be regretted in the minutes so supervisor wiener's position to adopt the amendment that supervisor cowen's amendment. >> simple making the motion as a matter of progress that is it is the motion to adapt supervisor campos to remove the area plan for the t s f. >> that's correct.
4:20 pm
>> roll call vote please. on that motion commissioner avalos supervisor wiener chair cowen. >> the that item passes. >> thank you second amendment i proposed is to increase pdrs threshold we have a roll call vote on that. >> may i ask which amendment. >> the second amendment i introduced to increase the pdrs threshold. >> yes. i have that. >> okay. >> on the motion regarding increasing pdr exception threshold from 8 hundred to 15 hundred commissioner avalos chair cowen o supervisor wiener
4:21 pm
chair cowen. >> the that item passes. >> thank you very much thirds amendment it the removal the hospital exemption. >> second. >> on that motion regarding the roller the hospital exception. >> roll call vote. >> commissioner avalos supervisor wiener no chair cowen thank you. i that motion passes. >> thank you. >> with supervisor wiener voting no on the matters. >> okay. can we do the first amendment that supervisor wiener passed out. >> supervisor wiener. >> and i'm sorry. >> supervisor wiener passed out an amendment to increase the t s f rate. >> perhaps the less
4:22 pm
controversial ones first so i also move i'll do 2 and one of the first to change the 5 year removal of economic feasibility to three years and the second to exempt the student housing by the post secondary institutions i move those two amendments. >> second. >> i'm sorry. i'm in charge of one of the amendments not the other. >> my apologizes to change. >> the feasibility from 5 to 3 >> commissioner avalos supervisor wiener chair cowen is that item passes. >> we have. >> excuse me. the city attorney. >> andrea deputy city attorney
4:23 pm
he wanted to clarify the commissioner recommendation to change. >> the feasibility study from 4 to 3 and also to include that information among the calls for a revision sooner p than that i one day if you want to take that second >> to include what and for a revision sooner 3 years because the cutters ordinance the mayor can call for a feasibility study at any time. >> you're absolutely correct an additional for the planning commission for the body that can request an additional so but that is rescued in what i distributed so the vote is out madam chair, i move that here on behalf of the appellant. >> can i pause you for a second i also have a request for an amendment i didn't talk about it
4:24 pm
earlier around feasibility adjusting fees for different geographyic areas that have different land values we want to include in future studies not looking at the fees but how in the future more nuance looking at different neighborhoods of san francisco. >> for all fees. >> yeah. >> i'll be happy to support that. >> i'm in favor of that we need to take a vote. >> madam chair he move that question do you want the motion excuse me. we adopt the mainstreams i distributed in writing that will exempt from this fee all nonprofit post secondary sflugsz buildings student housing. >> second. >> sorry more clarification
4:25 pm
john gibner, deputy city attorney the language supervisor wiener distributed not limited to student housing i understand that is the policy concern exempted all post secondary education. >> part of the nonprofit not carve outpost secondary institution. >> that's second roll call vote mr. clerk. >> yes. commissioner avalos supervisor wiener chair cowen no the that item passes with chair cowen voting no and just a clarification i may study that and look at the new changes i was expect we were looking at the size for post secondary i may change my vote i doubt it but - >> fair enough to take another
4:26 pm
amendment that supervisor wiener let's take a moment on supervisor wiener's next amendment we want to go to the 6th amendment that commissioner avalos proposed the geographyic fee structure for the development and the feasibility of making it based on the fees in different areas of town different that is my motion. >> second. >> i'd like to do a roll call vote vote. >> just clarify sorry. >> oh. >> the city attorney has an amendment for this. >> starting the economic feasibility study on that motion commissioner avalos
4:27 pm
supervisor wiener chair cowen that item passes. >> thank you. okay okay. so that leaves with us a few of the more controversial items creating a two tier for the t s f both for residential and non-residential supervisor wiener i'll defer you first to talk about your amendment. >> so for in terms of increasing the overhead per square footage fee for this ordinance i distributed an amendment that keeps residential and keeps the fee and a at $7.74 up to 99 units and for projects of hundred unions or more it increases by $1 to $8.74
4:28 pm
square feet for units hundred and higher and for commercial it would increase for commercial projects of hundred thousand square feet or more it will increase the per square footage fee from $18 to 19 there's and $0.04 he move that amendment. >> right this is seconded by me any firefighter discussion i really feel that the higher dollars fee maim that will go to projects over hundred units should be applied to the entire project for the entire project itself that is a tribute to trips and it has an impact on as transportation system i think that higher fee i'll be voting
4:29 pm
no on that portion and proposing an fifth amendment amendment for the entire project to be at the higher dollars amount. >> thank you very much roll call vote are we clear on the motion. >> oh, yes, he have a copy. >> on that motion commissioner avalos no supervisor wiener chair cowen that item passes. >> thank you okay ok okay. >> and then shall i make my final grandfathering i do distributed the motion that keeps the grandfather in take equipment for any project for which that went into the pipeline after the introduction date of this ordinance july 21st, 2015, will not receive any grandfathering
4:30 pm
benefit but other than the grandfathering as contained in the ordinance will stay in taxing take that's my motion. >> seconded by supervisor cowen roll call vote. >> on that motion commissioner avalos no supervisor wiener knowingly chair cowen that item passes commissioner avalos voting no. >> thank you very much thank you, colleagues supervisors do that achieved your amendments sdhoolz have we taken up. >> i want to put into the record i might not get the votes but on the last amendment was skerlg the residential and non-residential correct.
4:31 pm
>> so i do have some agreement with part of what supervisor wiener put forward certainly we have any project that was submitted to the planning process after july 21st, 2015, both for residential and non-residential i'm in agreement with that but i'd like to put on the record we've voted on amendments that include before july 1st, 2014, and after july 21st, 2014, will be paying 50 percent and after that 75 for residential and non-residential. >> thank you duly noted we'll have a discussion at the full board okay soy don't see a second for that motion (laughter) so my other motion which i'll
4:32 pm
seeking a second for is for residential units that the higher fee of $874 per square feet will go to the entire project or projects over hundred unions units i think how does that differ. >> what we approve right now for projects over hundred above hundred units will pay the higher fee. >> you want to include hundred. >> i want the $8.74 per square feet for the entire project not only the units over hundred. >> if i may i just my concern is that when
4:33 pm
you it is sort of like when we had the payroll tax kicked in if you're a small business with zero with 2 hundred and 70 o $40,000 you paid on a tax but hires that additional person took you up to 275 it created a major disincentive for the businesses it swement in everything from the first dollar so i think if we were to say if you are at 99 units you're paying 774 and 101874 on all hundred unions anything we'll be greed guaranteed to be below hundred we need more housing not less so i think it is better to make a graduated fee that's what
4:34 pm
it is in the amendment we adopted. >> i just think there are a lot of projects well 0 over hundred we'll cash in on the entire amount. >> a vote. >> is there a second. >> i'll second that. >> thank you. >> on that motion commissioner avalos supervisor wiener no schlg no the motion fails. >> thank you all right. colleagues, i think that achieves all the amendments. >> one more i'm going to give it the old college try non-residential you units or gross square feet of 8 hundred to 99 thousand nine hundred and 99 to raise the fee a to 21 there's busing plus it keeps it at 25 percent of the nuking and
4:35 pm
for non-residential with the grow square footage of over hundred thousand over to raise the fee to $24 bus a 24 percent of nuking so i'd like to see that vetoes on as well. >> motion pie commissioner avalos and seconded by supervisor cohen roll call vote. >> on that motion commissioner avalos supervisor wiener no chair cowen no the motion fails. >> thank you. >> thank you for entertaining my motion. >> madam chair my understanding because of those changes we'll have to continue the items i move to continue this item two weeks to our next meeting i believe this is october 19th;
4:36 pm
is that correct in two weeks. >> yes. >> unanimously that that item passes to continue the item for two weeks. >> the matter will be continues until october 19th. >> thank you mr. clerk you ready to call item 4. >> yes item 4 a hearing on the status reports prepared by the department of building inspection and the planning department on the legalization for the insult of pursuant to the planning code thank you scott wiener supervisor wiener it the thorough of item 4. >> thank you very much madam chair this is a hearing to look at the receive and just want of the in-law unit legalization efforts several years ago then assemblyman david chiu the president of the board of
4:37 pm
supervisors arrested groundbreaking legislation this board passed to create a paths to legalize the tens of thousands of illegal in-law units significant tens of thousands of people live in in-law units there are some of the most affordable housing stock it is important during the crisis our prairie internal revenue lowest income and people who are most struggling are able to be stabled in their housing and so this legislation is incredibly important in allowing for the legalization for the units to be brought into the sunshine and integrate both our housing stock it is a few years since is legislation was passed and as we understand it we've been keeping track of it some units have come down but not as
4:38 pm
many as we last week to be clear this hearing is about the legalization of the existing illegal units not adding new in-law units so we have the department of building inspection to did you what the status and how many people are inquired and how many people have applied. >> what if i impedes to fix and address those impedes and the administrative level or necessary doing any classifying legislation want to make sure that more and more of those units are legalized so we have the folks from the department of building inspection and if colleagues don't have questions chair cowen over to them. >> thank you it will be doing
4:39 pm
this brief refuse the legal shingle process by kate connor of our department. >> as supervisor wiener just outlined this ordinance passed originally about the mid of may in 2014 so we're now at the approximately 16 months into the program it is a volunteery program that allows one unauthorizes is dwelling unit per lot to be legalized it suspends any code enforcement around any notice of violation while the owner is pursuing the legal sun from the building meets rent control requirements that is applied to the legalized units not sold stwral as a condolences the goal supervisor wiener stated is to
4:40 pm
try to increase the toeltsd number of legalized units in code compliant housing stock it was 4314 it is essentially established the eligibility criteria that the unit must have exists prior to july one of 2013 and show proof of past tenancy through a lease and no fault evictions with the rent board could not have considered after march of 2014 and complete the physician by the beginning g 17 screening form a detailed guideline to assist the owners that are considering looking at the legalization process there is a rather complexed work free that you can see on your
4:41 pm
computer screen suffice is to say the staff said both dbi and planning have been very ham to work with any owner taking into consideration and seriously looking at possibly adding to the housing stock this way. >> based on the data dbi is keeping 3 thousand calls expressing interests inquires about that coming to the krnts in the department or on the phone and that will proefbl averages between 50 and 80 a week since it passed out that have we've ultimately had 200 and 39 applications submitted 40 of those were permits that were pursuing novs
4:42 pm
that's the units that have been cited that's interesting only because it is about 17 percent of total so it is actually pretty clear to us so for that people are not going to look at the process of legalization just to get rid of on existing nov at least not yet. >> if i may so 2 hundred and 39 is that application units 200 and 39 legalization applications have been submitted to dbi. >> right out of 3 thousand inquires we've had over the past 16 months 200 and 39 applications submit for the permits. >> the better comparison out of the thirty or 40 thousand
4:43 pm
in-law units. >> i remember from carmen chu's ordinance that was thirty to 40 thousand none has a hard number we can adequately say we know there are this any in-law units i believe i've defer to kate connor on that there are many units that by waving the density and the zoning that is part of legislation already would be conforming buildings and so i think this is reasonable to assume tare might be as many of 20 thousand that could qualify so i don't believe we've seen those in the permits we've actually issued. >> so i guess my question i upstairs we don't know exactly how many in-law units how the there this is the nature of the
4:44 pm
situation no way to track it in detail but if we have 3 thousand people less assume that's 3 thousand units but 3 thousand units that have contracted or 23 thousand people that in-law units that contacted the department act out of 10s of thousands of units that's a low number the first question why you think that most people are not contacting the department particularly i know there is i'm sure fear of code compliant as a result of legislation prbdz that but the second thing the other 3 thesis people that interacted with dbi only 3200 and 39 less than 10 percent the question is the
4:45 pm
second question is why have 90 percent not submitted applications and i know you don't know the reason with for each person but overwhelms that people expressed this and that concern overwhelm curious to know when a why it is that people are not following up with proclamation. >> well at least based on over staff has reported back to me there has a been an expressed concern over the fact the unit would be permanently within rent control as one expressed item the. >> they're already include. >> their included and towards that ends maybe issue about how aware others are about the program and absence xhufdz by what might apply or not the other rational i've been told by the our staff they're concerned over the assessment value that the tax bill could go
4:46 pm
up when, in fact, the assessors made that clear that only applies to the legalized units if work needs to be done to legalize it and not necessarily the whole building but amazing i be that as it may that's the concern. >> one other issue we've heard he till when the legislation was passed i had concerns of this particular concern the legislation allows for building for only one in-law unit to be legalize will be many believes that w have more than one units if you own a building with two in-law units both occupied if you come forward you could potentially that could result your removing allocate in-law unit i wonder if. comments >> i can't exempting comment
4:47 pm
on any specific confusion on this as i said, i think there is confusion before we and the planning department's have had several working groups to try to walk through this process and explain to potential owners participate why it might be worth prarpts another factor could be the cost in terms of the total fees paid right now between planning and building those are averaging about 34 or $300 and as you may know the legislation was passed took effect in early september to waiver the fees for the building and planning that's only been in effect one month we haven't seen any buns back from that over the long return that cost factor could be
4:48 pm
something that will increase the rate of participation. >> okay. then the other issue that we've heard from people is that in this legislation if you - i know we've had this conversation in the context the new in-law unit legislation supervisor christensen and i thoordz you want to make the investment your reward is your building your band from the condo lottery and people don't want to do that and so this will prevent them from legal listing the units. >> i'll go is that a third are fourth area our staff has repeated back to us as a consideration that people have made perhaps at this time i'll ask
4:49 pm
cat to come forward. >> yeah. >> we do have a little bit more of the presentation so good afternoon chair cowen and honorable supervisors kate connor planning department staff so there's a total of 200 and 39 permitted submitted to the program and 62 of the permits have been issued the planning department is currently ref 93 or 94 and dbi is receiving 43 of the permits so this is a breakdown by supervisorial districts as you can see permits filed in district 4 total 49 beautify of different permits and district leveling 35 permits
4:50 pm
this slide breaks down the review times for each agency those temps improved drastically the staff has laktd the permit under two months and this is transcribed to the efficiency in the process and is permits submittals so this breaks down the average cost per department as bill mentioned effective on september 5th the planning fees for the planning and dbi have been waved taken welds to mention the costs for in-law unit is $50,000 so certain challenges we're seeing with the program although we've seen approximately 200 and
4:51 pm
40 permits for loophole listing this is due to a varieties of factors during public conversation the property owners are reluctant to enter into the project base of the cost of legal listing the in-law unit is higher the construction is 50 percent and if their exist we have to come up with that capital and other buildings can't comply with the building requires are requirement and it would be difficult to rove the units in the future and in addition we've heard that stwnlz have apprised at a higher square feet value than another unit and we've learned from the assessor office that the change of use only becomes reassessable if there are new construction and people that are hesitance to
4:52 pm
enter into the program and finally anecdotal issues associated with the constriction to lilies an in-law unit in terms of the loopholetion or construction so some process improvements we've definitely sped up the review time street tree 19 are reviewed by the department of public works and this provides a clear requirements for people entering into the program also you know when planning approved the permit we give specific direction how to apply for over-the-counter processing to the department of building inspection and that reduces the review times for dbi and also one of the major policies that are grained by dbi it the sprinkler requirements before when you added to the
4:53 pm
dwelling units the occupancy would trigger the - the - and also for the process improvements we've waved the fees for dbi and planning and also dbi's websites has been a really great wealth of information so far we have 9 legalized units that are completed and so that concludes my presentation. we're definitely vertebral for any questions. >> i just want to call you on some of the discussion do you have any i know you've indicated some of the areas that people expressed concern but there's a broader issue the fact that only 3 thesis people contacted the department to inquiry tens of
4:54 pm
thousands of in-law units is that because people don't know what sense you have maybe 10 percent have bothered unanimously to contact the department. >> i mean it is a combination of different issues i think initially it took while for the program took to catch on a lot of people are learning about the program but i think that the costs is the big issue as far as the cost of construction not manipulative of an incentive to enter into the program if their renting their units but to go through the legalization process is daunting in terms of of the legalization on or about is that something you're hearing from people. >> i've heard it if a few different citizens i mean not an overwhelming complaint but heard
4:55 pm
it for sure. >> and then in terms of the on or about i raised with the rewards for going through the process and paying all this money toe legalize our unit and bring it formally into the reversal your with regard is the building gets a scarlet letter and band from the lottery. >> we have the planning department staff heard that comment that definitely heard it is if you want to remove the units to xheshth to a legal unit but not necessarily overwhelm. >> in terms of overwhelming not that many people are committed so a little bit hard to know and so the fact of the 3 thousand inquires on this 200 and 389 have moved is that for
4:56 pm
the other 90 percent did they decide this is not for me are thinking about it do you have a sense obviously you can't read their minds. >> there are quite a few of the people that are trying to figure out how to start the progress retain an engineering to flush out the screening form or if so if it is viable it is hard to tell. >> seeing any kinds of acceleration or per week or per month the number of inquires or applications more than a year ago that awareness will group that perhaps some of the process improvements people will be more comfortable entering the process any chance for that. >> definitely which the program started it was a slow
4:57 pm
starts but a pickup around the one year we're seeing other increase in the permits. >> okay. thank you very much does that complete the presentation. >> madam chair commissioner avalos has a comment. >> a quick question given that we have tens of thousands of unions that are unpermitted in the city possible between 25 and 40 thousand 45 thousand and we have you know only hundreds that have actually looked at participated in a program what does the city have in its disposals that will bring people forward is there anything in place. >> bill dbi i'll say the new fee waiver is definitely the
4:58 pm
kind of incentive i think may stimulates participation rate again as kate was just saying it is very difficult and as supervisor wiener is and i land use to with those low participation numbers at this time it is hard to get a very strong fix on why people are holding back i would say is both depends are very trying to walk through the people to the project and get interest it is certainly not for lack of providing a very explicit guidelines and willingness to work with people it may be that we need to see a betters outreach effort so more people realize this opportunities is right here and right now. >> is the mayor's office of housing involved to create any
4:59 pm
kind of he incentive are you aware. >> not that i'm aware of the housing trufd are you aware of any discussion of trufd that was approved in 2012 as being available it have an impact on the incentive. >> i'm not so you know this is an area of law that i have the impact arm but also probably didn't have the impact he expected to have we had contrasted the housing trust fund and now on the budget committee and working on the gross residents tax i submitted language clearly that was actually creating a portion of the housing trust fund called the housing stabilization funds i recently had it was called the
5:00 pm
homeownership stabilization and with the language a change that was moved to the housing stabilization and fell off my radar at this time a moment of shame for me by the language that is here i'll read it does allow for used for used to be be available to housing that i believe to help to cover the cost of of legalization so here's the language in the you housing trust fund july 2018 the city had allocates 20 thousand to a trust fund for people earning up to i'm sorry, i have the wrong one i tried to take a picture of it i accompaniment read it well on my computer screen i'm sorry here we go
5:01 pm
so july 2018 the city shall appropriate 20 thousand for few minutes inform housing earning up to 20 percent of medium income for the assistance to reduce the loss of housing and and/or to help 080 make their homes for energy efficient and sustainable the malicious shall implement and develop a manual so i actually crafted that language it is kind of village vaimg by he is mayor's office when it went to the ballots to allow for housing that want to seek subsidies to bring our unpermitted units into compliance and more assessable to for people not one single dollars had not been used or by
5:02 pm
the mayor's office of housing and community development to make sure those funds are available for that program i can to brought to your attention to see if you can meet with any office with the mayor's office of housing to have it move forward that this program i've mentioned it many times to the may have e mayor's office of housing so we want to invite you to come to my office to help to work on that you a thank you. we'll be happy to do that, of course. >> thank you very much any future discussion on item 4 let's go to public comment that is open for item number 4 mrurmd seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor wiener what would you like to do with that item >> thank you, madam chair for succeeding that item we want to thank the departments for updating us i think what this hearing has shown our work is
5:03 pm
cut out for us we have to continue to raise awareness in the city so that owners of buildings with in-law units first of all, know that they have the option of kormdz they know they can make an anonymous inquiry and if they had and it turns out they do not move forward 24 will noted trigger code inspection to remove the units that is prohibited in the legislation we have to make sure that the process at planning and dbi and others departments continues to be more and more efficient and that people thinks they can move through the process in a reasonable way they've innovate be stick in a lengthy city process i do think we need to continue to look at the legislation to see what our
5:04 pm
obstacles in the legislation and whether it needs to be changed and have more in-law units principles so madam chair i mean, i'll move to file that item. >> there's a motion to move - to file this item this motion thank you very much this that item passes unanimously. >> mr. clerk i'd like to call back item 3 for clarification the city attorney went off with some clarification one of the amendments we discussed earlier today john gibner, deputy city attorney so there were 2 amendments an items 3 as we piece those together and put together the version on october 20th to make sure that the committee is on the on the same page about the votes one on
5:05 pm
the grairt to supervisor wiener's amendment that changed the grandfathering provision to that for residential units the full t s f are paper after 2015 project that the developments application after july addicting 2015 the committee i don't believe spoke about non-residential projects in that discussion but supervisor wiener's amendment does not increase the fee for non-residential projects after july addicting 2015 that will leave that fwrairth piece in place so non-residential would pay the t.i.d. f.
5:06 pm
>> right and one ordinance in fact, the commercial will pay the higher rate for the projects. >> right. right only on the fwrarth provision just trying to clarify the rational the commercial is already paying t d i f and the second piece again, just to go back to the be sure we reflect the committees intent on the fee schedule the committee decided how to deal with the situation were there were 99 units or over hundreds units does the higher level of fee apply to the buyer project or on to the hundred units and above and the committee voted 2 to 1 only to the hundreds and above the committee didn't talk about how
5:07 pm
to deal with non-residential units and so your understanding of supervisor wiener's motion and the discussion is that we'll apply the same rile to the non-residential projects where up to 99 thousand nine hundred and 99 gross secret we'll apply the lower and positive that the higher fee and again wanted to get that on the record and make sure that's the committees intent when you made those votes and that's our intent with with the drafting so if this line was not detailed the city attorney can clarify that's the intent and; is that correct. >> all right. thank you very much. >> well, thank you for a clarification commissioner avalos we're on guess on the same page okay. >> thank you. >> so call the next item on
5:08 pm
the claundz pursue that completes the agendas on all four items thank you very much ladies and gentlemen, this committee is adjournedkim. >> good morning, everyone
5:09 pm
we're here today to announce a new partnership with the set of circumstances to support small businesses i want to thank sarah kim and chinatown we've been hearing from the mayor and supervisor christensen and the pointing and co-founder of fte have and from capital one and be hearing from derrick latter and joined by the installation mark white the wanting thought san francisco small business commission and the president of the co-founder of fte have to talk about the city of san francisco. >> (clapping.) hi derrick business is one of the thirty businesses right now on the keva west side in san francisco it is giving loans you know keva raufrnd 10 yargz in
5:10 pm
san francisco as an organization that supports enterprise halfway around the world get our start in the development world and a few years ago starting work working in our own backyard what motivates us to work in the united states is the statistics coit u coming out of the concrete cringe 7 out of 10 small businesses that apply get a reservation and two of over small business is if small business small businesses have challenges that is very, very difficult and one thing welds to make easier is letting every day small business participate in crowd funding you've heard of that for major movie but one for the little kwie that local small business that might be selling delicious treats


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on