Skip to main content

tv   BOS Land Use Committee 11215  SFGTV  November 2, 2015 6:00pm-9:01pm PST

6:00 pm
everyone. ladies and gentlemen, the meeting will come to order i'd like to welcome you to the regular meeting of land use commission i'm supervisor cowen and to my right is supervisor wiener the vice chair and coming
6:01 pm
shortly is supervisor jane kim you are clerk is alicia >> thank you i'd like to thank the mrs. jim smith and leo from sfgovtv for broadcasting this meanwhile madam clerk read the anonymous completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the september 17th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated thank you very much can you please call to me the and she is the author. >> on oversee phenomenon is planning code for all demolition and mergers and with the kitchen stove or bathroom is being removed. >> supervisor wiener. >> madam chair p in legislation is a simple but important step forward in trying
6:02 pm
to insure the during this housing crisis people are able to remain stable in their housing specifically this legislation will close a loophole that allows the owners of illegal units to seek and obtain a demolition permit without having notified the attendants that lived in those units which could lead to a situation the tenant has no ability to challenge the demolition permit we have tens of thousands of illegal units and rental unit and san francisco residents living in those units they live in those units for decades what someone is living in a home the los angeles the home to receive a demolition permit without the
6:03 pm
attendants knowing the permit has been implied for we learn about that issue earlier this year and is board of appeals made a request to the board of supervisors to address this issue so we move forward with this legislation so that roingdz in illegal units will have the same due process rights as residents of legal units so specifically the ordinance amends the building code to require that any person that intends to remove a unit whether legal or noted legal notice the location upon the noticing requirements except the notice needs to includes an structural all i how to point out demolition permit and provided attendants with a list of counseling and legal services
6:04 pm
the contact information must be provides in spanish, chinese and russian as well all unit removals will be noticing the same legal or non-legal on subject property the removal of a stove or kitchen or became the property owner must submit an application indicating they're not removing a illegal legal unit or illegal unit and it must be posted prominently circumstances for applicants trying to skirt the renewable applicants in circumstances where the applicants will try to skirt the building code and planning code by getting serial permitting in terms of the remove kitchen or
6:05 pm
stove or became any tenant is made aware and the property owner that may remove his or her unit from status as a denials dwelling units i want to thank deborah and matt that working closely in preparing this legislation it was supported unanimously by the planning commission and the dictionary so if there are no openly comments or questions madam chair i'd like to invite up diego sanchez from the planning department to give a presentation. >> good afternoon, supervisors diego sanchez with san francisco planning department supervisors on september 10th police station heard the proposed ordinance on the tenants and deliberating on the matter the planning commission moved unanimously to
6:06 pm
adopt the resolution with certain modifications their included phone call on adding to the planning department that helps the mechanisms the noticing requirement with the existing procedures in particular the modifications included increasing the size of the poster and the content of the poster and allowing the notification dates and having the planning department cause the notice to occur that concludes my presentation. and i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> thank you, mr. sanchez madam chair before public comment i'd like to invite up deborah from the department of building inspection commission. >> ms. walker. >> this one. >> either one. >> thank you, supervisor and supervisors for putting forward
6:07 pm
this important amendment to the building code and planning code we were made aware of the issue of building owners notifying attendance of permits applied for and received from the vice president as receiving an eviction notice the housing rights is made us what aware we notified the board of appeals who said question should have a existence of a tenant that basically provides dialogue disclose to the tenants if there is due action as programs legalizing secondary units we have a lot of pro-active programs that our departments could be notifies earlier in the process the building owners said
6:08 pm
we keep the units instead of demolishing the point to treat a tenant as a tenant i appreciate the swift action of the board our building our code advisory committee supported this and our commission and ask for your support of this it is really poor importantly as we got rid of implored we're trying to make sure that those units are being inspected not only by the department but fire and planning to make sure we avoid the kind of fires and firm up our code requirements to make sure their notification any questions i'll be happy to answer. >> thank you, ms. walker madam chair to public comment. >> ladies and gentlemen, public comment is two minutes you'll hear a soft chime indicates 30 seconds and a louder your time is up is there
6:09 pm
anyone from the public that wishes to speak on item number one please come up to the please approach the podium. >> i'm francisco da costa and on this item i recent the legislative report full of loopholes i've heard the gentleman from the planning department say something most of statements he made are general in nature i heard a commission from the building inspection come here and stated a few things my question to you supervisors is y what has the department of building inspection been doing all this while they does not have with the meetings they don't have the necessary staff to do the enforcement so things like this come great
6:10 pm
the board of supervisors or the committees but on such important issues we need to have a hearing with data and to find out who in this city was slip or who was slipping on guess carpet today, we have three or four families slipping or living in a one bedroom unit you supervisors with tint because of not paying attention to a situation like what we're discussing created a situation in san francisco that quality of life issues have been brought down tremendously so what i'm saying is this we have the opportunity academy of art universities and the building inspection and other agencies are doing something but get a report what has happened to the
6:11 pm
20 thousand units that were rental units removed by the contemplation overview academy of art university can we get a report he's busy on the sideline can anybody from the mayor's office of housing i give us a report (inaudible). >> anyone else that wants to speak on item number one seeing none, public comment is closed at this time. >> go ahead supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madam chair and thank you for scheduling this to other for analyzing that and the advocates again in the simple measure one that matters a lot to the tens of thousands of san francisco residents that live in illegal units we need to keep people stable in their housing they have a right to learn ahead of time if the units will be demolished and can challenge that to keep their housing to
6:12 pm
madam chair, i moved we forward number one to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> motion by supervisor wiener to the full board with a with a positive recommendation this motion passes without objection madam clerk. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> could you please. the resolution imposing the interim controls for the plan area to restrict the size and height of signs that are visible from and on exist public planning or parker open space and restrict the elimination of new sizes up. >> thank you, supervisor kim is the project sponsor for this legislation for item number 2. >> hi sorry. >> i was talking to a staff member before us is a set of interim controls for the transit
6:13 pm
district area with the boundary lines ever fulsome and harrison and second reading it is a unique area plan it has a fairly tennis commercial and residential use including what will be the larger parks and open space in the city and south of market at the top of transbay terminal the intent behind the interim controls we have controls around the city but not in place in the transit center it is a that have the conflict as public parks and residents and office space in the same areas this legislation is to set a series of controls for the downtown area the controls set in the interim
6:14 pm
controls is elimination district wide in the signs above 35 feet that must be turned off between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. this is for residents that also live in the area that have discussions and k34r5i789d about light pollution the signage is a higher height and so often coming in and facing residents bedrooms and living rooms late at night it allows our businesses to have the signs awe limited through the daytime and have them turn them off for the enjoyment and peace of residents the controls also that new signs within 200 feet and viable from a park should be omitted to 50 percent and 35 feet this is in
6:15 pm
alignment with 9 city land use policies that eliminations advertising near open space that is owned by the rec and park department and signs facing dribble into the city park will be limited with a max size of 50 square feet at this point we have been engaging with multiple stakeholders in particular the salesforce tower and residents the of the millennium of residents to discuss what the predicament time is we have a range of times that are working i will be proposing a compromise set of amendments but want to give the planning department an opportunity to speak on this item and open up for public comment. >> thank you. >> good afternoon board
6:16 pm
members of the committee emry rogers planning department staff as an interim control our commission doesn't weigh in but if interim controls will be component we'll coming come back with the recommendations no recommendation. >> and ms. rogers explain how the planning department came up with the times as proposed from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. >> and kind of how this was developed specifically for the transit center. >> this area the supervisors are aware was not tint for residential with the zoning district that happened in the mid 80s with the office it was mainly seen as part of spill over from the office district not rethroughout the signage controls that will be needed as residents proposed so in communication with our staff we
6:17 pm
looked at controls for other district and in c districts the combination of commercial and residential those are the signs typically turned off with the businesses close and in addition there are nc district are less intense in the areas in selma but in the nc districts typically the businesses maybe required to close between 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. or may seek longer hours through conditional use authorization and in any event the businesses closed that is when the signage is required to be turned off. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a quick question for supervisor kim. >> many prepgs for the agenda item i did a little bit of rancher i was in under the impression an agreement from the
6:18 pm
hoa as well as the company on agreed upon hour can you explain exactly. >> the temporary agreement previous to us writing a set of controls around the signage it didn't impact the entire transit center this will not be the only stakeholders that will be interested in putting signage on their buildings so this is one particular agreement between two stakeholders and the transit district plan you'll have many more residents and those controls are consistent with standards by which all awe limitations will be set for the entire business and transit plan. >> so the decision we're making here today is setting a precedence. >> setting the interim controls for the inspire
6:19 pm
district plan where there is none. >> your proposing 10 o'clock. >> 9:00 p.m. i wanted to open up for public comment for the public to speak the agreements so forth was at tenement but wanted to give the members of the public. >> you're saying the planning department set the standards at 9 clock so and you're saying they can't opine maybe the planning department can accompany. >> this is an sdrrmz and didn't come to the planning commission. >> emry rogers we participated in the meeting with the community members that ultimately was the legislation and it was developed in response to the information i provided to the committee.
6:20 pm
>> remembered me. >> in looking others districts where there are signage controls set up to regulate facts in the area there is controls in place and generally shut down with the business is closed and the areas in nc district no way an immense a district as the south of market but in those integrity they have businesses must close generally between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. however, they can be kept open later and depending on the business hours this is how late they can vw on their signage. >> is this particular district zoned and nc. >> in the more intense it is multiple zoning districts this is the new area the supervisor described. >> any other buildings that
6:21 pm
have signage awe. >> i'm going to say yes. >> yes. thank you. >> we can go to public comment. >> thank you very much supervisor jane kim want to go to public comment at this time. >> oh, excuse me. supervisor wiener. >> yeah. i want t a complication there was an agreement perhaps supervisor kim can answer this clarify an agreements reached with the last year or the year before about the particular buildings allowing them to go until 11:00 p.m. >> there was a specific agreements set up two one tenants salesforce and specifically around one signage in the transcenter a temporary agreement the signage b will go
6:22 pm
off at 11:00 p.m. it wf impacti the enjoyment of the tenants on one sign for this specific hoa because of that we saw no consoles for the signage in the transbay so we reached out to multiple shareholders like sf beautiful and others and the planning department set an interim controls that set the signage control as well as the illumination control for the whole plan what is proposed 9:00 p.m. again shifting this to 10:00 p.m. but i think that would be a great compromise. >> so the signs that are up now that are going one sign or whatever those will be shifted back to 10 everything back to 10. >> yes. in the case of that
6:23 pm
10:00 p.m. and okay. so do we have rules maybe for the planning department like for example, downtowns what are the rules understand in the neighborhood district but in areas of city that are much anymore intense i have what are the rules. >> there a plethora but the furthers signage manager will talk about that. >> i'll focus on lighting and the law. >> yes. john planning department staff the only area there are specific controls for timing of signs in terms of of the illumination in the neighborhood commercial and residential districts in the
6:24 pm
downtown. >> the c-2 and c-3 no limits in awe illumination. >> so in the c-2, c-3 the signs are lit all night. >> yes. >> do we know what the rest of the cities do in terms of the more downtown type of areas in terms of - >> i don't know. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. let's take public comment. is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak and speak on item 2 >> here again we have a supervisor who listened to here constituents and tried to do something so planning does not have any rules in this case and so had an idea for changes what is difficult to understand about this. >> and why do we have to be so intent to know what other cities
6:25 pm
do we're not doing a lot of things in our own city and this happens when residents can't live in areas before they could live so they're going into areas where before they are they will be office spaces so this impacts the quality of life issues here's a case the land use and the others got educated before the public so my thing is very simple, of course, there is nothing new it is simple you the land use didn't understand it and got it like for me it is something -
6:26 pm
something good that one representative from district 6 does care about they are communities u constituents to have a number of meetings to ratify the issue. >> moejz wants to speak on this item please do so (clapping.) hi good afternoon. i'm pablo a senior manager an salesforce.com happy to be here thank you for your leadership and share my thoughts with you today first and foremost i want to acknowledge the land use commission and thank supervisor kim for her partnership and collaborative pirm in this endeavor and supervisor wiener and supervisor malia cohen thank you salesforce has a major footprint in the city we've
6:27 pm
become the larger sector employer in the city 18 thousand w0ir8d and most in the city you know we've created an urban campus for the employees and san franciscans including people in this room to enjoy the most important part as an employee who we are the commitment with the philanthropy and serve a lot of funds to public schools and volunteered for better services i volunteered for the veteran services in the city and been collaborative in terms of transbay park and in fact, one the reasons i joined salesforce at the state department because our philanthropic mold it gives employees one percent of employee of our equality and one percent of our products to n go
6:28 pm
i'll conclude by stating we're looking for a consistent policy that turns off the signage at 11:00 p.m. as previously eastward upon to have a consistent policy for all the buildings in that area with that, i respectfully want to thank you for your time and listening thank you. >> thank you. any other items? >> wasn't really the issue thank you. >> supervisors what issue i came here i want to put something on your mind one of the things i've noticed we're really killing our city at night and now it is not as challenging for me as it would have been some years ago because at my age i'll asleep fairly early but
6:29 pm
during those times i did go out and younger folk today, we have absolutely no night life ♪ city we've got people that moved here from iowa and all those far out places and they immediately move here and want to turn this into where they came from (clapping.) you have people that don't do not want music on of him street after 10 clock on friday and saturday night that destroys employment we have killed those hours that used to be viable employment they're now so stores are not open late and parking lots and all those places that people used to work and the venues they used to work in so noted so much
6:30 pm
this but when you move to an area that is district that is commercial you ought to know before you buy our place or rent there will be neon signs at night (clapping.) if i don't want neon signs i'll move to another neighborhood i don't move into a neighborhood and try to change established patterns that have been established for 50 years that's why we're down here now because it is all of part of that gentrification issue thank you very much (clapping.) thank you >> good afternoon my name is steve i didn't the general manager of the twenty-four hour one the properties in the communication as far thank you, supervisor kim to bring this this the committee
6:31 pm
he and supervisor wiener and others for your consideration contrary to what the gentleman said we don't have a lot of lights in the neighborhood it is a merging neighborhood that is combined rail and commercial and residential we're asking for consideration of the residents that has been living there and the signage that can potentially be put up in the future we appreciate this interim control and looking forward to working with the neighboring neighbors on permanent modes thank you. >> thank you you is there any additional public comment on item 2? all right. public comment is closed. >> supervisor kim any last minute remarks. >> colleagues, i passed around a set of amendments most are technical clerk to add for
6:32 pm
example, like a planned open space to clarify the boundary lines i'm making several amendments that help to clarify enforcement for the planning department from the enforcement questions and at this point, because actually, we continent continue this item without reintroducing because the timeline so forth in interim control what i'm comfortable for the set of interim controls before the permanent controls for signage to cut down the middle between what both sides would like to see 9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. and 10 the cut off times for awe limitation until of a.m. the next morning those the amendments i'm proposing. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much madam chair and everyone that came out today we struggled with signage in this city it seems like not
6:33 pm
ending issue that out on many levels and the court rulings and take actions in robs with that said, as is interim controls coming forward 9 o'clock is clearly two early i understand this neighborhood is not exactly where downtown is but also a very and i think will be an extremely vibrant downtown type of neighborhood especially with the transbay transit center the point of this center to be an incredibly lively part will be more and more over time i ask the questions i asked before and
6:34 pm
brown because it is important to know right now we have no planning restrictions on timing downtown i agree a time restriction there are leave residents here with all different than downtown you know frankly i don't think that 11 is late this is a reasonable request but i'm glad we'll be moving from 9 regardless and curious to know what the rest the committee thinks and move forward. >> supervisor kim at this time eyewitness i'm happy to support your amendments in their a reasonable compromise. >> okay i'll i'm going to support the amendment i prefer to go, go with 11 i'm in the motorcyclist. >> colleagues just to clarify this conversation will continue
6:35 pm
as those are interim controls so we'll continue to discuss all parties that come up with a fair balance we've developed a new type of neighborhood that is tennis office residential and we'll figure out a way for all of us to be good neighbors both the businesses that are creating jobs and green bay packer to the community and shia they have good visibility and take into consideration the enjoyment of the residents i appreciate our support for the sgrmdz and look forward to continuing with with all parties for the transit plan. >> one thing i want to note that this item is agendize will be to be sent to the full board so i want supervisor jane kim to make a motion to specify that. >> my apologies i want to make
6:36 pm
a motion to amend as stated on the record. >> second. >> so we'll take that without objection. >> we'll take that without objection. thank you. >> i'd like to make a motion to move with recommendation and we'll take that without objection. congratulations. >> all right. madam clerk item 3. >> an ordinance inform for the administrative code for the allocation of city affordable units for the certificate of preference holders and others evicted under the ellis act where the affordable housing is located and provide preference to the tenants. >> ladies and gentlemen, i want to acknowledge that supervisor breed as joined us for the item supervisor breed openly comments? >> thank you supervisor cohen i'm happy to be here with the
6:37 pm
legislation it is a its been a long time coming and many of the folks know i grew up in the western committee implicitly community in plaza i saw the redevelopment and ask do for the community support in building more and more avenue, i wondered why people from my community never got access to the affordable housing what was the problem the problem was the lottery system thousands of names of individuals in many cases not san francisco residents. (clapping.) >> - and we asked the community support of housing support this affordable housing we build and build and build a number of affordable housing developers pushed to build in the city when the housing is built we're wondering where are
6:38 pm
the people why aren't our people parts of this process (clapping.) mary helen rogers is a perfect example i knew her personally some folks i'm sure knew her personally and ms. rogers until her last breath fought for ams and our right to be in san francisco and rightly so for seniors and affordable housing for seniors units that was built in the western edition rightfully so for mary helen rogers many people said why can't we live in mary helen rogers why can't we get a units we're seniors born and raised in the western edition we couldn't get assess even her stone son
6:39 pm
that qualify the hoops we had to jump in order to get him a unit folks are wondering they see members of the mary helen rogers people are asking me why aren't they folks that live in the communities why not part of our community this what the problem is the lottery system - (clapping.) and this housing crisis has existed for a long time especially in the african-american community we can't say keep using 1960 housing policies to fix a 1916 housing policy we have to push the envelope and ask for if anythingness instead permission this step of neighborhood preference should have been done
6:40 pm
a long time ago, i took a trip to new york and found out in new york as far basing back they've been doing a neighborhood preference in new york sins the late 1970s policymakers know that negotiation new york was doing it at the time he were building in the western edition and still building in the bayview hunters point why no neighborhood preference when the affordable housing that was built as province when many of the church members qualified for this affordable housing why couldn't they get access to that affordable housing (clapping.) staff o steps should have been taken and unfortunately with were not that's why we're here trying to tale with a lot of the mistakes of the past through legislation not an easy thing to
6:41 pm
do there's a lot of push back and challenges and federal and state laws but do we do nothing no, we can't this is why we have had to move this legislation forward the people of our community deserve this and as i said steps should have been made in the past to move this forward and sad whether we're trying to prioritize people that have been displaced there are still people here in san francisco they're still people that kids are growing up here we want to live and qualify for the housing (clapping.) i want to thank the folks that have taken the bold step i'll tell you will be a lot of people that don't want to see us push this forward and not support this who are fighting behind the
6:42 pm
scenes to make sure that legislation didn't pass we'll doing everything we can to not only push (clapping) not only push 25 percent but to move it to a higher percentage and today, i know that supervisor cohen has an interest in moving the dial-up from 25 percent to a higher percentage (clapping.) i want to thank the mayor's office of housing for working to put together this legislation which i and supervisor cohen have been pushing for and is mayor for finally having the courage to steps up to the plate and thank you, supervisor wiener and supervisor christensen but i also want to add that what was missing in the legislation not just a higher percentage for
6:43 pm
neighborhood preference what's missing in this legislation i'll i've the city attorney to work on this language is the history of what redevelopment did in the western edition as a basis for having this legislation in the first place (clapping.) i also noticed in the legislation that hud properties and certain housing authority were included aced neighborhoods preference and clear work there were excluded we've got a lot more work to do and we've made a lot of mistakes in the city as it relates to protecting over communities and especially protecting the cultural significant significance of our communities and part of it we've got to take bold moves in that correction and this legislation is a bold step in the right
6:44 pm
direction i look forward to hearing from my colleagues and looking forward to increasing the percentage of neighborhood preference and looking forward to hearing from members of the public here today thank you. >> (clapping). >> thank you, supervisor breed for your opening remarks to the men and women in the chamber i want to warn you this is incredible important legislation it is bold and acknowledges in a profound way that the affordable housing lot 0 system as we know it is not working and long term people that are getting lots of within our city and out of our city i want to relocate that some of the community partners kathy
6:45 pm
davis is structural and reverend brown is critical and others i saw also reverend townsend those folks are structural in getting where we are this battle is only beginning an uphill battle and others in the chamber and so we need to get organized and stay focused what our goal is i believe that neighborhood preference will play a role in the fears of modot and low income families that the new housing we've priced them out in the communities and this legislation will create a preference for percentage of affordable housing units for residents who currently live in the neighborhood where affordable housing is being built why not get a piece of this we're shouldn't the brunt of the development so we have
6:46 pm
neighborhoods - investing hundreds of thousands of dollars and marketing programs that were specifically talk to people that have been displaced out of san francisco this is another element we'll be voting on today it is a problem it is one thing to say unit available and another thing to make sure that people are aware where to get help and where and how to identify the resources so supervisor breed remarked earlier that i'll be arthur's on amendment today it which i've been told by the city attorney make vertically to increase the neighborhood percent from 25 to 40 as moh has not presented their remedies but i want to be transparent with you i'm making
6:47 pm
an effort from 25 to 40 percent it is critical we move this with a sense of urgency and diligence i believe that supervisor wiener will have a few remarks and then to the commissioner cavanes and then to public comment thank you for being here. >> thank you, madam chair and supervisor president london breed thank you for your leadership on this important issue we have, of course, in a terrible housing crisis we don't have enough affordable housing doing everything we can to help with the production of housing is not just enough to build it but residents have access to that housing and in all communities have access we want to second the remarks of supervisor president london breed and supervisor cowen and i know they're working very, very hard to address the needs of not only the african-american
6:48 pm
community but the community as a whole and want to support your remarks i want to add that in the lfbt lbt not enough washers how to assess it is overly complicated housing system we're working hard and objected the budget last year to create a program to help to raise awareness in the lgbt community how to assess affordable housing and we are, of course, in construction on the 55 laguna project which will contain quite a bit of affordable housing that will be open to and assessable to lgbt seniors i look forward to that i support this legislation i'd like to see the
6:49 pm
25 percent neighborhood preference increased so thank you supervisor cohen for raising that important issue i want to say after public comment i also have an amendment i'll make an amendment that requires refer back to the planning commission i don't want to delay the rest of the legislation i'll ask at the conclusion of public comment we duplicate the file and i'll make the amendment the duplicated file to add a fourth preference the third one being neighborhood preference and four will be a lid work preference supervisor president london breed's stated it is critically important we help our own residents obtain assess to the affordable housing we're building in san francisco and ocher financing with our own tax dollars now we don't have a
6:50 pm
lid work preference particularly the mayor's office of housing and community development is quickly transitioning to an online application process and typically we all celebrate having online for the application in person or online to have the options to make t it easy have an immediate concern by doing that we'll make is so easy for people in the various part of country or rather than the world to apply for avenue we welcome everybody to come here but when it would dreaming increase the pool of people applying for a limited affordable housing stock to the detriment of our own residents it is important to explicitly have in our municipal code for assessing affordable housing for people that live or work in san
6:51 pm
francisco i'll make that most 80 motion to make a duplicated file after public comment thank you (clapping.) supervisor kim. >> thank you i just want to add my overall support for the legislation as you may know from the housing balance report that came out too 44 percent of affordable housing is in district of this clearly has significant benefits for the residents of south of market, tenderloin and treasure island and certainly our residents support getting additional preference to stay in the neighborhood that they've grown up in to continue to serve they have and remain a part of community they've often lives in a long time as representing a district that produced over 50 percent of san francisco's avenue, i have overall concerns for residents that are looking and applying
6:52 pm
more affordable housing throughout the rest of the city that is why i want to make sure i support of 25 percent preference but as we talk about increasing up to 40 well, of course, this benefits our residents i want to get a report from the mayor's office of housing, of course, it matters if none from the neighborhood applies the 40 didn't matter so just as important as is preference the funding to make sure what we are doing the outreach and people get in their applications to quality for the preferences in place i want to say i definitely support the 25 percent and open to going up on the percentage but understand the impact in the city and particularly i hear a lot of you know we have significant low income communities and population in district 4 for
6:53 pm
example, we're building almost zero affordable housing currently and so not to say we don't want to support more affordable housing the residents will get that type of neighborhood preference and has a insensitive vices but not having unintended consequences this may impact the courts perspectives of protected classes i'm curious had the mayor's office of housing analysis shows regarding that here to increase from three to 40 i'm open about the percentage on this this will dramatically benefit the residents and the 5m development and the giants development that is coming before the boards both this month and next june our residents would want to get the preference this will be a major
6:54 pm
project we'll be building a lot of units in district 6 i think this is important we're able to keep people in place protected finally a question i have for the mayor's office of housing is a question how many non-city residents apply more affordable housing in san francisco and what percentage of them get in because more than anything i want to make sure our san francisco residents get preference or not get preference but the overwhelming beneficiaries we're building here. >> thank you with that said, (clapping.) we'll contribution to the presentation if the mayor's office of housing. >> good afternoon chair cowen and supervisor jane kim and supervisor wiener i'm commissioner mckeen with the planning department staff i'll provide an overall the legislation and charles and others here from the mayor's office of housing to we are questions the planning department's has two hearings on the preference one on 24 for the
6:55 pm
preference the proposed legislation has two proposals for the preference for the citywide affordable housing for the african-american project and two an expanded distinction of displaced that tenants resolution halfway would split the ordinance one focuses on the displaced attendance and the other focuses on the neighborhood prospective the commissions recommendation as follows: remove the amendments that expands it beyond the preference for the tenants evicted and a spate plies that addresses the preference and sent to the commission the second one to approve the neighborhood supervisorial district and the projects to keep the district at 25 percent the buffer is on the radius and asked the boards to consider the
6:56 pm
geography graphic boundaries and recognition, no changes to the new structure but the proposed housing preference for affordable units will be kept so the offenders o ordinance provides the residents living in the neighborhoods with the affordable units are being built and the mayor's office of housing is here to do a brief overall. >> good afternoon chair cowen and my brother's keeper sophie from the maichlt e mayor's office of housing and community development thank you for having us here in my presentation we want to reiterate our support for the recommendation out of two planning commission hearings based on a number of questions through the planning process i want to extend a moment providing an overall of our lottery system today and want to provide a deriving into why and
6:57 pm
how we're providing the geographyic area i'm joined by mohcd and also joined by charles the data specialists that months the preference at multiple percentages and multiple geographies just to reiterate the recommendations coming out of the planning commission we are hopefully that you today will amend the legislation so alu your treating the board detailed topics of an expanded displaced tenants preference and the new geographyic as two stands alone pieces of protection we're committed to the analysis in crafting a displaced tenant preference that prototyping addresses the crisis at this time but it is also be
6:58 pm
best served to move forward quickly with the geographyic preference to begin we have two existing preferences one a certificate of preference and the second the ellis act preference i want to take a moment to describe how how the lottery system and the existing preference is implied they're not exactly the same as you may know mohcd finances and administers two affordable housing programs there is the inclusionary which is privately funded that provides ownership and a multiple family program 100 percent affordable tax credit program those are pub funds and the two distinction program are available 2, 3, 4 two ways first, the inclusionary housing program basically etch individual developer
6:59 pm
communication outreach and marketing that plan are reviewed and approved in advance by mohcd the initial sales and lease lottery the lottery for the initial sales is conducted by mohcd and the lottery process creates a list of applicants certificate of preference holders are pulled first from the list in ranked orders in theory 100 percent of units could go to certificate of preference holders. >> in buildings with at least 5 units ellis act housing certificate of preference holders are pulled next from the list in ranked orders and those certificate of preference holders can fill up to 20 percent of the building units and then as supervisor wiener awe let us to people that live or work in san francisco are pulled from the list in ranked order for the inclusionary
7:00 pm
housing program just in answer to one of supervisor kim's questions we've always applied preference 200 although not to the portfolio we've never reached beyond the work or live preference in san francisco. >> just to sclafr a 100 percent those that live in affordable housing program either live or work in san francisco? >> in the inclusionary housing program. >> just in the inclusionary not for the 100 percent affordable and that's correct we've no codified preference we now will not approve a marketing plan unless the work force for the tax credit that is not the case and given the projects that takes and/or federal funding this typically goes for accident
7:01 pm
100 percent affordable housing on the inclusionary is completely private dollars in the case where we take state or federal finland's will that will prohibited to the preservation for those who live and work in san francisco. >> we've not been told we're prohibited from identifying the preference. >> so if we were to decide perhaps not at this date but later we want an overall offering overlay on the affordable housing program their get the preference as not codified for the inclusionary program we can, do so. >> we have we do not approve the marketing plans unless they have a live or work requirement. >> but in the case of 100 percent affordable housing products. >> projects we don't apply this preference. >> we do now not always.
7:02 pm
>> we do oh, that's gay to understand when did we apply that. >> benjamin maybe bettered to talk about this. >> previous to this year do we have data on any units of inclusionary or 100 percent went to those that don't live or work in san francisco. >> i don't have the information today related to the 100 percent the tax credit unions the inclusionary program no units to any knowledge no lottery has - slots been used by anyone that didn't work or live in the city in the inclusionary program. >> do we is a have a demographic breakdown with the inclusionary and 100 percent we do so we have a zip code breakdown or go ethic breakdown.
7:03 pm
>> not all the information is mandatory so some of the information not all of it. >> when you say it is not all required meaning some of the inclusionary units we don't require that but i assume all say ones we administer we do. >> thanks marie. >> we have the information for the inclusionary but not the tax affordable program. >> it would be great to get that information i'm curious in terms of what we're trying to solve for who is winning the affordable units we want that equal so in the zip codes the geography ice cream have not wishing the units potentialal there are fixes to do or outreach or fund for outreach to make sure those communities or neighborhoods are applying and getting in even of there is a
7:04 pm
neighborhoods progress. >> i'm get back and provide that information to the committee. >> i have one on the state and federal funding in the legal concerns i'll hold off on those questions. >> i may address some of them but certainly jump in. >> next, i was going to go to oh, no i'll finish up been the lottery each rerental and resale. >> sophie excuse me. >> supervisor wiener has a followup and fold by supervisor president breed. >> in terms of geography, etc. breakdown no housing communities development about the percentage of residents for the lgbt i think i know the answer but i'm asking. >> i don't believe we do i'll check with marie. >> you don't that was a rhetoric question as many
7:05 pm
strides in the city in terms of bringing the lgbt out of closet into latest and embracing our communities and have a seat at the table the lgbt community is still - the lgbt community is still invisible in a lot of ways and actually data collection or lack there have with the right to the lgbt is one of the race folks or pretending and not have the opportunity same rights to whether it is affordable housing or anything else as other communities assembly david chiu was able to get the dwofrn to require the data collection at the state level and working on
7:06 pm
similar legislation to compel all the city departments to collect this data as people are willing to provide it, it is unfortunate the departments don't do it voluntarily but we'll compel now on a data this is important not enough lgbt people are in affordable housing but moving beyond in terms of supervisor kim's question that is quite important in terms of of the preference it is great that moe is now requiring a marketing plan the preference for all affordable housing its been a long time coming but it pertains up a boarder issue i think this legislation begins to address and this is for way too long for our affordable housing policies the board of supervisors has
7:07 pm
essentially designated to the mayor's office of housing and community development almost complete and utter control in the decision making authority about what we have lottery how to do it and the preferences to apply or not apply with respect to moe he have a lot of respect that's not an administrator decision a fundamental policy decision that the elected representatives of the people should be making about this precious asset of affordable housing in so many ways to decide who gets to stay in san francisco we as the board of supervisors and the mayor should be setting those policies in the administrative addition this is a good first step or having the preference codes if i did in the allowing law not just in the process but taking a look at how this lottery is conducted because that really decided who gets to live here in a lot of
7:08 pm
ways (clapping.) >> supervisor wiener also not just on the lottery but how to file a marketing plan and working for almost a year in codifying the strategy is where we're advertising this is civic supervisor president london breed. >> can you share the demographic information in the presentation. >> i'm not sure - we have the democrat graufk for the inclusionary housing but the not the one side of the aisle affordable program i'm not sure i have it but i'll take into account go to see if i have it here only a portion of the portfolio. >> so how soon could we receive that information.
7:09 pm
>> we have it we can come back some of the amendments discuses will require waiting one week so next week we'll presents the democrat, etc. information i want to reiterate it only represents to the inclusionary housing. >> it is important to share and get an idea of zip codes so we can get an understanding of who is in the affordable housing because you you know clearly i mean regardless of what the data says the data is going to match what i'm actually physically seeing in a lot of the properties that many of the folks that actually live in those communicates are still not getting assess to the housing that would be great to see that (clapping.) great to have a better understanding and maybe works of
7:10 pm
the properties mary helen rogers and in the richardson building and others affordable units that were newly built could be a great example of places that i would wanted to see demographics if i share the information citywide. >> thank you. >> we can do that next week. >> (clapping). >> i can skip on in any presentation he was going going to make the point the 100 percent tax credit buildings the lottery is similar, however, at the time of rerental not a second batch of lottery and the portfolios there is a rent wait list and rerentals are pulled from that wait list that's the
7:11 pm
point i wanted to make we're here today, this legislation or legislation proposed a third preference educator the proposal as outlined in the legislation is a geographyic preference force the supervisorial district all residents within half a mile radius of affordable housing project to and it will apply to 25 percent of new units if they come online the goal of this legislation was to maintain and protect equal and fair access to the very precious resources of affordable housing by to balance that with the completely liability desire the residents to stay in their neighborhood we know that residents live in their district their income qualified's and rent burdened and in some cases housing insecure but let people
7:12 pm
know 38 they have a chance to get a units within their district i want to acknowledge we've heard the desire for a smaller geography smaller than the supervisorial and a higher percentage of units our proposal charley b will go through the supervisorial level for 25 percent of unions we arrived there after an extensive analysis we look at 4 distinct he geographies the supervisorial and planning neighborhood and two others geographic subdivisions and analyzed a 20 and 50 percent and the analysis was due to the driving concern to make sure our proposal maintains the access to households citywide and charles will walk you through but i'll
7:13 pm
previous the supervisorial have an vangs of an equal population and levels of diversities affordable housing opportunities are not evenly distributed citywide and there are, however, affordable housing options in every supervisorial district so therefore every income eligible person is visible in the supervisorial district level and that concludes my presentation. but i think the information if charles mcnolte will be helpful i'm available to answer any questio questions. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm charles marking mcnolte i'm a specialist with the mayor's office of housing and community development and the staff person responsible for modeling the neighborhood preference and this afternoon i'll give you a brief summary of that touching on the
7:14 pm
4 geographies we're evaluated and turning to the actual district impact analysis the neighborhoods preference to the mayor's office of housing identified and swaeltd 4 sets of geography boundaries that are uncommon used excluding ours and the planning department those are the supervisorial and planning neighborhoods be planning districts and what we call city analysis neighborhoods looking at the supervisorial districts that think that left-hand side 11 subdivisions drawn but is task force in order to - >> in order to insure equal distribution for districts in elections and the next is the planning naebd and there are 37
7:15 pm
sub groups bans commonly used real estate boundaries and used but is planning department's for the neighborhoods nofksz system the third set of planning districts p there are 17 sub groups used for the planning department's reporting in documents such as the housing inadvertent and the city analysis there are 41 they use common real estate and definition they run with the track boundaries and generally designed for the purpose of consistency in analysis and reporting. >> next slide. >> for the analysis we evaluated each identified criteria measures of neighborhoods assess and opportunities table one summarizes those relies the first measure or criterion is
7:16 pm
equal population this criteria measures the various in the number of hours between the supervisorial and is planning and the described neighborhoods and the subdivisions and population the smaller the number you see the more even the population between the subdivisions so in this case supervisorial districts have a more even population then say planning neighborhoods districts or analysis neighborhoods next, we looked at the race and ethnicity the various of the households by the race and ethnicity of the geographic subdivisions and the city overall generally, the smaller the number the less variation between the supervisorial district between race and ethic itself between the planning neighborhoods or the other two
7:17 pm
geographies and similar to the geographies overall the size of smallest hours in the subdivision geographies with the large neighborhoods are preferenceable as the neighborhoods participation is an important asset of the preference program and the supervisorial districts are reasonably even sized and have the smallest sub geography at 10 thousand this is in contrast to the neighborhoods and finally we looked at the number of households the geography will including exclude that erase the totals of households not covered those numbers are based on affordable housing programs estimates to be completed by 2020 so the results of the analysis is the supervisorial geography
7:18 pm
perform better and evenly distributed number of households and the lease he various in the ethnicity and race and supports of actually neighborhood participation and exclude households from the preference. >> further in support of our recommendation for the supervisorial district like the geography their codified in the city charter and developed there a community process and created with a think explicit set of criteria including the voting rights as racial and language and preservation of the neighborhoods and preservation of communitiess of interest. >> next i'll turn to the desperate impact analysis in have a seat the neighborhoods apprehensive program the mayor's office of housing and community development created a model neighborhood preference program
7:19 pm
using households data and race and ethnicity and by desperate impact whether or not the policy will be considered discretionaryy and in this case we're capital improvement plan its effect operas and ethic motorcyclists in san francisco we audited two tests the first test the 4, 5 test measures whether a selection rate of a minority group or race or ethic groups that is 80 percent of selection for the largest ethic groups less than 80 percent is less of an adverse the next measures the probability of a non-bias selection by state of
7:20 pm
california evaluating we we see and expect to see greater than 2 to 3 indicates a selection bias table it in the next slide shows a summary of relatives of those two tests for the identities groups applied to two percentages 25 and 40 percent the 4, 5 tests i'll direct you to columns one and 3 the motivation is the number of tested rates that actually fall below 80 percent no geography falls blow the told her for the 40 percent, however, approximately thirty to 40 percent of all subdivisions for the 4 tested groups are blow the 80 percent and turning to columns 2 and 4 for the standards deviation the magics is the percentages and the
7:21 pm
number of geographic subpoena duces tecum with the devatdz with the 25 percent the spoirlz districts have greater than 3 percent and with craft with the 40 the number of subdivisions greater than 3 are 7 to 15 percent in your opinion the analysis supports the neighborhoods at 25 percent in that no race or ethic grow up is selected at 80 percent and it is the preference definition less likely to result in a bias selection system. >> based on the analysis of the geography and desperate impact a 25 percent using the supervisorial districts whether or not i understand e clients with the best districts has an opportunities without excluding the households because of their
7:22 pm
geography or is race thank you. >> thank you. any on the presentations from staff at this time seeing none, colleagues, any others remarks from you supervisor kim. >> actually, i have a series of questions on some of the legal constraints you brought up regarding the neighborhood preference. >> oh, sorry. >> so my first question was first of all, new york city is under litigation for it's neighborhood preference litigation where is that in the process currently.
7:23 pm
>> i'm looking. >> supervisor kim i can actually and supervisor president london breed can talk about the new york litigation supervisor kim wanted to know what is happening with the new york litigation and the city attorney. >> deputy city attorney susan cleveland-knowles new york city has had two lawsuits 20 and 50 percent neighborhood preference the first one was the challenge to a particular housing project which the city lost the second piece of litigation was filed recently brown probably about 4 months ago and there's been a no briefly or action nicole. >> do we have a sense of timeline for a decision on this case. >> probably in the next 6 months there might be some court hearing but we can look at that that i'm not sure of the schedule.
7:24 pm
>> okay. >> i'm sorry that seclusion is on the policy as a whole. >> okay. >> so my next series of questions on the federal and state funding issue so i read that you know more affordable housing constructed using any federal housing funding sources that hud must give approval of any application so what type of housing does this impact. >> mary a are mayor's office of housing and community development and hi ms. benjamin. >> in having an impact on the 100 percent affordable units. >> all of them. >> home funds or some other federalist funding that they'll have to include the live work preference in their original marketing plan they submit to the federal government for funding or amend that plan if it
7:25 pm
is submitted. >> do all our 100 percent affordable housing projects get federal funding. >> not all but month. >> month. >> so in all of those cases we have to get the preferences so the cop and the ellis act evictions ellis act evictions we have approval. >> yes. >> then the next step to vet the preference. >> yes. >> have we reached out to hud if they accept this preference. >> i've already accepted the cop and the live work in some developments we have not reached out yet no about the this legislation until it is in place. >> so our affordable housing vegetation that you seek housing funding my understanding that
7:26 pm
use of any type of preference except cop is expressing prohibited by the state. >> in the states has an explicit exception to that preference rule audited preference rule if the preference is a live and a work preference if you're give preference to people that live in a certain city you have to give preference to the people that will work in the city. >> how does this work. >> the states law impact i'm reading here the multiply family u m r that applies to most states funding sources explicitly prohibits the used of local preferences unless accompanied as you mentioned the equal for employment how does
7:27 pm
the district preference will we be able to use the district housing that use state funding. >> the person has to live or works in that preferred location in that district. >> so that will have a tremendous district northbound the district i representative most people work in the downtown area so that will vavt increase those that get preference in district 6. >> it would. >> okay. so this was not discussed at all we're talking about is not a neighborhood preference and i apologize if i missed it i didn't read a live and work preference even for the districts so i know for the city i didn't thinks. >> i'm sorry supervisor i'm refer to the live work preference the neighborhood preference would have to be submit to both the state and the
7:28 pm
federal government for he approval in projects that have the funding. >> it says here to that the state expressly prohibits. >> unless you offer that work preference. >> - right. i guess it is not clear to the members of the public that this is wyoming naturally or the next step when our tarnishing housing that gets state funding and we request this preference to be given we will only be able to apply the preference if it is work or live in the district. >> yes. >> it needs to be clear. >> i want to make it clear excuse me. that that is spate from federal funding most of one side of the aisle percent buildings get federal but few state funding.
7:29 pm
>> that was my next question. >> not as many as i'm sorry. >> i can give you numbers on how many get (multiple voices). >> so at this committee i want to know what buildings get state funding and in the pipeline. >> before this goes out to vote we want to know that. >> we'll make sure we get that to you. >> i guess going to any final question this is one you know for the proposed legislation not for programs funded through the mohcd and so this includes booichltd are those for example, like the dish building and in the integrity they have the
7:30 pm
staffing i guess the universe of building under 100 percent percent mohcd. >> i might not be the best person to answer that question - i know that there are - i don't know of any buildings that restricts that from the mayor's office of housing and community development but. >> it that would be great to get a list from the vote for the buildings included and the final any housing being developed or finest explicitly by ocii i'm curious what is under that as well. >> ocii idea is their development are primarily in the shipyard and treasure island they or had you. >> treasure island is not under ocii. >> i know that motorbike and
7:31 pm
are there housing 100 percent funded inclusive by appendixes. >> typically they're funded by ocii. >> so any affordable housing built in the shipyards will not use neighborhood preference. >> the appendixes will have to approve that they're very anxious to do that. >> they can have this preference but only approves separately is for the motorbike as well. >> they yeah they're looking anticipating this legislation. >> great i think the big thing to get this answer on the state grant one of the concerns do we have a neighborhood preference in place 70 percent of the residents work in district 6 and south of market including the people that live far from san
7:32 pm
francisco they will autumn get preference in all of district of portfolio and that will be counter to the amendment that is before us today, i median a lot of people 54 percent in san francisco is affordable housing not only people that live in san francisco but live far so make sure if we have a preference that work in the district which is actually going to the largest pool of affordable housing we're looking at making sure that san francisco residents are able to get in through this program. >> we'll make sure we get the numbers of units of building that are being development that require that. >> thank you and in this case, i may ask the authors to consider you know maybe slooiz out those buildings that gets state funding again, i think this is important to figure out the universe of those buildings are. >> supervisor president london breed. >> thank you.
7:33 pm
>> i know that we're anxious to get to public comment i have information about inclusionary and 100 percent avenue, i want to share and this is why as far as i'm concerned, this is so sixth and do a neighborhood preference since between 2008 and 2014 the affordable housing units that have both been sold and rent the democrat graphic information excludes whites 200 and 64 units asian pacific islanders 6 hundred and 1 units are hispanic, latino, 1 and 45 and african-american black 62 units. >> there's also the other category of 4 that and an unknown category of 1 hundred and 93 this is total from 2008
7:34 pm
to 2014 which includes both rental as well as homeownership those are the kinds of numbers sadly, you know, i see in a lot of the affordable housing developments and is example i'm frustrated with with the whole lottery process and why we need to move a neighborhood preference forward (clapping.) madam president. >> may clarify those are only the inclusionary units. >> oh, i'm sure thank you, thank you. >> all right. thank you very much for your presentation. >> are you guys ready for public comment all right. ladies and gentlemen, is open on item 3 line up over here remember you have 3 minutes for public comment you'll hear a 30-second
7:35 pm
soft chime. >> and him pastor and president of the san francisco naacp first of all, madam chair he commend you supervisor breed, supervisor wiener, for advancing this demonstration along with as i said earlier madam chair that include supervisor cowen he just rose to say that in 1810
7:36 pm
theodore parker a trinities said the arc of the moral universe is wrong but it benefits towards justice the arc of moral universe is long but it bends towards justice 1810. >> it was doctor martin luther king that popularized that quote of theodore parker i want to wrap up by saying since on january the 121864 we were promised 40 acres and a mule and that moral arc of universe
7:37 pm
has had a long time bending so why not every member of that board of supervisors just do the rights moral thing (clapping.) since they reneged on the 40 acres and over mule gives our 40 percent for residents preference (clapping.) madam president. >> and supervisors first of all, thank you for bringing to forwards many of us have been talking about that in the community inform so many years it goes back to reverend brown are i was walking with a cane when our hair was not gray we were trying to implement the
7:38 pm
neighborhood preference because of what has happened and supervisor breed thank you so much those last statistics prove the point it do not all the things on 25 and the programs they have now the reality is it is for african-americans they're not working it doesn't matter how well intended it is not working we're leaving the city in droves the certificate of preference is not work because neither the redevelopment agency or the successor are the city put a dime into finding certificate of preference and their elderly and you'll not allow their children to inherit the certifies even though they represent project kwungly it didn't work, and, secondly, all our existing 236
7:39 pm
units hud told reverend brown and myself when we they have vacancy they'll not allow them to advertise in prop m african-american publications because the projects already have too many african-americans in there this is a crisis and when i went to the doctor with a bad foot 6 weeks ago they especially\operate on the good toes they didn't give them equal attendance but to the bad ones let's give the attention to the toes that are hurting in the community and not shared equally with everyone else thank you very much (clapping.) >> next speaker >> my name is bucky live in bernal height thanks for doing that thank you mayor's office of housing for approaching i think the mayor's office of housing is approaching the wrong way start
7:40 pm
with the displacements of blacks and latinos in san francisco. >> and work backward from that 25 or it could be should be 100 percent i think ideas are great but not like that the blacks and latinos are forced out of the city at a higher rate than anyone else okay (clapping.) so why not start with thanks for doing that could it be 100 percent if it benefits the blacks and latinos currently at risk of being displaced and brought back one of the things i like about the mayors plan for the mission they're talking about people coming back it is not as easy to i identity not be tim i do in parts of maine 50 percent and new york we agree the goal to stop the displacements of blacks and lacing and bring back blacks
7:41 pm
especially because of history redevelopment and latinos if this is our goal that should dictate and for god sakes not district but neighborhood fighting the parts discrimination against blacks and lacing that resulted in them being displaced at a quick rate and back into everything 100 percent when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to 3 minutes. and not for goes on not do district. >> good afternoon, supervisors and my name's is linda i'm representing the bayview hunters point multiply population city we came in with 50 percent we'll go to thirty we want to commends our courage it takes decades and
7:42 pm
decades and decades for the forced immigration of african-americans from this city and ask when we know has cast a blemish on the history of the city of st. francis mayor ed lee and thanks to him we need to thank him. the courage and supervisor breed said before for giving them the courage this is for the wait lead to the gentrification of african-american from the city one thing to supervisor president london breed you ask the ask why african-americans they're still not having the opportunities to be with the inclusionary housing or special housing or whatever a has to do with with the implementation of the excited laws i'll challenge the supervisor here major san francisco agencies have list
7:43 pm
they've developed over decades and developing now tiling you'll not find a number of african-americans with the good intention of our policy is you're not going to enforce or make sure the implementation requests we're going to get back to square one i'm going to ask you ask the city to accompany and how they're coming pile their data and why when you do that you're almost there the implementation of our legislation will be the key the good intentions are great but i'm going to ask you to please we're going to come back here to keep asking for - (clapping.) >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors first of all, i'm gary bank's a minister her in the western edition area and also a i own a
7:44 pm
firm in san francisco i want to first commend the supervisors for this neighborhood preference supervisor breed and supervisor wiener and supervisor cowen as a residence born and raised in san francisco we lost a 4 perplex in the kweshg with the commercial spaced in the 60s and finally received a certificate of preference with didn't work the weight the paper is on the i know the paper is on here's the new dilemma we're finding those of us who are certificate of preference holders actually, i applied for residents in san francisco but they're a new realm of directions that is credit and some of those developers are using third parties individuals credit companies to just either accept or deny you white without
7:45 pm
awning explanation there needs to be more legislation on the back ends the certificate of preference and support for families who w have lost proposals in 2030 that were red lined and trying to get on their feet we need to listen to this reports for thirty minutes none came up with enough information but puc to the colors who are being displaced in the city we have 4 percent and took supervisor breed so come up in two minutes and drop numbers to see and put. >> face to these issues (clapping.) we need to demand what we want is just our fair opportunities to come back to the city we were robbed by redevelopment and want to come back here and live in our neighborhoods that is fair
7:46 pm
i'm glad we're putting faces to the statistics so see the inequality that it becomes fair we have an opportunity to live in the city it is loft it's cuddled and lifeline because of money coming out here and displacing people thank you very much. >> (clapping.) good afternoon, supervisors taken place i'm marie frank i came to make 3 points first supervisor breed thank you for looking at you'll look at the action will you look at the land use agreement that was pit together for the bloipt property that has a long history there are missing documents we left in the former mayor willie brown those results was that of that
7:47 pm
dilemma you remember the moe and all that the nationals housing partnership organization who owns thereby were actually band from rent properties in the city by the then mayor agreeing no and others officials including bill clinton the president at that times if you don't thinks the, llc and the real estate property what happens in h p are still owning and producing properties urban structured unkept right to die of properties in the bayview that is reach i'll give you the p with those new phrases of couple of preferences live or work that is too many
7:48 pm
preferences we already have a deficit of people working when you have most people that live and work in san francisco don't live here we are at a disadvantage we have a reconcile go on all 3 i have 3 needs personally 3 accounts this week so we need to look at the credit diversities because their stuff going on that is illegal and the banks are aware of it thank you. >> (clapping). >> i was reading the agenda for today number 3 and it talk about here the preference and affordable housing program and the names that porsche this
7:49 pm
legislation are on the item here the distinguished mayor ed lee, supervisor christensen, horn supervisor breed and supervisor wiener and madam president thank you for your commissioner skaggs and giving us is clear attitude we know that is lottery system has completely absolutely failed the african-american communities there's no question about that completely fairs the certificate of preference they on this area that i see raefks i no, sir if the malice and is various reports professional reports a lot of confusion about the numbers i agree with any supervisor supervisor cowen that the san francisco percent number i think would be a good number to work
7:50 pm
with as far as the neighborhood preference is concerned i serve with the president of the mutilating program i belong with the group that is building housing in the city that's doing a gastrogreat job and the pastors of the hope church i'll urge the supervisors please whatever to look at because the african-american is down the lowest group of statistics that the supervisor gave as a pastor of a church and a leader in the city i have people begging to come in the african-americans their mirkariworking-class they people in the city and
7:51 pm
(clapping.) supervisors i'm with the mission economic development city we are in support of certificate of preference and increase from 25 to 40 that is a step in the right direction, however, i want to advocate for a portfolios much higher than the 40 percent of of higher (clapping.) so the necessity is based on the crisis in the african-americans and the latino community really important we know at 40 percent for an affordable housing they'll go to the people in the neighborhood and 60 to outside the neighborhood that is not right given the circumstances. (clapping.) >> i think it is also not appropriate that in this legislation the mission is being treated at someway as the marina
7:52 pm
there are specifics in neighborhoods that need to, take into account the 3 neighbors are bayview and mission and selma so why could not each the neighborhoods determine the percentage for those neighborhoods (clapping.) i also think that the supervisorial district are not appropriate we should be thinking about true true neighborhoods as opposed to supervisorial districts i think what supervisor kim mentioned about the implementation of people that work inside or outside of neighborhood captures the housing didn't do well by our crisis we would last week to work with you over the next week to prove this i appreciate the analysis from the staff but moderate
7:53 pm
moderate but not to be moderate now but address the initials for the african-americans and latinos. >> thank you good afternoon. i'm the pastor of the baptist church on golden gate avenue i'm here in support of western edition communities it has three hundred and 55 unions of affordable housing for seniors and disabled people, however, it is obvious there is a needs for 40 percent at least 40 percent thought to have affordable housing to sxhooment the african-american community specifically the african-american community has been we've been discriminated against and displaced we were the working force of that communities and all of a sudden ether the years now our
7:54 pm
statistics we've gone from over 15 percent to 5 percent of population month of what i've heard since i've been in the city we are enforced because of housing displacement that is a critical issue i'm glad to see it is brought forward and hope the board of supervisors will do know and do what's fair thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors i want to thank you for stacking the stand to get a neighborhood preference but the devil is in the details that a neighborhoods is a neighborhood not a supervisory district bayview hunters point is a diversifies e diverse neighborhood and the western edition need to be considered neighborhoods so the friend of mine is within that neighborhood not within the supervisorial district we leased up the doctor glen eagle housing with 4 thousand online
7:55 pm
applications from everywhere and have no neighborhood preference he looked at seniors in the eye and tell them you have as much chance had an as everyone from any body that is not right. i know our supervisor fighting hard and appreciate her up to 40 percent i say go for the highest prosecuting but want a displacement preference we are concerned about bringing people back from the neighborhood and have to do the work on displacement it is african-american primarily for the last thirty years that has been going through displacement i know that everyone is upset from 2010 from 1960 we have to do better and inherit the certificate of preference so people that didn't get to use them and families but this as
7:56 pm
bold step we've been battling and battling to get people to pay attention that new york city has been a 50 percent preference san francisco should stands with new york against lawsuits that make that happen thank you. >> (clapping). >> good afternoon, board of supervisors first of all i want to thank you london for pushing this issue this is a renearest i'm tracey griffin i was born and raised in san francisco and hunters point shipyard my mothers passed after i graduated into city college and been with the city of san francisco for 25 years api i've not received a certificate of preference and recently it was before this accident they had a know but through word of mouth when i with got the opportunities to address there was a deadline so we need a lot of transparent under regards to
7:57 pm
findings those people and getting the word out and increase the timeframes in which those individuals are to apply and respond to the openings of those housing thanks again, i look forward to working hard and diligent with you (clapping.) >> hello supervisors i'm pastor of 3 seven years in the presbyterian church i've been pushing this for 3 decades of san francisco being a microorganism but to represent with the world should be but the crisis in the last third story years in the believe side community blacks leaving in masses i definitely support of idea of neighborhood preference and specifically race specific
7:58 pm
the black and latino communities and i'm black so i'm promoting what we've been on the bottom of everything since being released from slavery the bottom line i think this should be race specific definitely something has to be done about disseminating this to get the blacks into the community so strongly encourage you not just the 40 percent but a minimum of 50 percent of neighborhood preference so thank you so much (clapping.) >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is jackie wright i want to thank god by the grace of gods i'm here i'd like to see back in last year and in 2014 i moved my father from a discharged
7:59 pm
cemetery after he died in vietnam he died in vietnam for this country's here he come back in march of 72014 and had no place to live in san francisco and having been displaced twice i'm an artist i'm hard working person i've been in san francisco for over 20 years working and no place for me to live i think this is unfair and just speaks to the lack of social justice no so for blacks not to have a place to live after they've worked so hard it is a matter of broken promises and as a daughter of someone that died in vietnam i have no place to live in the city that indicates there is something wrong i'm one the faces that shows there's a problem in to and if any father died in a
8:00 pm
foreign lands i should be able to work and live in san francisco and have a place to live my blah was let for this country it is unfair it is unfair that people like me have not able to live here we should go to 100 percent until we correct the enar justice thank you (clapping.) >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm reverend i was listening to the marries mission that was giving all the statistics i'll say if i took those statistics i'll probably support this but when people come from out of town to san francisco i don't go and show them what san francisco is i show them what san francisco was and go down fillmore street and tell them fillmore street used to be different than this i take
8:01 pm
divisadero street i tell them the african-american used to be all the way up from hate street to this over here he take them over here to hunters point this whole area was the area where the majority of homeownership's were in san francisco and those statistics does though the represent the san francisco i grew up in it represents a san francisco that because of change and finances we have been displaced so i'm here to say i support the 40 percent and i also support that there are true neighborhoods not districts but true neighborhoods thank you very much. >> (clapping). >> good afternoon. i'm delores the marching usher he have this
8:02 pm
shirts on today what this shirt says the city of champions city of champions now we've lost our championship and now you're going to be calling the city of champions you need to be a champion just that simple now i want to say that the lord's always does every thing on time and this board of supervisors have moved out and the lord has blessed us with younger progressive minds who want to do what needs to be done so (clapping.) i dot 0 everybody it is crystal clear to you what needs to be
8:03 pm
done and so all you need to do is do it now my last comment is with when someone mentioned mrs. mary helen rogers i knew her very, very well she was o she was like a grandmother when i powder that some of the folks that were supposed to be under there were not in there because you're getting money from someone else that will pay more all i have to say to those folks when we is a have mysterious shaking in their house is ms. mary rogers kicking off and we have too much bureaucracy when someone in the pacific islands has 6 hundred and 12 because of
8:04 pm
being paid is not o stop taking that money (inaudible). >> (clapping). >> wow. >> first of all, i'd like to say ma'am, supervisor mr. rosen on the progressive side europe pushing the agenda that was definitely need and supervisor president breed standing at all and strong the attitude she has is the attitudes you've got to have the major larger to change i'm michael the developer and builder with davis senior housing it took us 8 years years ago it they came to us and quarry building and building and building because of black catch-22 designs and go to the neighborhoods my family's for me
8:05 pm
to come back and look at what is going on it is department staff stating we spent 8 years to put together the senior housing we would deliver that project in february and little old ladies who dream to move into those units everything that o everybody that was associated with happy davis and others had is attitude i felt the impact in my years of experience and my construction years about delivery this project and february when you come here we'll hope it will be 100 percent of the seniors in that program those are the seniors that laid themselves on the floor that we want and talked to the finances and pit tote the financial team and today, i'm here to say it is personal i'm leading the attack and wish it was 100 percent and appreciate the young lady been progressive
8:06 pm
in our politics we need to change from the old to the new your attitudes are where we were thirty years ago i looked to cutting it at 100 percent (clapping.) good afternoon. i want to say that how derivative e brave the supervises increasing from three to 40 it is not enough the motorbike has boy and girl fight for 100 percent affordable housing and finally going to get affordable housing 100 percent we would like because the mission has been in the grrgz for gentrification we want a higher percentage for neighborhood perch for our neighborhood and other
8:07 pm
neighborhoods we are here he feel honored to be here with the african-american community and african-americans they were displaced we were displaced we need to be together to bring the legislation that will work for the latinos and the african-american we have been displaced and in a sense that nobody cares about that the other concerns we want to change the neighborhood it has to be a neighborhood i don't know the board verse others neighborhoods but in district somebody to come when the neighborhood makes for the residents we would like to present our neighborhoods and also, we want to know because there are services in those neighborhoods that act particularly focused serve that
8:08 pm
kind of communities that's important and hope that is a consideration and last week to have that thank you. >> (clapping.) and good morning supervisor president london breed and supervisor wiener and supervisor cohen thank you for this agenda thank you for looking 83 at neighborhood preferences being 40 percent 14 years i've tried to obtain affordable housing and worked in the geneva towers and other plaza places along with others for many years application after application housing development after housing developments we are waking over the neighborhood to get into the occupants we started with not in my backyard as one the fights to develop affordable housing and it should
8:09 pm
be yes, in my front yard authoritative looking at neighborhood preferences for people that live in the neighborhoods because we built hours and watch the neighborhood watch those live in the affordable units that is built in their communities where i work sometimes the seniors as well as the displaced folks in they don't want to apply i've applied over 10 and 20 times in 20005 hundred and sleeping on the streets their doubled up in units they're trying to be able to live in san francisco where they were born and lived here for the city and the shipyard a lot of our seniors and african-american residents you should look at the neighborhoods preference and not walk over the residents that should be living in the units thank you.
8:10 pm
>> good afternoon, supervisors want to say thank you. i'm janet brown i'm the how are you coordinator for the hunters point i have hands on every day sitting and listening to homeless seniors and dulls with disabilities that are discouraged because of the lottery i appreciate the increase in the preference he encourage a higher increase thank you (clapping.) >> hi, i'm with the bay area group i want to thank the mayor and the supervisors supervisors for having the courage to put this forward the first one you when see this why wasn't this done 20 years ago it really paints the city and the past supervisors in a bad light
8:11 pm
because there is a solution that was at the still disposal that was not utilized in the mayor's presentation it sounds like a lot of work not done we have opportunity to submit to the federal government to get permission for this neighborhood preference it sounds like we had the opportunity to submit to the state government to separate live and work from each other and to august our case over guess last 20 years it's not been done this is disappointing but i acknowledge the courage the supervisors another thing the mayor's office said the corporations can have 100 percent of those units we all know that is not the case it is the certificate of preference holders they railway get in so the federal and the state government understand why there is a need for those types of
8:12 pm
policies so i just want to ask you the mayor to stands up with new york city and not to worry about any lawsuits think about all the lawsuits that will happen if this didn't pass the 40 percent in my opinion is low and i'll ask that maybe to make that 75 percent over a 5 years and bring it down to 50 thank you for bringing this forward and look forward to continue to support this year and get this passed thank you (clapping.) >> good afternoon, supervisors peter cohen with the housing coalition first, we heard from staff we support their recommendation to separate out the two issues the displaced tenants and focus on the neighborhoods preference a smallest way and the neighborhood preferences we been
8:13 pm
supportive of the planning we've got a letter on file entuff idea for all the ideas arguably an idea its been a long time coming we need to understand one toll to reverse the immigration of african-american and particularly in certain neighbors the bay area and as reversed was spot on gentrification is a widespread problem in san francisco but a crisis in some neighborhoods that is an anti gentrification it is a critical tool office space some of the specifics pretty well agree neighborhoods need to be tighter supervisorial - there's a map that the planning department's has of 37 specific neighborhoods and piece them together and make an intuitive neighborhood boundaries it is possible to
8:14 pm
side on the idea of percentage one one-size-fits-all an interesting discussion at the planning commission about focusing on some key neighborhoods we have a crisis than trying to push that citywide and mann maybe for the two or three key neighborhoods and outreach is key supervisor president london breed pushes since she's gotten on to the boards to be pro-active and additional funding for the general funds and as as new rfp on the streets will get folks into those affordable units and latest let's not loss trucking track the goal that is what this is about thank you. >> hello to the board of supervisors supervisor president london breed my district supervisor cowen my name is frank williams the director the program
8:15 pm
i want to brought to your attention in 2015 living in prehistoric times this is a sicken society and it is a shame our african-american people will not be represented as should be for years after year the african-american trying to live in new york city we have so many people not because of tech jobs they're getting applied but getting some of the people don't like the crisis i want to leave this you with i didn't hear ms. westbrook out of bay area she was wheelchair she had to contract and get moved from bayview hunters point to of him we have streets and clinics
8:16 pm
named after her, she helped to build this and none the mayors would help her find housing we've talked in our unit which when he was crying how she helped build bayview and counter get housed in a one bedroom. >> thank you guys and we're behind you you and proud to see someone that acts like they really care about us we love you thank you (clapping.) >> good afternoon. my name is a bobby webb raise in san francisco from the age of 5 i lived in the of him district and still on ma clarity street i'll speak on the night club i
8:17 pm
feel if we lost this club in the fillmore area we will losses an opportunity. >> mr. webb i'm sorry that item is not on the agenda that's work none hospital spoken. >> what. >> i can't let you speak on that around that restaurant that item has not been agendized maybe i e you can relate over comments about the number to a stronger neighborhood that will be around to support institutions like your night club. >> should i leave it alone. >> how about anything you want to say besides. >> pardon me. >> anything else. >> one basic reason for coming to speak on this because if we
8:18 pm
lose this we don't have anything in the fillmore to this is the last of the missouri helms and it has played a part in entertainment i'm a musician have a baubd and also a radio personality on k po o in the morning. >> basically that is why i came to speak on this i live in the fillmore been here all my life and have the car twrakz on fillmore i worked under mayor rogers producing entertainment for 10 years under mary rogers for the festival i know we had some of the by itself you've ever seen so i can't say speak on this basically i'll step aside that was my main topic for today thank you very much. >> (clapping.) thank you. >> supervisors daniel for the
8:19 pm
record i'd like to thank you supervisor cohen and mayor's office along with the city for you know carving out this time for in very issue about housing like many have said before i was born and raised in the of him area a certificate of preference holder and my mother was displaced lit lift ev'ry voice and sing ly he 12 times from the late 60s up to the 80s i want to say when we talk about state and federal dollars some of the you been things that the mayor's office was talking about one the problems not saying our owe powers i've said this when it comes to the police departments and in housing it all connects whether you're dealing with the harris center or affordable housing or dealing with our streets and safety but i was recently sitting on the k-mart
8:20 pm
board of directors and the counselors came up would you believe a co-op that was built in the days early 60s and early 70s don't recognize certificate of preference holders that is in the key area of the fillmore district that proves that there is something getting lost with the certificate of preference holders to put me on a grid line to get a certificate of preference to get to the front of the of line but not the resources and education what difference does it make that is a no brainstorm have to suck it up i know the city has other issues like horse trading, however, blacks deserve to be responded 0 to and not be afraid
8:21 pm
to say black black it beautiful so bring back the black community and enough it city another chance with the immigration. >> let's go ahead and take a vote (clapping.) >> okay. >> we're not done yet we have not voted. >> hi i'm betty jones i want to know what is affordable housing? you have seniors that are looking for housing that are afraid to go outside at night they can't for the area they live in so what is affordable housing? what is a certificate i was in the projects under 1990 i moved out before the gave the
8:22 pm
certifies for 20 years i live where i live i called to ask about any certify they said i can't get one i'm trying to figure out why the reason he moved out a week bra they gave it i'm not loudly to get any certify i'm a senior and looking for affordable housing but they tell me i can't say get a certificate why is that? >> anyone give me an answer. >> this is public comment not q and a but perhaps lisa will answer our question. >> not new i mean anything else is is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak? sir, would you like to speak. >> yeah. yeah i'd like to say
8:23 pm
something it is it seems to me in you look at the fillmore one the gentleman said back then and at way the people are treat it should be a no brainier to go 50 percent or 40 or 50 or even to 100 percent then bring the people back and worked for the city like i worked in the shipyard i worked all over the place it is a lot of people that worked trying to get back here so the first name is and hunters point is the soul of city and for the city to be vibrant and have the finance that it should have bring back the black folks to the city thank you (clapping.) is there any additional public comment on this item?
8:24 pm
>> okay. seeing none that means public comment is closed. this item is back in the hands of this body. >> colleagues, i have a few promoted amendments i'd like to take one by one and supervisor breed has some last minute comments. >> i have a couple of commenting comments to talk about the things i've heard when i first became a member thought board of supervisors the first thing i looked at was a right to return law mostly because you know a lot of my friends that group in the city don't live here anymore by law i wasn't able to do and this neighborhood preference was the next best thing now, when affordable housing gets built do i want folks especially to get if it gets
8:25 pm
build in the western selma western edition do you want those people to right of refusal can we do jed but when we submit speed limit an application and tried to get the funding we'll not get the application proves and federal dollars and get those projects built this is a step in the right direction this is not a perfect solution because sadly one-half come to so for in terms of of feeling the devastation of loss of african-american community now every single day supervisor cowen and i are working ♪ chamber are hidden here every single day we're o we're better late than never ways to support and restore our african-american communities we know how
8:26 pm
important it is to every single you it is just as important to us if we thought for one minute we can get away with 100 percent we'll go p there but it is important to get those units built and built quickly i want to say that i truly appreciate kathy district attorney's office because she is soldier in the army fighting the good fight (clapping.) you >> if a a lot of residents in jamestown wouldn't be there thank you kathy davis for all your work (clapping.) i also want to say i'll torn with neighborhood versus supervisorial districts and what is the rights solution i don't know what the right solution is i just know that in the western edition communities we're not going to be building a
8:27 pm
lot of affordable housing like in the bayview hunters point but want to make sure when the affordable housing is built in the bayview hunters point those residents have the right of first refusal it is not 100 percent but one of the tools we need to move forward in order to begin this process which should have been have happened over 20 years and now we're playing catch up we and hopefully, we visit this in another year the legislation requires to analyze it and decide when we can do to maybe increase it or make changes or enhance that or make that better that's what i want
8:28 pm
to see i do i know that supervisor cowen has some amendments but it will be helpful to understand the neighborhood verse supervisorial district and that preference and if any of my colleagues have comments this is one i'm torn on it because you know how do we decide and let me tell you why western edition haushl we used to be japantown and western edition that is part of japantown so how do you carve other u out those neighborhoods and make sense i don't know what the solution is that's why i was torn by limiting you know what is happening specifically in district 5 i don't know what the answer is but i'd like to thinks a little bit more how we arrived at
8:29 pm
supervisorial district versus neighborhood and whether or not the planning department can give us a little bit more understanding of this process and why neighborhoods are not necessarily specified (clapping.) >> charles mayor's office of housing and community development staff so there's been a lot of discussion about the boundary by which to apply the neighborhood preference and so address that we identified sets and looked planning neighborhoods as their currently defined as a set of graphic boundaries with the supervisorial districts we identified several of the reasons in the slide as was prepared as a challenge the
8:30 pm
first to direct your attention to say the number of households in each the graphic subdivisions so looking at the third actually, the fourth column the size of neighborhoods as you can see planning neighborhoods has a population of one 57 householders at 50 percent ami so one of the ideas throughout the neighborhood preference we need to have an active neighborhoods participation so looking to have groups that have populations size that can support that. >> that participation we looked combining the neighborhood boundaries generally speaking they start to resemble the spoiler district trying to decide the criteria by which we'll pit neighborhood boundaries together is a process
8:31 pm
that of being done through communities engagement which was one the criteria that was involved in producing the supervisorial districts additionally i think that is important to note others number off households we'll exclude in the neighborhood preference the smaller the geography generally, the more households i'll exclude we're not building affordable housing in the pipeline evenly throughout the city trying to pick geographies that balance the aspects as well as excluding those from that preference. >> additionally looking at the second criteria there is a valuation. >> can i ask a sclaifr question. >> of course course. >> for example, when i did any
8:32 pm
noise legislation we measured workplace a polar area where we on the sound appetite impact for example, where a project could be and look at the radio feet around that project and expand it in a sufficient way that cough allowed for just mostly immediate surrounding must not u communities more neighborhood like and the buffer that was part of recommendation addresses that particular issue the boundaries are always an area of concern after city policies and programs some are on, on side are another by allowing a half buffer you include parts finding neighborhood in the supervisorial districts since they were drawn as far as just
8:33 pm
having a half pile buffer around a project inclusively in creating a model that allows us to analyze the impact of a neighborhoods preference through the two he was i've talked about earlier in any presentation we have some idea of where this project will be but to do an analysis around a half-mile buffer for each project that maybe coming online not know about it teammate but hollering problematic we offset the geography set since we know but not what it will be for projects we don't know going forward that haven't gone through the entitlements process to difficult to assess what kind of impact they'll have we have the
8:34 pm
half-mile buffer applied to the supervisorial districts to address aspects of neighborhoods that are not included i don't know if this answers our question in the entirety. >> well, like for example, the parks two is coming online in 5 but we're talking about the entire district 5 that includes covet the inner sunset off the scope of the neighborhoods per say it is challenging to figure out okay. we're going to have a neighborhood preference the folk within the western edition counties definitely i know should be prioritize if some way but this opens not only would it include this inner sunset district 5 but includes parts of district 6 and other areas because of the bored type of situation so you know that is a
8:35 pm
situation where you know that can ends up being a frustrating situation we're building the affordable housing for seniors and western edition residents that need the housing and assessable housing and again i know the possibility of them getting left out with a preference intended to include them makes me nervous i'm struggling with how this legislation specifics supervisorial districts rather than doing it decendents board spectrum of a neighborhood. >> we recognize that it is very challenging and falling upon a set of geography boundaries noting none of - each the stewart's sets have a unique challenge i think the important part is creating a preference program that is robust enough and successful and bold enough
8:36 pm
the challenge with some of the smaller geographies is creates more problems in its prelims; right? so - >> it didn't create problems if you have a smaller group of people 40 percent and 10 people from the neighborhoods apply all 10 of those folks get housing and the other thirty b will go a large pool it didn't necessarily create a bigger problem other than you may not have enough applicants for the pool that's okay as far as i'm concerned. >> it relates to the strategical analysis a neighborhoods participation is an important part of having and threshold buff 80 percent 0 it is an important component
8:37 pm
having neighborhoods that have sufficient number of participants is important sophie will add additional comments. >> supervisors sophie from the mayor's office of housing i want to notes in layman's terms i'm a layperson there are 37 planning neighborhoods and 11 supervisorial districts we feel comfortable with the proposal its 25 percent preference for the supervisorial district bus we know that there are affordable housing opportunities in all 11 that districts they're not evenly distributed but exist there are not affordable housing opportunities in all 37 direction is with that means if you have the 25 percent preference at the smaller neighbors neighborhoods with the 37 there will be people that will excluded from those opportunities and there are a number of neighborhoods in which
8:38 pm
there are no opportunities for the residents to have access to a neighborhoods preference. >> let me ask a question to our city attorney or i guess the city attorney working on this legislation. >> clearly the gentrification is take place in the western edition has take place in the mission is this take place in the bayview and those par communities we see the gentrification we look at those communities and really target those communities because we also see sufficient affordable housing well, not sufficient but affordable housing in those communities and this legislation could we specific those particular neighborhoods where the challenges exist or required to do this as a citywide are we required to do citywide legislation. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney it sounds like what you're asking could we guess maybe two
8:39 pm
things are you asking can we target these particular neighborhoods or can we set criteria for how neighborhoods are defined that are different from supervisorial districts. >> yes. >> well i'm saying it is the possible to look at what we're sxern significant challenges and target those for this particular legislation and not as a citywide i'm asking in general is that even a possibility. >> i won't want to answer on the fly it raise many of the policy concerns and legal concerns mohcd has been discussing but we can evaluate it not giving you a yes or no right now. >> i want to be clear supervisor cowen has substantive amendments next week this item
8:40 pm
will will be before land use and possibility to continue this discussion i appreciate the conversation that is happened here today, i do think this is important to move forward but in the process of moving forward to continue our worker on looking at the possibility of making this a better legislation and so again, i want to thank my colleagues for supporting this i'll continue to work to figure out ways in which we can make the legislation better and anymore relevant to a lot of the challenges in the community as well thank you. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i wanted to follow up on some of the questions first to the city attorney john gibner, deputy city attorney if you could clarify around the housing developments that use state funding. >> sure john gibner, deputy city attorney before public comment supervisor kim you were asking with the state funding
8:41 pm
restrictions the ordinance provides that any state or federal that funded program is subject to the restrictions competed by the is state or federal government so we'll apply the preferences under our local organizing and unless the funding for this project prohibits us applying that that applies to the cop preferences, the displaced tenants and the new neighborhood preference with multi family housing funded projects that moufdz staff was referring to the states will not fund a project and a unless the preference is citywide and applied to working and or living in the city along the lines of the amendment supervisor wiener mentions earlier
8:42 pm
those neighborhoods preference are not apply unless the states says yes, we're okay with the neighborhood preference and live in san francisco if so it not okay then it will not apply to those projects. >> thank you so much for this go clarification back to ms. benjamin if we could get the answers on the number of buildings that are found through the state. >> and also in the pipeline. >> all right. that was a question so - >> i think i had two questions hoping to get answers. >> we'll certainly get you the information about how many. >> i okay. so that information will not be available today and about how many buildings are qualified or how many buildings are -
8:43 pm
>> in the pipeline are state funding and currently in our portfolio. >> yeah. certainly provide you with that and want to know federal funded programs as well? >> promotions as well. >> i was hoping to get the state right now but, yeah if we can't get it i want a breakdown of alls projects that maybe definitely impacted by the legislation so projects that are funded 100 percent ocii the federal fund and state funding and the clerk will fund 100 percent by and the breakdown would applies and wins the affordable housing for 100 percent and inclusionary some of the demographics breaks down and other categories he thinks that is not collected in every
8:44 pm
application but the information you have. >> thank you, supervisor kim. >> the first amendment to remove the displaced tenant at mayor's office of housing so we can continue to work with the stakeholders is there a motion on this amendment. >> so moved. >> we'll take that without objection. this amendment passes the second amendment is one i offered to increase from 25 to 40 percent we've heard a lot of discussion around do we need a roll call vote or an unanimous decision on that. >> okay why don't we had a roermentd on this amendment. >> on the - for clarification this is to increase the neighborhoods preference from 25 to 40 percent. >> is percentage amendment
8:45 pm
supervisor kim. >> just so i, comment i'm open to still to moving up to informative percent but today, i want more information i'll not be president's report that but next week getting the data i'll open to moving i am the preference today i'll be voting no on the amendment. >> on the percentage of amendment. >> supervisor kim. >> no supervisor wiener supervisor cowen madam chair 23 i's and one no this amendment passes supervisor wiener anything you want to add. >> yes. thank you very much madam chair, i indicated i would like to put forwards an amendment to codify what appears to behe t practice of providing
8:46 pm
a preference for people who live or work in san francisco to assess affordable housing and so what i'd like to do is duplicate the file so i don't want to slow down this amendment will have to be referred to the planning commission duplicate the file and on the dipped duplicated file on page 13 after line 12 so will be the fourth preference and that will be important people who live or work in the city and county of san francisco and that's 80 my motion to amend the duplicated file. >> mr. gibner opine absence for the folks in the audience can get a better understanding of what is happening entertain a motion to continue this for land
8:47 pm
use for november. >> sure. sure explain what the duplicated file sure so the committee has made an amendment to increase the level to 40 percent and maids additional amendments that moufdz requested to take out the piece of displaced attendance that amendment is ordinance will be heard in land use in the commissioner lee again, a week from foe and supervisor wiener has requested an additional amendment the committee has not voted on to create a level preference for anyone that lives or works in san francisco that will say after the cop preference and is displaced tenants that amendment has to be considered at a hearing by the planning commission so the land
8:48 pm
use adopts it, it is continues for the planning commission to act on that. >> and it is duptdz to amend it. >> we duplicated the file and making a motion to add the preference into to the duplicated file and condition the main file one week and make a motion to refer the duplicated file to the planning commission. >> all right. thank you very much. >> if i could the mohcd submitted and written amendment that included the written remove the - had additional changes that the cloikz requested to insure that the fire chief hearings at the boards happen in a timely manner i don't believe the commissioner lee voted think outside the box 0 piece of mohcd amendment so here on behalf of the appellant. >> i'll move the technical
8:49 pm
amendments we'll take that without objection. those amendments pass. >> and then my motion is on the tackle to add the lids apprehensive into the duplicated file can we take those amendments without objection? that passes well >> i move to continue the main item one week to refer the did you want file to the planning commission. >> one week november 9th we'll take that without objection.? >> i said to ask i know that the 5 m will be here and a lengthy hearing so want to question whether we wanted both items on that day. >> that was my initial reaction a i think this legislation is time sensitive the laguna project is nearing the point for lottery and other projects as well i have lost two
8:50 pm
not lots of but too many have gone out with lack of neighborhood preference i don't want to lose any and supervisor kim will agendas device that. >> i was going to suggest no board meeting on the tenth and the next on the 1 by get to the boards on the same day so no difference in terms of timing i'm open either way i know the 5m could be a 12-hour hearing but it is important it is heard next week it is important. >> it is important that will heard next week. >> i'll say on this voted but i'll defer to the chair. >> we'll hear it on the negligent 24 motion we'll take that without objection.? >> okay we'll take that without objection. that motion carries. >> madam chair the motion to
8:51 pm
continue the original amendment to november 9th and duplicated was further amended and referred to the planning commission and what actions do you want taken through the chair. >> even it is referred to the planning commission i would for the duplicated file referred to the planning commission and move to continue to the call of the chair. >> yes. thank you. >> all right. ladies and gentlemen, thank you important being with us today any items on the agendas. >> there's no further business. >> thank you. this meeting is
8:52 pm
♪ >> hello, and welcome to the department of elections right choice voting instructional video. it is part of the department of elections right choice voting outreach campaign and is designed to educate san francisco rig franciscoht choice voting. today we will learn what it is and who is elected using this voting method. we will also talk about with the ranked joyce l. looks like and how to market correctly. finally, we will see how the ranked joyce voting process works and to you an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. so, what is ranked joyce voting? in march 2002 san francisco voters adopted a charter to
8:53 pm
implement ranked choice of voting, also known as instant runoff voting. san francisco voters will use it to elect most local officials by selecting a first choice candidate in the first column on the ballot and deborah second and third choice candidates in the second and third columns resect to do -- respectively. this makes it possible to elect local officials with the majority of votes. more than 50% without the need for a second runoff election. in san francisco, ranked choice of voting is for the election of members of the board of supervisors, the mayor, sharon, just -- district attorney, city attorney, treasurer, this is a recorder, and public defender. ranked joyce voting does not apply to elections for local school and community college board members. number the election of state or federal officials. ranked choice of voting does not
8:54 pm
affect the adoption ballot measures. when voters received their ballot, either at a polling place or an absentee ballot in the mail, it will consist of multiple cards. voters will receive cards with contests for federal and state offices, as well as for state propositions and local ballot measures. for ranked choice voting contest, voters will receive a separate ranked choice ballot card. it will have instructions to rank three choices, which is new. the ranked choice ballot is designed in the side by side column format that lists the names of all candidates in each of the three columns. when marking the ranked choice ballot, voters elect their first choice in the first column by completing the aero pointing to their choice. for their second choice, voters selected different wind by completing the arab pointing to their choice in the second
8:55 pm
column. for their third choice, voters elect a different candidate by completing the arrow pointing to their choice. voters wishing to vote for qualified write-in candidate can write it in on the line provided. and they must complete the arrow pointing to their choice. keep in mind, it voters should select a different candidate for each of the three columns of the ranked choice ballot card. if the voters elect the same candidate in more than one column, his or her vote for that candidate will count only once. also, a voter's second choice will be counted only if his or her first choice candidate has been eliminated. and a voter's third choice will be counted only if both his or her first and second choice candidates have been eliminated. we have talked about how to mark the ranked choice ballot. now let's look at how ranked choice of voting works.
8:56 pm
initially, every first choice vote is a candidate. any candidate that receives a majority, more than 50% of the first choice to vote, is determined to be the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the first choice votes, a process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes begins. first, the candidate who received the fewest numbers of first choice votes is eliminated from the race. second, voters who selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice will have their vote to transfer to their second choice. there, all the votes are recounted. fourth, if any candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, he/she is declared the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, the process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes is repeated until one candidate has a winning
8:57 pm
majority. now let's look at an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. in this example, we have three candidates. candidate a, b, and c. after all the first choice votes are counted, none of the three candidates has received more than 50%, or a majority of the first choice vote cast. candidate a g-205% ofb the votes% received 40%. and c received 35% of the boats. because no candidate received a majority, the candidate who received the fewest number of first choice votes, a candidate a, is eliminated from the race. voters to pick a candidate a as their first choice candidate will have their but transferred to their second choice. and the voters to pick and a, 15% chose candidate b as their
8:58 pm
second choice, and 10% chose c as their second choice. these votes are then applied to b and c, and the votes are recounted. candidate b now has 55% of the votes. candidate c as 45%. candidate b has more than 50% of the votes and is determined as the winner. >> thank you for watching. we hope you have ranked choice learned ranked choice of voting and was elected. you have seen the ballot, learned how to market, and learned how the voting process works. if you have any further questions about ranked choice voting, please contact us at department of elections, city hall, room 48, 1 dr. carlton be good lit place, sentences go, california, 94102. or 415-554-4375.
8:59 pm
visit our website, www.sfelections.org.
9:00 pm
>> ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting. madam clerk, can you please call the roll. >> thank you madam president. supervisor avalos, not present, supervisor breed, supervisor campos, supervisor christensen, supervisor cohen, supervisor farrell, supervisor kim, supervisor mar, supervisor tang, supervisor weiner, supervisor yee. there is a quorum. >> ladies and gentlemen, y

23 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on