Skip to main content

tv   San Francisco Government Television  SFGTV  April 18, 2016 4:00pm-6:01pm PDT

4:00 pm
percent. >> i have a question for you either one of you i'm not sure which one were supervisor supervise can you tell me how current projects in the pipeline you anticipate will have the collaboration obligations. >> so through actually through the chair i believe that ms. rogers answered that 220041 projects that played phenomenon for an environmental application prior to 2014 will be affected in as far as they will get a one percent increase all of this is pursuant to the resolution that the e resolution we voted for on march first if 201418 hundred plus realized to air
4:01 pm
inclusionary requirements and 8 thousand will get a 2 and a half percent increase all combined will bring approximately 200 address units of affordable housing to the city and county of san francisco. >> all right. my final questions project that which will receive their entitlement and what's rational on those projects. >> the rational is that everybody in this business had notices as of december 15th of 2015 this new redevelopment was coming into place and interesting enough as the handful of projects that we can define entitlement i'm not sure an attorney bvr but having two here none of the projects are
4:02 pm
invested so they have received an approval by the planning commission but as to those projects after december 15th on and through june 7th i believe that they - getting to the 200 unit night club number should be shared by everyone in the pipeline i believe that the fundamental policy racial and again, i await in a dear colleagues response how to this has been favorable to certain developers as compared to others those organizations and individuals that had been in the pipeline the longest have the most money at risk that's why their percentage only went up one percent those organizations in the pipeline for the at least
4:03 pm
amount of time is one and a half percent we've done this is a reasonable and fair judicious manner the bottom line everybody in the pipeline should be treat in the same way that's precisely what that that legislation does. >> it's my understanding the projects in the market octavia and the van ness special use district some of which files 6 years ago will pay the new 33 in lui affordable housing fee i've heard you have an amendment which will allow the portion of the fee to this obligation that's correct i'll defer to supervisor kim there is a large public policy we have trying to do here so incentivizes market-rate developers to build their affordable housing onsite
4:04 pm
what we're trying to do is to make sure we have neighborhoods and development that actually accommodate people of different income levels different ethic nights and associate economic backgrounds and rather than having a city where you have rich people in one building and protecting people living in another place had in legislation is fundamentally as a matter of policy designed to do to encourage and incentivizes developers to build their affordable housing onsite and that is why you see the large dealt continue onsite and offsite slash in lui we're saying to the developers we want you to build our air force onsite that's the kind of city that we want to be.
4:05 pm
>> all right. seeing no other questions let's go ahead and open up for public comment i only have 5 public comment cards in front of me but if anyone wants to speak first (calling names) >> sure. >> good afternoon supervisors. thank you for holding this hearing i'm alex a research from with the northern california carpenters union i dependent a few folks to speak ahead of me just a couple of points as we're walking through and discussing this grandfathering legislation a couple of things i want to make sure you remember and understand first of all, construction workers the people that are building the housing
4:06 pm
we're talking about are not part of the affordable housing sclaugs the way the nexus study is performed we lower the was this we essentially incentivizes the developers to cover the was this and the ellis acted - number two treating all the developers the same and making many urban forest well, i don't know if everyone noticed we cutting out 24 units about 5 hundred units of the pipeline now the important thing to remember these projects pay less they pack far less for labor as you can see thai have extremely low labor practices but charge rents and sales prices similar to others projects we're talking about uniformity let's not leave out the low risk builders and
4:07 pm
continuing with uniformity we wanted to treat the projects the same to the one and 20 foot projects should be creating treated the same onsite and offsite i think i followed the umu i think in the discussion don't breakdown them separately let's have the watch treat everyone the same be consistent throughout the process and from there i'm running out of time but you'll see from my brothers and sisters here in the room. >> the next speaker card is a.d. twinkie. >> adrian carpenters local 22 field representative years ago the local 22 started and funded city build to bring carpenters into good jobs
4:08 pm
residents from san francisco we have apprenticeships, we still have supporters ofcy builds in fact, our financial secretary runs the program this is one this san franciscans come into and get a good job and apprenticeship and raise a family we want to keep this we don't our jobs cut we don't need developers and developments killed this is our livelihood we have a lot of programs and jobs that once a job is finished we move on to the next so those are not jobs where you stay in for 25 years sure you can work for 25 years but we have to go from reenforcing emancipation proclamation project by project and these brothers and sisters and apprentices and journey men
4:09 pm
and women are carpenter like that we move on from job to job and get on a job and work actually, it's done and look forward to the next one we can't have development for or a killing jobs in san francisco we just can't have that we need to continue to build and keep on working and like you to support that thank you. >> thank you next card jay bradshaw. >> good afternoon, supervisors jay broadway shaw director for the local 22 so i'd like the carpenters so stand uppermost of all our folks are working this time of day but saw it is important to come down today and following that a lot of talk and decision from the developers and labor organizations we are without.
4:10 pm
>> doubt left out of the process pell people can say this and that there is no building trades union in this town more engaged in city hall so while this is the past now looking forward people leave us out the thought process at their parietal for good policy i'll put it to i tend to be the guy from the carpenters union that goes for candidates for union jobs close to the economics i'll tell you what was said today from certain supervisors the call went out to me like 3 weeks ago all projects are at risk now a lot of movement so in the right direction we hope it continues to go that way i find that a problem that folks liquor the
4:11 pm
residential builders association are getting special recognition so i'll quote is it should be uniform across the board and if you put too much we'll look at developers sitting on land and coming in and they'll tells you or the we at other trades follow us we can't afford to to be union that's a fact thank you. >> thank you eric chow next. >> supervisors ethic the market rate housing developer thank you for the kind words i want to be honest when he when we started the negotiations we asked for grandfathering to be zero bumps no percentage percentages until 1231 at the beginning i'm a capital lift a developer we want to maximum our profits and invest with as little
4:12 pm
restrictions as possible i'm always a real outlet - the people here people under and everyone it is diversity and inclusiveness so we embarked to maintain that exist how to serve the people of san francisco by building for them who are recommended by you by the mayor so we engaged the mayor and the supervisors to serve the people of san francisco and serve our investors that's how we came to the legislation it's not perfect but to be clear it serves many purposes we're trying to maximize our investment and serve san francisco and develop
4:13 pm
in san francisco we love today after all the process in two months we're very, very close to having a deal that was approved by resolution in conjunction with the charter amendment a couple months ago thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. matthew miller. >> good afternoon my name is matthew marin an investigator at the carpenters local 22 we investigate for the $2 billion problem in california i've been to a number of non-union projects they interview the construction workers and ask a lot of questions and the answers with disturbing most of workers are making 15 to $20 an hour they are commuting in stockton and that is out soursdz i see
4:14 pm
problems working shorter hours and not given breaks and safety violations and low contractors meet the bottom line and make the profits off the backs of workers i ask if they receive health care they don't they're not contributing to the huntington park ordinance that is a wage theft stealing the health care san francisco considers the rights for working people if their - increasing the burdens on the large projects will need more developers to use those same types of contracts the contractors have obligates and month will sacrifice given the choices between low profits easy labor practices and questionable ones we guess most will cheat the employers that
4:15 pm
don't pay the standard wages and benefits and don't follow the rules their contractors which include policies to up lobbyist san francisco like city build would and users the apprentices to train the workforce instead, they cheat the contractors in san francisco thank you. >> katherine david followed by robert pill man. >> thank you, madam chair and supervisors i'm the vice president of the law school heights improvements association i'm concerned that a particular amendment that was alluded to today by supervisor farrell that he said relates to a project in his district i'm concerned that
4:16 pm
will be proposed today and will impact on this one project and that is the s k s on california street that seeks substantial rezones and opposed by my neighborhood association about mr. sincere of the prod do group unveiled his project on february 1st of this year we met in supervisor farrell's office and the president of our association said to the gentleman i'd like to know what in project is before you go public with that and mr. sincere said no trust me this is not a negotiation now all of that and the inadequate public process confirmed in a letter sent to the developers and supervisors i
4:17 pm
brought one for the record and one for each member those developers are seeking a rezoning we're hearing the process takes years the developers are seeking rezoning on april 12th the developer mr. so foreclose made a whooping contribution to supervisor farrell caption and now it appears hesitate asking for an amendment behind the scenes with serves on the private investors. >> no. you might not continue you see all the people here. >> i thought i'd ask.
4:18 pm
>> robert you're up. >> supervisor wiener i'm your example my name is bob tillman a 73 unit project in the mission i receive epa from 2014 i filed my environmental evaluation in june of particular and put 4 hundred thousands of my money to get this project entitled and i would like to have an explanation from the committee as to why my project should be subject to almost twice as high inclusionary percentage as others projects in the city i'm located in the mission nct i would like to thank commissioner peskin for his remarks stating that all developers should be treated the
4:19 pm
same and i presume that supervisor peskin will be introducing an amendment to this legislation that will do exactly that at least i hope so, so thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. tillman i will. >> next speaker come on. >> good afternoon supervisor the increase of the affordable housing generosity of government housing funding for feasibility are southern locations our inabilities for consistent connection of efficient of all areas related areas of organizations the developer and individuals specifically the airport for solving the problem of projects for protecting and moderate didn't income targeting people of qualified households without conflict building affordable housing on site i support that
4:20 pm
please move forward with that project with considerations as we've seen for example, of today's involvement so diversity for public services of people's living benefits of people's civil rights, of people's divided culture, of people's passion, of people's wisdom of people's destiny thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors joel cop he will the local 6 more the building trades reps would is have been here ambassador in washington, d.c. for a legislation conference i want to echo the words of supervisor wiener and supervisor farrell and also alex in the carpenters at the board speaking
4:21 pm
so far the development projects that are going to utilize the local businesses and pay the residents a liveable standards wage with health care and benefits which they will eventually end up spending in the city reinvesting in other businesses we're not in favor the cut out for the small projects typically were not part of that with they're not being to the prongs that do step up and commitment to using the local contractors for the local apprentices that are trained here in the local training facilities and paid the high wage we're here last week speaking in favor of a 10 floor increase for a project that will increase understanding and a high transit area of this city
4:22 pm
and we're also at the same time seeing a project on the van ness corridors another hive traveled corridor on van ness was within the one hundred and thirty feet height and now they're being cut by one floor and this project might not be probable we're just hoping we can use legislation to promote and enable the developers to create more affordable housing thank you next item, please. >> supervisors i'm circling the schools from the partners thank you for the time and a vigorous debate i believe is on probable one of the most important issues housing for the remainder of this decade i'll encourage the ability part to look at what the pipeline of new projects being filled the ptas i
4:23 pm
don't have the data you probable have access to the data i believe those hadhould be decreased i urge you to consider looking at specifically the impacts of grandfathering as it pertains to certain projects that are with committee support and compliant since 1995 we have one project there are others that may not have submit the e a we've been in process for two years we bought the land two years ago the fees were 17 percent he understand the policy direction supervisor peskin of president housing to be built on site this is not feasible for some projects that have gotten the costs and now although we're not a high-rise project on the
4:24 pm
waterfront we have the high costs and choices that the residents will be paying if they're able to provide the cost onsite but doubted to 33 percent because we're one hundred and thirty feet in height side high-rise is at risk of feasible to answer our question supervisor peskin there are 200 plus jobs union jobs will that will be completed with this $11 million for to the bottom line for the impact. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm marlene president of the cathedral hills association and a member of the san francisco neighborhoods network
4:25 pm
and coalition for san francisco neighborhoods i want to say i'm a major fan of that legislation it is fantastic legislation to build more affordable housing about at the lower and middle level for the market-rate development we've seen most of housing built at to the mix of affordable units is wonderful we'll support it and doing everything we can to make sure that it is fully completed, however, a slight problem in the grandfather right now particular on van ness corridor and i'm speaking particularly to supervisor peskin and supervisor kim who both districts are are on the van ness corridor right now we have 11 hundred units in the pipeline on van ness built anothers one and thirty feeds that feet that are close to approve or through the process that we feel is somewhat unfair to have the highest level of
4:26 pm
underscores put at one and thirty feet one slight and on a permanent basis yes with whoever they absolutely know that is coming everyone that is it is pipeline i'll strongly encourage to build onsite but it this case is that possible to make the cut off at the higher rate one and 20 feet please consider it thank you. >> next speaker >> ms. morgan it is at one and thirty feet. >> got it. >> for those promotions my name is testing d 5 action in terms of heights it or it would be nice to considering having more than one tier how about 200 and 50 some of the benefits that will give us this is good legislation it will help us keep up with the demand for housing because inclusionary
4:27 pm
housing will equal what the master or market-rate housing requires and i'm supporter on down on the specific micro level on the embarcadero the site divisadero the builder was going to build 16 units with the legislation by supervisor breed and also at the state legislation all of a sudden they decided to build 60 units we need to make sure that a project like that that opened it's viral application in january of 2014 was under review gets the maximum amount of affordable housing in to say and so that relates to exactly when is the environmental review application complete thus planning says this
4:28 pm
application is complete you need to bang those dates thank you. >> hi sonya sf bay renters association my question now is why be so generous with developers why are we are doing any grandfathering at all why stop at 200 units why not no grandfathering and require 25 percent for everything in the pipeline what's that? is it because if you did that those whole measure would have about think destroyed by developers it would with have gone down if flames and the developers that had those projects will not allow them to be killed instead, they got grandfathered so every single
4:29 pm
project is an work of an project that made a backroom deal thanks >> good afternoon supervisors per steve for mary tell we want to commend support two of the suggestions that came out of the planning planning commission the first is we're hearing the one and 80 foot cut offices that didn't allow grandfathering for a project that is higher had should have the in lui fee i look at the policy resolution supported by supervisor yee and unanimously by the board policy resolution says this ordinance will have grandfathering that should be constructed allows to continue the feasibility for projects all right. not pipeline and the grandfathering will include both onsite and offsite and grairgd provisions so your
4:30 pm
policy resolution is established not make a distinction and in such a way to disadvantage and destroy the offsite fee diesel with the mid-rise one and 50 feet is no the luxury project you want to eliminate that one and 20 with penalty or at least move it up to one and thirty feet these projects that pay the in lui fee an important source of 100 percent projects you want not to discourage them completely by punishment them and the second encouragement that the commission recommended not the december 77, 6 are that will be equality in the projects
4:31 pm
have entitlement to get their permits and projects that are sued in litigation that ought to be told and the projects that are in entitle with the litigation have not had the litigation roved in november of 2018. >> good afternoon tim colen/san francisco housing action coalition. and it is often the case with legislation the balancing here on one side a lot of folks you've heard are trying to find feeble levels of which housing projects that they contemplated can move forward on the other side of the divide maybe people say kill as many projects that's in the best interests of san francisco in the middle we're talking about today maybe let's stop some of the projects i guessed we're trying to establish what an acceptable threshold how many
4:32 pm
what can we stop before the political process is too high i understand you've moderator move forward i'll urge to keep on take out the mission that will help you've heard on the height where code compliant is subjected to something new and different in the interest of the city more projects implored if the housing projecting proximate falls that as are simple relationship i'll say one of the other things we've noticed in the respect draft the one mile obesity for the inclusionary that was not part of discussion we have to keep a lot of these options available and the offsite radius is guaranteed rate to make that
4:33 pm
impossible to build offsite housing so you come a long ways i urge you to keep on going and letting the maximum amount of housing go forward it delivers ocher the housing affordability goals thank you. >> next speaker >> good afternoon board members percent cohen i know that you've been down in the weeds and you carefully thought about the delays i don't think to the previous speakers motorbike or anybody on the board is talking about how many projects to kill this is grateful language but how to fine-tune to you're pushing to the maximum point we need affordable housing but nobody is trying to kill projects that is in the what the legislations is about what has been talked about
4:34 pm
sorry about that unprecedented is step we're about to have the opportunity to increase inclusionary housing to a level every city in the state or country that is jealousy to have we're doing it because we have at will power and folks in the room that build the housing and kudos to eric to talk about the right balance? how we get things deny we're a national model of solutions to affordable housing and one of the most expensive reality market we have had no, no, no and nay sayers but guts to do a fine job were one thing we've been to inclusionary housing updates many times some of us have been senator mark leno that a is terming out it will kill projects that will
4:35 pm
kill projects guess what a number of development projects increased after we have the inclusionary housing in 2006 and 2007 we increased it again, i want to tell my brothers developments are growing in san francisco let's get it done. >> thank you. >> anyone wish to comment on item on this item if not public comment is closed. >> all right. now this item is many the hands of the board of supervisors - of this committee supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam chair i want to thank the members of the public a lot of really great and important testimony in what is truly a complicated piece of legislation by the way,
4:36 pm
we have marezoning district we' trying to find the sweet spot and vote for the piece of legislation not ones but twice voting on feasible affordable housing in this town so that we can all continue to live in a town whereas, you do said your industry can sell market rate housing that people want to live in i understand that you have to sell market rate housing to have affordable units i get it i do real estate for a living but i'll say one agreement that mr. tillman said the exception to the universities policy it not through the chair respectfully to my colleagues supervisor wiener the subject of a backroom deal but the subject and the result of a massive amount of change and displacement act and stories
4:37 pm
that are heart wrenching stories that emanate out of a wonderful community called mission district in san francisco and that is why the nct is treated definitely in this legislation but if this supervisor is going to be consistent about uniformity i believe and i will motion at some level of political bravery to treat the nct in the same way mr. tillman we're treating every other zoning district in this district be that the mucus or the eastern neighborhoods are be it as everything effected at prop c and make that motion and i also acknowledge this board - my come
4:38 pm
along to preserve the housing fabric but relative to the fundamental argument that that is been the subject of unfortunate and unfounded allegations there is only one portion of that which is the fact that the nct and the mission is treated differently for public policy purpose and for the sake of this decision i hereby by move colleagues public comment is over we treat the in depth in the exact same way through the hearing projects are e e and a prior to 2014 a one percent bump and brokerages e e a at one and a half and projects between january 1st, 2015, and january of 2016 a 2 1/2 percent bum the one and only motion i'll
4:39 pm
make and the only motion i'll support other than technical changes you'll hear about. >> thank you. any discussion we'll take the morning motion now. >> supervisor wiener. >> in terms of the one hundred and 20 feet that was raised a question about why it is exempted from the grandfathering or gained parenting and they've recommend remove the distinction between under one hundred 20 and above i guess through the chair to the authors in terms of the possibility of removing that exemption from the grandfathering as well i'm soliciting feedback.
4:40 pm
>> supervisor kim. >> naermdz to be unarmed to that above one 20 not one hundred 20 and above i'll ask the committee to make in regards to the height a general agreement when we were building take our you can build take our this is the negotiation as a result of your market-rate developers that's the number that was previous elder. >> that's a lot of the political and financial history 2, 3, 4 it this chamber and building historically it was spur and i don't know from the hawk existed in those days that actively not
4:41 pm
wanted to differentiate between building one 20 and above and blow because precisely that was the breaking point at which the economies of scale become such above one hundred and 20 for that type of construction much more money to be made we adopted the one hundred 20 that is historically been the cutting line as a matter of fact i remember in the old days i've got mr. broadway show you u shaw here the residential builders said they're cutting downtown developers a special deal and one hundred 20 has been the dpiftd line in the chamber. >> we have a motion that is open on the floor and supervisor peskin has made a motion any discussion if not i'm ready to take a vote. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney just to clarify what if
4:42 pm
that motion is i belive supervisor peskin is proposing to delete subsection 415 e-1 e it starts on page 23 and ends so that deletes the exception for the nct and treats the mission nct like other other projects subject to the grand parenting but totally different from the umu only on grandfather and that's correct. >> all right. thank you for the clarification let's hear a roll call vote on supervisor peskin amendment. >> supervisor peskin amendment supervisor peskin supervisor wiener and chair cohen. >> thank you
4:43 pm
all right. amendment passes unanimously supervisor kim i think you have an amendment to discuss you wanted to propose or if you could restate it. >> an amendment suggested bets the mayor's office of housing and community development around the small sit acquisition how you can sell our onsite obligation i believe the city attorney will read into the record. >> we don't have it in front of us not written down. >> please into the mike and deputy city attorney kate stacy and in section 4415 ms. hayward upgraded an amendment i'm suggesting clarifying language that language is not before you in written form. >> is there a substantive
4:44 pm
change. >> a change that makes that consistent with the small sites something that the see macy's put before the planning commission. >> is a reap not written before us or a fly-by your pants clarification. >> i can't answer that madam chair the language that moovd read into the record i'm suggesting some alternative language. >> i appreciate that i'll let you know i'd like time to review the lunge and chew on that you may read what you have and then we'll continue. >> so this the the last sentence of section 415 point it at a new in essence sentence defined in the subsection f and the small sites program my use the affordable housing fees to
4:45 pm
acquire sites and buildings consistent with the perimeters of small site funds as periodically updated. >> all right. thank you any discussion on this. >> family through the chair relative to that - can't meet more than 200 and 50 - does that language survive or not survive. >> sophie hayward from the mayor's office of housing and community development i didn't suggest touching that of the grandfathering. >> all right. so i want to say a couple of
4:46 pm
comments before we go on from local 22 and everyone that came out and who gives a damn about this critical issue thank you for thank you for your time i believe we need to increase the inclusionary housing and building we should be sensitive vision zero the developers to put affordable units onsite onsite rather than in lui fees i'm concerned this ordinance and the process that state as under gone has turned into a mess i am not how many of you followed that grandfathering 3 tiering and 33 percent come on let's keep it real what is before us is extremely complex to complex and move forward it is that complex system of affordable housing fees arrest grandfathering or now grandmothering this ordinance is a result of negotiations i don't
4:47 pm
want to take away from anyone any work to move forward but i many have not been a party to the discussion i certainly have not in the revised owners that was introduced last week and not available for public review you've heard comments yet we're asked to make key provisions in the pipeline that have been entitled and mainstreams we're dealing with as well that language has not been written or circulated by our - that is customary ambassador an important piece of legislation we also need to be doing >> due diligence in thinking about this in a significant way to make significant changes to the housing policy in the past are whether it be - whether we're making housing policies
4:48 pm
we're talking about short-term rentals where whether we are talking about condominium conversion maybe you were there for that conversation and several opportunities informing for pickup input in the discussion this is an important conversation we're having today but were i i don't feel comfortable with returning it so the changes we make today maybe the difference between housing projects moving forward and maybe the difference between the city succeeding and winning a challenge so i understand the urge to get something done and adopted before the primary june 7th election we can't do it without having a transparent process so frankly, i think that all of us will benefit waits presented my preference to continue the
4:49 pm
female item for another week so the public can review and all of us review the project ♪ collection policy and the last minute changes today i want to comment but i'm going to be introducing two amendments on behalf of supervisor farrell and i'm going to read them i've circulated the read into the record to delete the section 4 and substitute in lui and remember the provisions informing thereafter, and read into the record subdivisions d any residential or prominently residential mixed use that has submitted a place after january before or on june 16th that replaces a non-conforming use on f a - excuse me - shall provide
4:50 pm
affordable units in the amount of 21st century .5 percent of number of units onsite and the other developments that is an application after january 12, 2016, has the requirements sfoergd or one 5.4 or plus as applicable the second amendment is distributed i want to make sure the existing trailing legislation that provided that protects legally biden coast that the city has entered into therefore i'll read more language number 4 subsection on page 27 line 14 any housing development project that comes on or before june 7th has entered into an executed entertainment a agreement
4:51 pm
between the city demonstrating it the affordable units are not subject to the costa-hawkins rental act now i'm sure you'll see the beatings debate we'll deal with those amendments and get out of here so we can get on with the rest of the day is p there first a motion on the amendment that deputy city attorney kate stacy read into the record this is the language they had supervisor kim had proposed >> so moved as restated by deputy city attorney kate stacy thank you if it dab amount we'll take that without objection. that item passes another motion to i made to accept the two amendments i read into the record is there a motion to temple that. >> madam chair i'd like to ask
4:52 pm
questions specifically around the second amendment that says that it demonstrates that the affordable units are not subject to the costa-hawkins rental action what do you mean. >> i think we want to encourage the production of housing and not parking lots and office buildings. >> costa-hawkins i believe an act that deals with rent control in san francisco. >> outlook supervisor wiener and mines is that as we know i forgot how long 6 to 8 years the superior court ruled that the rental city's couldn't force the project to include the below-market-rate housing according to the costa-hawkins there are unsuccessful efforts in the legislator to overrule that and not know what they'll
4:53 pm
do that right now when rental units come online they have a costa-hawkins waiver stating a percentage they will agree to so from the project has made that statement and entered into that binding agreement that will be honored. >> thank you for that clarification if i may madam chair every member of this board voted on a resolution authored by supervisor yee that said that we would use our best efforts to have that matter heard by the full board by april the 19 which day is tomorrow i fully expelled this matter would be forwarded from this committee as a committee report as a shoe of combooth by this body and this supervisor and the chief sponsor to the folks from the local 22 to the folks from the building industry to the folks in the mayor's office so i was somewhat disappointed this not appearing on this agenda as
4:54 pm
a committee report i was somewhat disappointed it is not on tomorrow's board of supervisors agenda because this was the pledge that all 11 of us took i'm reticent to delay this process we gave our word to the church branch and to the market-rate development industry and the building construction groups we will have an amount of disability e stability and predictability i'm hearing the politics of the way in addition to that despite the statements yet to be answers any other colleague from district 8 an amendment that is not a uniform amendment that is constructed to deal with one individual developer who introduced his their
4:55 pm
environmental applications but a few weeks ago we heard testimony today about other politics that deeply are concerning and troubling so i for one will vote against the amendment made by chair cohen on behalf of supervisor farrell. >> thank you very much supervisor kim is that your name on the cue i see. >> i have two more clean up amendments to ask the committee to. >> okay. we'll take that in a second let's deal with those. >> in regards to the amendments from supervisor farrell to chair cohen i do not support those amendments again, we have spent months negotiating in good faith with the mayor's office and our developer community and the proposal before us is really the product of that work i'm committed to getting this to the
4:56 pm
board as quickly as possible and was actually, the entire board condemned the process by april 19th tomorrow i don't support the continuous this need to move out and in fact, plenty of progress to evaluate this legislation. >> all right. so it is interesting the discussion around good faith i wanted the public to not be fooled by the eloquent statements you've heard and just want to recognize that supervisor peskin and supervisor kim introduced an unsigned ordinance that made this meeting april 19th that is visually impossible i'd like to take a roll call vote on the amendments so madam clerk and supervisor peskin. >> wait on which amendments. >> on the amendments i read into the record you said you were voting no. >> there was one amendment relative to the farrell and the
4:57 pm
other to continue i'll a take them separately and b let supervisor kim speak to other clean up amendments she times to make brown-bag we take the amendment to continue as to the farrell amendment that the amendment before this. >> madam clerk call the vote for the farrell and supervisor peskin. >> no supervisor wiener supervisor cowen two i's one no. >> thank you supervisor wiener did you have something to say all right. the second amendment will be voted on excuse me - the second month motion that is open a continuous for one week. >> madam chair there are other clean up amendments that supervisor kim worries about 0 over that are supported by the planning department and the mayor's office.
4:58 pm
>> okay one amendments sorry i was looking at the amendment. >> right it's not written. >> my apologies one area that ordinance is actually silence on the intention of the interiors for any project prior to january 1st, 2013, the project maintains it's inclusionary requirements under the understanding that for projects that came in 2013 one percent and 2012 and two one half butches but the projects that submitted and epa - that was
4:59 pm
the original intelligence our measure was silence on articulating that point we wanted to clarify that so it is clear for projects that were uncertain how their projects were 2r5e9d before january 2013 that's at language on that piece the second amendment is also clarifying the amendments in regards to the area there is an additional affordable housing impact fee on top of we require in those cases the he'd fee can be used for fulfilling your bumped inclusionary housing depending on the year you submitted our e pa. >> okay. well amendments have been read into the record. >> i move those amendments. >> okay supervisor wiener. >> i'm i think i need
5:00 pm
clarification on those items and director rahaim looks at puzzle. >> that last points that is the first i've heard of the amendment my take that is probably related to the affordable housing fee with the high-rise of the market octavia plan this is a fee on top of the normal inclusionary requirements i'm not sure i thinks by the way, that's what i see. >> as you see she's unavailable this is part of the reason we'll continue this we need more time to chew on that supervisor wiener. >> can i get a restatement on the amendments that was a little bit confusing that supervisor kim couldn't through the chair that i can ask supervisor kim to restate the amendments. >> the first amendment was
5:01 pm
exactly as i articulated any project before january 1st, the project will maintain the inclusionary requirements and the second amendment for any housing development located in an area with specific housing requirement for special use district or any other section of the code like section 419 with expectation of the zoning district or the south of market family zoning the higher of the affordable housing requirements and so forth in the special use district or in section 415 plus fees apply any one pursuant to the special use district symshall be part calculation for the sections 415 point one so any amendments was a summary if there an, an additional impact fee requires by the special use district or plan that will
5:02 pm
account towards this bump up there the grandfathering. >> please. so the amendment will allow the additional fee towards the suds for the proposal in the ordinance. >> yes. >> thank you. >> i'll move those amendments. >> all right. we'll take that without objection. those amendments pass amazing all right. the final motion to continue this for one week. >> madam chair we have to deal with the sunset provisions looks like the city attorney is jumping up you're right. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney i actually had a question on one of your previous votes you voted 2 to one to adopt what you're calling the farrell amendments and discussed two different potential amendments and intend to closing include above them we want to
5:03 pm
capture everything. >> that's correct two farrell amendments we took a vote and supervisor peskin was against the committee is in favor of. >> i do want to do backroom deals in a public. >> my second clarifying question supervisor kim's first proposed amendment which that anyone that submitting environmental applications prior to january 1st, 2013, is grandfathered entirely subject to the current requirements for both onsite and offsite and a fee; is that correct okay. thank you. >> madam clerk what motion. >> one other thing kicking around section 5.29 sunset.
5:04 pm
>> who is raising that. >> this is an e-mail from our clerk to us. >> the advisory committee. >> i'm sorry. >> the advisory committee i believe the office has decided supervisor kim not to move forward with that one the advisory committee no motion on 5.29 dash 7. >> that's right all right. >> so refresh my memory. >> continue for one week. >> let's do that. >> supervisor peskin no supervisor wiener supervisor cowen 2 i's. >> thank you all right. >> thank you additional business to come before this body? >> there's no further business. >> this meeting is adjourned
5:05 pm
5:06 pm
5:07 pm
5:08 pm
5:09 pm
5:10 pm
5:11 pm
5:12 pm
5:13 pm
5:14 pm
5:15 pm
5:16 pm
5:17 pm
5:18 pm
5:19 pm
5:20 pm
5:21 pm
5:22 pm
5:23 pm
5:24 pm
5:25 pm
5:26 pm
5:27 pm
5:28 pm
5:29 pm
5:30 pm
5:31 pm
5:32 pm
5:33 pm
5:34 pm
5:35 pm
5:36 pm
5:37 pm
5:38 pm
5:39 pm
5:40 pm
5:41 pm
5:42 pm
5:43 pm
5:44 pm
5:45 pm
5:46 pm
5:47 pm
5:48 pm
5:49 pm
5:50 pm
5:51 pm
5:52 pm
5:53 pm
5:54 pm
5:55 pm
5:56 pm
5:57 pm
5:58 pm
5:59 pm
>> all right. combgs welcome
6:00 pm
back to the land use this the regular meeting schedule at the land use & transportation i'm chair and to my right is commissioner weiner and to my left is aaron peskin our clerk will be clerk andrea ashbury and thank you sfgovtv phil jackson and others for broadcasting this meeting madam clerk, any announcements? >> yes. electronic devices. completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the april 26, 2016, board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated thank you, madam clerk supervisor wiener is the author and make the