increased from 10,000 to 25,000 square feet, exempting r.h. districts which i think there was consent from and expanding the definition of the bike network to match the kind of definition of the code. and when staff had gone in and taken the 155-r, what we said is if you are required to get as conditional use on a street where there was no minimum park requirements required, i'm sorry, if you're getting -- if a city requires a conditional use authorization to paut street where we said we don't want a curb cut like on the bike network or transit network and you happen to have minimum parking requirements, that seems an unfair thing. we should eliminate parking requirements for projects whose sole frontage is on one of these networks because we have already said we don't want the

curb cut there. when we presented this to the commission, they sort of requested that we sort of eliminate minimum park requirements city-wide. we don't think that's been notice enough so that would require -- i think we're referring back to [inaudible]. i just wanted to clarify that. i have a presentation if you wish to see more about this or if that's not, then i can [inaudible]. >> ok. >> no. sorry. i think we're ok now. you sent over a great summary sheet that helped clarify the legislation. any other questions, comments? >> no. but at this time, we should open it up for public comment. before we do that, i handed out the the members of the committee the four amendments that i'm making today. two of them are linked together. they're technical amendments on page 16, line 12, deleting a reference to section 145 to

find a development lot and on page 25, lines 14 through 23, we're undeleting section 1-5r, definition of development line to original code language. and then just for today, i will be -- well, for this file, i will be taking planning's recommendation of returning the n.s.c. district to the list of districts exempt from the curb cut restrictions and deleting all the changes to the n.c.s. table. but my intention is to duplicate the file, keep that current language around n.c.s. as it is today and direct the city attorney to eliminate all minimum parking requirements city wide. this will then perhaps go back to the planning commission. we'll talk to the city attorney about that. and then come back to the land use committee. i did want to move forward with these really important improvements to the better

street legislation today and get this passed by the board of supervisors. >> thank you, supervisor kim. so, we'll open up this item to public comment. item two, any members of the public who wish to speak? please come on up. >> grn. executive director of livable city. we are very much in support of this ordinance. we think it addresses compelling needs in our city. as we know, this city can be a dangerous place to walk and bicycle. the city can also be a city where its access to transit and transit performance is subpar. so this ordinance addresses those directly. what it does is makes sure as big development occurs, hopefully we make our streets and sidewalks, transit access

accessibility for seniors, pedestrians, people with disabilities, etc., we make those better and at least don't make them worse. so we think closing the loopholes, some very large projects that we're able to flip through doing no improvements and also exempting some small projects. and small residential projects won't be required. we think that is right-sizing the current right. requirements. we like the emphasis on improved crossings as well. section 155-r, same thing. we piecemeal extended these curb cut restrictions along various streets. this does all streets of a specific type. the most important transit systems and the most important walking and parking streets in the city should be street where is we want to minimize the curb cuts. it protects them in the same way. clearly exempts them on the streets from minimum parking requirements. which is an option they don't v. ok, i'm not going to do park on my front or go with the c.u.

we think that is a positive. we definitely support it for all walking distances. these should be our priorities in every zoning district of the city. and we also, of course, support getting rid of minimum parking requirements. everything we want to do as a city, making housing more affordable and making the city more sustainable and accessable further by eliminating parking requirements. they are an aknack -- anacornysm and we should get rid of them. thank you. >> hello. i'm from walk san francisco. i'm here to express our strong support of this important amendment to the planning code and i'd like to extend a special thank you to supervisor kim for all the work she's done. the are view of projects by the planning department is vital to ensuring that they

include key elements that serve pedestrian. a few years ago a project fell through the cracks. 340 brant was approved from a change of use from industrial to commercial but didn't meet the threshold to trigger a better streets plan review. so planning staff couldn't require the developer to ensure that there was a safe way for the buildings tenants to cross a highway onramp at bryant and sterling. the only way the safe crossing was installed was because of the tenacity of the community advocate, alice rogers but we cannot rely on community advocates to ensthaur developments meet basic safety needs. that is why we're so excited about the amendments to 138.1 before you today, which will ensure that projects like 340 bryant don't fall through the crabsing. finally the curb-cut modifications in this amendment are desperately needed to reduce conflict between car, bikes and pedestrian. walk san francisco also strongly supports the planning commission's recommendations to eliminate minimum parking requirements to city-wide. in closing, we ask for your support today. thank you.

>> hi, laura clark, n.b. action. very excited to hear about the potential to remove parking requirements city-wide. that is one of the think things that is at scale with the scale of the problem. bringing down some of our highways would be another at scale with the scale of the problem type solution. but bringing -- these are big steps and i think you guys should be prepared for a big fight about eliminating parking requirements city-wide. especially when we're going to be asking our western and southern neighbors to be building a lot more housing. so really take that series. that is an awesome thing to take on. and we will celebrate you if you really get serious about that. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm alice rogers. as one of the complainants on the lack of safe crossing

provisions on the 340 bryant street project, i very much support this muchly needed legislation to close the existing loophole and to more consistently ensure safe pedestrian routes. we cannot afford to terrific life or limb of anyone using our streets and pedestrians and bicyclists are the most vulnerable. i think supervisor kim and her staff for investing a great deal of time, developing this legislation and expanding its safety provisions to reduce street conflicts, hopefully by eliminating the minimum parking requirements and reducing curb cuts, where feasible, while making sure that reasonable building access and disabled mobility is not impaired. i commend walk san francisco and livable city for their valuable input in guiding the code revisions. as a side note n case you were all holding your breath, i do want to mention that the safe pedestrian crossing is in process for 340 bryant street.

and aning interim installation is in place now and full signalization is on the way either at the end of the year or beginning of next. this happened only through the considerable involvement and goodwill plus half a million of the project sponsor group i, the guidance of walk san francisco t more than two years of participation of neighbors and all relevant agencies in the proactive work of the engineering division which assumed the construction drawings and found a way to bundle the project and for cost efficiency. and all of this was made possible through supervisor kim's office who stood behind me as i signed that m.o.u. to get this done. thank you. please support this legislation. >> good afternoon. todd david on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. we're also in support of removing parking minimums.

we'll line our comments with those of livable city. we think that they spoke very eloquently and have all the advancing. i just want to add that removing parking minimums that were also thinking about expanding access to transit to the southeast part of the city and to the west side. right? if we're going to remove parking, which is a great thoing do over parking minimums that, we have to make sure that we do have great public transstoit all parts of the city. so i hope that those two things go hand in hand. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public who wishl to comment on item two? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, i just want to ask if we can adopt my motion to amend before i articulated public comment? >> yes. we'll do that without objection. and on the underlining item as amended? >> i did just speak with our city attorney and he wants to recommend the best path moving forward, whether it's actually

continuing this item or dup -- duplicating the file so i ask that we come back to item number two later in the agenda until i get the best legal city attorney advice on which one we should go do. but i do want to quickly thank -- because i don't want members of the public to wait. i really wanted to give a big shout-out to paul chacin at the planning department who has been working with our office for almost two years on this. and so helping us get this across the finish line and, of course, to tom radillovic and kathy delucca. but i do want to give a particular shout-out to alice rogers who's here today who is the one that first pointed out the issues with pedestrian safety concerns at 340 bryants and help with our office in negotiating with the project sponsor and then want to work with making sthaur we standardize this request with

large development projects that we're within the better streets plan but inconsistently requested of assistance of making this a safer neighborhood for all of our walkers and cyclists. of course and to noelle gloung my office. i request that we move this item to later in the agenda and then i will come to you about the final pathway. >> ok. so, we'll continue item two until later in the agenda. let's go to item three, please. >> item number three is an ordinance amending the planning code to require additional affordable housing or payment of a fee for certain sites that obtained higher residential development potential as a result of the rezoning of the divisadero street neighborhood commercial transit district and the fillmore street neighborhood commercial district and making appropriate findings. >> thank you. and we're joined by supervisor brown. >> thank you. excuse me. thank you, chair tang. supervisor kim and safai. today i'm introducing

legislation to rezone divisadero to an n.c.t. this was introduced by my predecessor and then supervisor london breed in 2015. one month later, legislation was introduced at the board to place 2016 proposition c on the ballot. this december will mark three years sthins legislation was introduced. the amendments i introduced today make several significant changes. the first change is to remove the fillmore n.c.t. from this legislation. i've done this because there are not currently any pipeline projects on fillmore, meaning there is not the same urgency as with divisadero where there are two pipeline projects. the second is that the code mandated economic feasibility study of these two n.c.t.s found that increased on-site affordability requirements were not financeableserly feasible for sites in the fillmore n.c.t. district and i have

jacob blintliff today from planning to speak on that if anyone wants to address details or has questions. for the divisadero pipeline, on the contrary to fillmore, there are currently two projects in the pipeline on divisadero. the first is 650 at grove and the second is 400 divisadero at oak. 650 is scheduled to be at planning on november 8. it has been in the pipeline since 2014. what's more, this committee is also now considering legislation to extend the grandfathering turned city-wide inclusionary program. s the for these reasons that i'm concentrating my efforts on divisadero. i worked closely with my staff and staff experts at planning and oewd. i met with. developers on this pipeline project and i've also met with a lot of community members and

i'd like to thank all of them for their input. i've met with board members and attended community meetings including north of the panhandle, neighborhood association and alamo square neighborhood association, affordable divisadero group and the new fillmore leadership group and other fillmore western addition community leaders. i've also held two very large meetings on my own to hear from and speak with community members, specifically about this legislation. between 75 and 100 people attended each of these two meetings, one in september and it was september 17 and the second one last week on october 18. last week, i spoke specifically about the details of these amendments. introducing today for heightened affordability on divisadero. so, let me get into the details. the structure of my proposal should strike everyone as familiar. because they follow closely the structure of the city-wide

inclusionary program section 415. and i want to thank supervisor kim, safai and kim. -- tang. while proposing to raise the affordability requirement for the two pipeline projects to 20%. so, to raid affordable requirement for 650 divisadero, it goes from 13.5% to 20% and from 400 3* divisader from 13% to 20%. so both projects go to 20%. our experts at the city told us 18 would be pushing these projects to the point where they would be -- there was a real chance they would not get built. but we looked closely at the numbers and pushed the developers hard to find a way to build them at 20%. they assured us they can do it.

on the a.m.i. mix, we pushed hard again to be able to follow the city-wide inclusionary program's lead and required that the lion share of these affordable units be at the 55 a.m.i. level. we're doing it at a 12-44 split. so, 12% at 55%, 80 -- and four at 80% and four at 110%. this is really important to me. as i know it is all of you. it is at this level that our housing is affordable for our food service workers, our child care professionals and our nonprofit workers. the n.c.t. legislation also requires a mix -- a unit mix of 40% two bedrooms or 30% three bedrooms and some mix of two so there will be housing for different household types. it was important to me that people have choices to stay and grow in the neighborhoods that they love.

we need more affordable housing for our young people just starting out. we need more affordable housing for our growing families and more affordable housing for our seniors who may be rid did to down size but want to help stay in the communities they help raised and we also have neighborhood preference so that 40% of these units will reserve to create choices for people in the neighborhood. the neighborhood will be able to use neighborhood preference on these units. yes, the units are smaller but no smaller than in any new construction everywhere in the city. these are not microunits, they are standard for new construction. so to close on the subject of the pipeline project with the n.c.t. legislation and a [inaudible], we're going from a total of 79 units to a total of 243 units. from 15 affordable to 49 affordable units. that is the increase. that is dramatic.

that is 25 new affordable studios and one bedrooms and 24 new affordable two and three bedroom units. finally, for future projects, we're lining the affordability requirements with home s.f. tier 1, which means no additional height, which i've heard from the community. they do not want over six feet. and we're going to go for 23% for rentals with a mix of 10-8-5. that is 10% at 55 a.m.i., 8% at 80 a.m.i. and five at 110% a.m.i. the 23% is higher than our economic feasibility study recommended for renle thats. it is recommended 20 to 22 for rentals depending on the rents. the great thing about aligning home s.f. tier one is that this affordable requirement will be studied by the technical advisory committee and moved

with home s.f. to ensure that it's appropriate during future economic changes. otherwise, we would have to revisit this every time there is a major change in this economy. this legislation today is being introduced to next week, land use on the 29th. it will come to -- it will come up again and then it will be at the board of supervisors on the 30th. tuesday the 30th. and then we'll have that -- that will be the first reading. so, there is plenty of time that we have to be able to discuss this legislation more but today i'm closing and hope for your support. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor brown. any questions, comments from colleagues? ok. so at this time, i'll turn it over to supervisor brown to open up public comment. >> i have a robert firchman?

>> thank you, supervisors. my name is robert and i live in district five. i was fortunate enough to be able to attend both of the meetings that supervisor brown held on the subject and i heard a number of people, like several dozen people from my community who stood up and said we want more housing, we need more housing, and we need more tooerable units. so, i want to thank you for negotiating with the developers to increase the number of affordable units. this is a really big change for the community. and i just want to stress that we need to build more housing across the city for all income levels. em on the west side and especially in district five. so, i'm very happy with these changes. thank you. >> thank you. martin russo?

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my ?aim martin and i live in oak street in lower haight. i'm concerned about the extreme affordable housing crisis in our city. i see nit two ways because of mid century exclusionary zoning laws. not only are there not enough homes for everyone who wants to live in the city, from displaced families to the children of long-time residents to immigrants of different skill levels from across the globe to millenials starting their careers, like myself, but the homes that do exist are unaffordable by and large for most working people and families here in san francisco. i also understand that this doesn't have to be the case. that there are hundreds of opportunity areas across the community where we can and shoot build dent, walkable communities. i support these projects before you today because not only do

they bring additional housing to a spot formally reserved for gas guzzling, manslaughtering and environment destroying cars. but supervisor brown has negotiated the affordable units to 20% each. which is more than what was previously required by the city. do i think the percentage could or should be higher? absolutely. but what i believe more strongly is that the affordable minimums need to be adjusted uniformly, not negotiated for years on a site-by site basis when we're in the middle of a housing crisis. i support these developments and urge the land use committee to allow more affordable housing where there was no housing before. and i also want to point out that these important meetings happen during work hour where is many working families can't come. i've had the opportunity to come today and i want to come to more meetings. so, thank you for hearing us out and we need more housing. thank you. >> thank you. tamika. and your mother. hi. and then there will be

katherine campbell and reverend brown. and then john men doe sa. >> good afternoon, supervisors. blessed to be here. i am here highly supporting supervisor brown. born and raised here in san francisco. fillmore, to be exact. brought mom who can definitely attest to that. 73 years of her life in the fillmore area. and here both i work and live and so i can definitely attest to what was just said in terms of not even knowing if we would be able to continue to live where we currently stay. and every morning we both actually thank each other because we live together and my mom is always telling me how thankful she is that she has me and we're able to live together because, if not, she doesn't know if she would actually be able to stay in a city where she was born and raised.

and i don't think we ever thought about that, living together for so many years that we'd actually come to this in terms of not being able to stay in a stay where you've lived. you know? and this is like second generation. so, definitely, definitely, highly supportive. we definitely need to look that the crisis. it hits home. it is hitting home. and something definitely needs to happen and i don't want to tick up all the time, but mom said to talk. please, say something. >> i love my area. i love the western addition. been there for 73 years and had it not been for my daughter, i would be out on the street. so, we do need affordable housing. >> yes. so, thank you. thank you. i hope all of you encourage the same and thankful. just thankful to be able to work and i wish to continue to do work. i heavily work in the community and like i said, never thought about having to go somewhere else to live. this is home.

this is where i was raised. this is what makes me who i am. in terms of diversity, you know, i was able to go to a french school and able to see the world due to being here in san francisco. and just continue, you know, i want to continue to be able to tell this to my next generation in terms of being here. thank you. >> thank you, tamika. >> good afternoon to all the supervisors that are here. and especially to supervisor brown. my name is katherine. i live and work in the western edition. i grew up here and my family is here. and what little family i have, that is. and i'm here today to support the divisadero n.c.t. and supervisor brown's proposal. just so everyone is 100% clear, divisadero is part of the western addition. this is one community, as person -- as a person that actually lives in the community

and works extremely hard to support my community, we need more housing in the western addition, period. we can't forget it. we're in a housing crisis and we need all types of housing. public and private. i've seen the plan and it does the real math. it raises the requirements from 13.5% to building 20% affordable housing -- affordable on site. that means 48 affordable units between these two projects and i think base for 48 more people and families to be able to stay in the western addition is worth it. 48 units better than no units. which will happen if we keep -- it will happen if we keep at it. so we don't need to play

politics. supervisor brown, thank you for your hard work. >> thank you. >> hello, my name is john men doe sa. actually you called my name but i was project four not three. ok? >> sorry. madame brown? >> good afternoon. supervisor brown, members of the committee. i'm amless brown president of the naacp and pastor of the historic third baptist church. very succinctly let me say i may not deal with the particularities, but just say that we need more affordable housing as much as we need breathing to live. so just do it. your measure is right on. >> thank you.

>> all right. any other members of the public who wish to speak on item three? please come on up. next speaker, please. >> hi, good afternoon, supervisors. my name is gus hernandez, co-chair of affordable [inaudible] speaking on behalf of the fillmore n.c.t. legislation. so i sent you a letter which i have copies of here. if you can take these, please. supervisor brown, [inaudible] on october 9 but she did not mention to us that this legislation was up for hearing for land use committee today. we have asked for a new version of this legislation for now three years and recently asked the supervisor to reintroduce it. when the committee first met with supervisor brown on august 27, we asked about the time and substance of any plans to

advance this legislation. at no time since then have we received proposed legislation until this weekend. so at the october 9 meeting, supervisor brown told us she was not satisfied with the adjusted percentage of 20% to 23% for the divisadero. she said she would consider what the developers could afford now. we expected to hear back from her but we did not until this weekend. at the last meeting that she held on october 18, she did not present the specific proposals on the breakdown of units by a.m.i. pentserage. so, you know, we barely got a chance to review the legislation. there are parts of the legislation as proposed that we agree 100%. but there are many questions to be resolved in the legislation as proposed. we are concerned about the following elements --

elimination of the fillmore n.c.t. district from the scope of the legislation. without solving the fillmore n.c.t.'s unfair density deregulation giveaway. supervisor london breed always ensured that the fillmore district was included once she began efforts to re[inaudible] deregulation. we ask that the -- [microphone cut] >> thank you very much. i think there is a question. sir? >> mr. hard then daz e. were you at the meeting on thursday? >> i couldn't make the meeting. >> so, you don't know what i read and what i discussed. in detail yourself. >> could i -- i mean, we didn't see the details until this weekend -- >> so, members of your board and asna was there, your members of your community were there and also members of

affordable divisadero was there, correct? >> correct. >> and they heard that the numbers of the breakdown -- because i did talk about the breakdown of the a.m.i.s. >> so, we -- for the first time we've seen the legislation -- >> no, you were saying that i didn't mention it at the meeting, mr. hear than dez. i did not discuss it and i'm asking you were you at the meeting -- >> i was not at the meeting. >> ok. thank you. because i did discuss it at the meeting and we did a breakdown. i had questions, everybody asked about it and i had a breakdown and i even had the charts there to show the breakdown and how much people make. >> i did attend first meeting that you held on the n.c.t. >> ok. thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i was at that meeting thursday. [laughter] we talk -- a good way to start. we're talk 13 to 20% more

housing. right? so let's just be clear. you know, you have a lot of these terminologies. this is about housing, creating more housing in the city. which is headline news. and had the meeting that supervisor brown had conducted and there was people there that just moved into the city having problems with housing. right? so how did that affect us. well, i would say that if you want to bring people into the city and they can't even afford it, then looks like this techie plan is backfiring a bit or hasn't been thought out. i'm with the group that is working to bring housing workshops and education to the community. and i definitely support more housing in the city. i think everybody should. i support affordable housing and let's not make this too technical. this is the number one problem -- one of the number one problems in san francisco for students, homeless, teachers, middle class, the only people

that's millionaires not problem for. this is a problem for new techies moving in. the new techies complaining too? like we had [inaudible] the new techies. so, let's strategize and i would like the say everybody that's in this room that's for better housing, let's work together to create more housing and i'm going to take phrase that i got from supervisor brown -- if you want to stay, you have the right to remain! if you want to stay, you have the right to remain! if you want to stay, you have the right to remain! all right. [applause] >> here's someone's keys. they left them on the bench. i'm just going to put them back. >> thank you very much for sharing that again. lost keys on the bench in the first roe. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm tess willborn, a member of the coalition. this is one of latest chapters and one of the worst examples of a developer giveaway that

we've seen in recent years. the divisadero was rezoned to n.c.t. in 2015 that allowed for trimming three times as many or four times as many units without any increase in affordability. now increasing affordability when you can have three or four times as many units to 20%, no. you need to increase affordability to 40%. i also strongly object to having this legislation heard today. people i talked to who attended the meeting on thursday that supervisor brown refered to did not get hand outs of all of this information on the legislation. it looks to me like a run-around. getting information on sunday before the monday hearing is not really the way to run things. and i'm also very concerned about leaving out the fillmore because fillmore will have other projects in the future. so, we need to make sure that it is included.

now we don't -- there is no justification for giving a 20% affordable housing requirement when you've given three or four times as many units. and we need to get the most we can from our developers here. nobody objects to having more housing. we just object to having housing that's less than we could get. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. my name is david wu, born and raised in the haight where i still live. i'm with the group neighbors united. so the reality of why we are here discussing this is because of the work of organized community members who fought back against the original rezoning that was done, with zero community input or process. because of that, we are now finally discussing an increase

in affordability and that was absfrenlt the original legislation. so, unfortunately this process continues to unfold without a real community input or process. this legislation today was not provided with enough adequate time to review beforehand and before this hearing today. and initial issues of concern are held by community members around the legislation, including insufficient affordability rates and as others have mentioned elimination of fillmore from the legislation. so we request more time for community members to evaluate what the proposal and to actually engage directly with all community members with the district supervisor and have a planning process that does not plan on top of, but plans with communities. thank you. >> calvin walsh, affordable vis steering committee. three objections to the legislation first. it seems rather curious to base

a percentage on a city-wide nexus study that specifically did not look at density bonuses. this is second, this is a huge density bonus as ms. wellborn testified. we're talking about a 300% increase in allowable density and a 50% increase based upon a city-wide survey that did not look at density increases in affordability. that is the second. 20%, it's backwards. the first two projects purchased the land based on the original zoning, which is one-third of what they'res proposing now. these folks should be paying the highest amount of inclusionary zoning requirements because they bought the land at the cheapest price. subsequent developers will see the value of the land increase and perhaps it makes some sort of sense to be only 23%.

but this is a killing for these first two developers and we ought not to participate in this public education of affordable housing opportunity. finally, it seems odd that we would want to adopt fewer affordable housing units in the future, which is the proposal on the legislation to reduce the amount at 55% a.m.i. from the initial period to subsequent versions. again, they should be reversed. that is to say that portion should not be adopted at all. we should keep the maximum amount at 55% affordable -- to 55% a.m.i. households. for those three reasons, i object to this legislation at this time. i want to thank the supervisor for doing the legislation. [microphone cut]

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, committee and supervisor brown. corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. we are here in support of legislation. the two projects that were referenced were grandfathered in in the june 2015 prop c deal. both of them have essentially been sitting and waiting for a planning commission date to actually, you know, have numbers going forward. as the supervisor stated, this does push these two projects. construction costs are on the rise. obviously the supervisor is very familiar with how the economics of housing development work. we hope that these things end up getting built because the continuing delays as construction costs continue to rise and as investments continue to become more and more risky, that is what does end up killing housing proposals and i stated by a number of people here earlier, people want housing and support housing in the community. we did attend both meetings. we organized for both meetings.

i would say conservatively two thirds, probably upwards of 80% at both community meetings were supportive of housing and we knew that because we gave them sticker when they walked in saying do you want to see the housing built and 80% said, yeah, of course. why wouldn't we? and 1:30 meetings on mondays are tough. we found out about this hearing last week, which everybody else at the meeting last thursday. but to discount what the larger community has said, which is yes build them, sure, get as much affordable housing as you can and get the housing built. thank you for putting it forward and going to continue to move forward. thank you. >> grn, supervisors. tim colon and i've watched the divisadero unfold for a while and i'm struck at how painfully slow it is to adopt n.c.t.

planning in the city. and given the glaciers are in full retreat, this is a national priority. it's incesing density and heights on transit corridors. and we should be doing this in a lot of neighborhoods in the city. looks like good deal was crafted on this. and, yes, we want more affordable housing. but if you don't build, use the market to build the housing you won't deliver it and i'm concerned looking at rising interest rates, evidence of a cooling market, construction costs just can't -- no one can seem to get a handle on that. we should be concerned about adding burden to it. and it scares capital away if it looks like a risky investment. you know, yes, make it 70% affordable housing. why not? because it won't get build and you are on the knife's edge right now. it is teetering on whether projects can become feasible at this level. it is a generous amount of

affordable housing to burden private projects with. and because it -- somebody has to pay for it. the money comes from somewhere. and i say go with the deal that you've crafted. it makes sense. and for god's sakes, expand into rezoning. thank you. >> hi, laura clark. my main problem is it doesn't upzone gear ri boulevard along with it because this is exactly a great way to do a targeted get more housing built and hopefully get it built faster because we're having the discussion around the inclusionary as a batch instead of on the, toic project by project level where we negotiate and renegotiate and end up doing things like cutting fees that were intended to be spent on our sidewalks. often in order to jack up the inclusion nicer rate, we end up cutting impact fees. we end up cutting other fees

that mean that everyone's mad about the fact that they feel like they're going to get run over. because they probably are. this is exactly how we should be making these decisions. we should be doing this faster and in more places to get more of the badly needed housing built. i have heard it over and over again that the community is broadly in support. i do think it is interesting that some people are saying that, like, no one's anti-housing, which is way news to me. because i think we have definitely even at these community hearings heard that people don't want to go above six storeys. you know? where would i like us to land? i think 10, 12, 15 would have been reasonable. we can get a lot more housing in these communities if people can handle a little more height, then we wouldn't be complaining about the size of the units and all the other things that are brought into this. we can do a lot more than this. this is great legislation. it should mean more legislation for the rest of the districts. thank you. >> thank you. before this next speaker, if anyone else wants to be here to

comment on item three, please do come on up. >> thank you. to the supervisors committee. supervisor brown, arnold townsend. just wanted to rise to support this legislation and just say how impressed i am with the creativity of the opposition to this project. it's just amazing to me that many of the very people who came in and gentrified your community have now decided that they -- they're not going to have anymore poor and working people in the community because it's not good enough for us. that the housing and the project says that's proposed is not enough for us so the way to solve that problem is to

encourage an affordability level that will assure that the project will not be built and consequently no more people will come. we should ignore such foolishness and approve this project, approve it quickly and use it as a model for getting other housing built in this community. thank you so much. thank youly and use it as a model for getting other housing built in this community. thank you. >> good afternoon. certainly this item, if it illustrates nothing else, it illustrates the limitations of inclusionary housing and what is needed is for the city to agretzively land bank and build the housing that is needed. and that is not the housing that the [inaudible] and from

sf hack would have us believe. in this town, we have a [inaudible] of market rate housing. we are over the last two and a half years, we've built market rate housing at 2.5 times the official goals for construction of market rate housing and meanwhile we have thousands of people on the street. we have people leaving this city every day because no low-income housing is being built, other than supportive income housing and that is moderate rate housing. this is not the st. louising. that is the first thing. the second thing is that just to illustrate the dishonesty of some of the speakers, i'd like to point out a tiny detail. i work in the neighborhood. i go by the particular project that was refered tos as a site for man-killing cars by one individual earlier. that is a seismic retrofit business.

a reason not to build housing but the city needs to do everything to increase affordability on this and every site. please consider this legislation carefully and please reject next item. >> good afternoon. dean preston with affordable affairs. let me start by saying i think there's some things in this legislation that are good and it's really a shame how this legislation was rolled out. i think that this obviously has been in the works for some time and to only give a copy to key community groups on a sunday before a monday hearing, i was pleased to hear supervisor brown indicate that this matter will be -- the discussion will continue next week and i hope public comment will remain open

next week before a vote. so folks can weigh in. the 2015 density giveaway that allowed tripling and quadrupling of the units along divisadero without any increase in affordability, as a community we have been organizing and fighting back to try to force this time of legislation to move forward. this legislation is the product of community organizing and we look forward to nailing down the details so that we can have more affordable housing in these developments when they move forward. but there are some significant issues. they're raised by the affordable divis letter and a couple that i wanted to point out, first is the situation on fillmore and maybe supervisor brown can clarify. as we understand it, fillmore was rezoned with the n.c.t. in 2015 to allow double the number of units. a huge increase. and yet this legislation now

cuts out fill more from getting additional affordable units. if she is undoing the original rezoning, that's one thing. i don't believe that is what's being done here. second of all just to echo calvin walsh's point. there is absolutely no reason we should have lower affordability requirements on the folks who have made a killing buying this land before the rezoning. [microphone cut] >> do you want me to speak to that, mr. preston? first of all, the -- when the original legislation that was -- fillmore was part of the n.c.t. and then planning the economic feasible study had said that the numbers just didn't work out. it wasn't going to be economic economy feasible. i have planning here if you

want to get into those details because it is important to have that right. i also had that question that you had, why aren't we keeping the fillmore in. and then the second ones that these two projects were in the pipeline and they were going. the 650 and the 400divisadero. and when we were moving the target date of having a site plan for 30 months after december 6, that made me -- i had to move. because they're actually going toen mraiing on november 8. so i had to push to get these two projects through. and there is a higher level than 18 and especially the 13.5. so i definitely would bring up planning to go over the fillmore in detail for you if you would like that. because i think it is important that we have planning to discuss that and have the details correct. >> thank you.

supervisor brown, i will defer to you in terms of the question. for me, real quick. i would like to hear an explanation from planning a. we go through public comment f that's ok. >> yeah. just briefly. so first of all, i look fortoward in the next week continuing this discussion around some of these details including the projects. but our understanding is that if you exclude the fillmore from this legislation, then what you're left with with the 2015 rezoning is you're giving developers on fillmore the ability to double the number of units without any increased affordability requirements. i think if you are going to exclude the -- >> can i please bring up planning to explain this? because i think that is -- >> ok. >> sorry. your time is just limited to

answering supervisor brown's question. i'd like to go through the rest of public comment. it doesn't look like we have that many left. please come on up. otherwise, it's just you two left and then we'll go toen mraiing department. >> hi. thank you for the opportunity to speak. i'm just here in support of this opportunity on divisadero street. the level of affordability was never supposed to happen. the legislation changed and was revolutionary. i've lived on turk in divisadero for 15 years or even more and we've watched as a community as these properties changed hands, being sold, these gas stations and car washs are kind of siting there designed for a developer's dream to build loft-style condos and there's legislation that happened, that created the situation that we could get affordable housing is -- was not supposed to happen. this is something that i could move into. this is something where you

have grandmothers and kids who are on affordable housing. their children working in the nonprofit sector and working in schools could actually come back to the same neighborhood where their parents and grandparents are staying in public housing. i don't think like this would be delayed at all. i feel like if there is any delay, is it political that these delays are happening? right now there is a movement in the fillmore, a collective that is organizing a round of affordable, getting people ready for affordable housing, preparing people's credit. this is a two-year project that if it could happen now, then we are working with the community to get people ready to take advantage of this housing. it's very rare that you can get an opportunity for affordable housing. etch on divisadero street. there's no room to develop on fillmore street. this is an opportunity that we can see the time right now. we can get the affordable housing and get it going to build before we scare these

developers off and then now you're going to have loft-style condos that's built there. thank you very much for the opportunity. i really hope that we can move this thing forward. i really hope so. thank you. >> good afternoon. todd david on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. i just wanted to address a couple of points. i've heard the term or the phrase a developer giveaway or density giveaway a couple of times. i just want to point out that another way of looking at that is the ability to build more housing for people who live in the neighborhood. right? like that is what they are doing by saying that you can create more housing units and making more housing available for people who live in the neighborhood and you are also through that density control, increasing the number of 100% of tooerable housing units in there. so, that is another way to look at that. is that do we want more housing on all levels of affordability or less?

and that by doing density control, we're creating more housing units. the other thing is the cost of construction for an affordable housing unit is exactly the same as the cost of construction for a market rate unit. there is no discount to build an affordable housing unit. so, when these developers are building more units of all levels of affordability, you have to multiply how much it charges them per unit. there is not a discount for the affordable housing units and cost. and finally one last thing. i heard a previous speaker saying that we have built 217% of our market rate units of our goal and that is factually wrong. that is in the number of units that have been aplied for at planning. the number of units that have been constructed are much closer to 50% of our market rate goals.

it is nowhere close to 220%. so that's it. thank you. bye. >> hello, members of the committee. calvin crick. district five commissioner but speaking in my personal capacity as a resident of district five. i wanted to appliance myself very briefly with some of the comments that have been previously made. i think that as a young person, it is extraordinarily important for me that we're building more housing on along transit corridors and that we're maximizing the affordability within the feasibility of all these projects so i really want to thank supervisor brown for working on this and i hope that you can move forward with this as quickly as possible. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to comment? i.o.c.. seeing none, public comment is closed. i believe we have the request to hear from planning department staff.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. jacob bentless with the planning department. i believe there was a question as to the fillmore, n.c.t. specifically in the study. so, that is correct and there are many moving pieces to this project so it is understandable there is a fair amount of confusion about the details. in the inclusionary -- change to tin collusion their program that was passed last year, among many other changes there was a requirement for planning in the office of controller to prepare an economic feasibility study of areas that received a great amount of upzoning. the study was conducted and pub lifshed in march of this year and transmited to the board as well. the reason for the study, which was performed by the controller's office wour consultation, the reason for the difference between the fillmore and divisadero was primarily the agree of upzoning that occurred on the two streets. the prior zoning was the neighborhood commercial

district or n.c.d. zoning which controled the maximum amount of housing by a ratio of lot area to housing. so that was 1-to-800. you could only build one home on 800 square foot so it was already dense. also the average height limit becomes form-based unit. it's only controlled by the envelope available on the sie. on fillmore, the average height is about 50 feet. where it's 65 feet on divisadero so going from a more restrictive density to a higher height. the net as a result the amount of upzoning on divisadero was two times more than the level of upzoning on the fillmore. that was a primary driver for why the fillmore projects were not able to accommodate a, laer amount of inclusionary from even though the same type of upzoning, the effect on the two

districts was. >> supervisor kim? >> i understand that this will be continued to next week and we have a lot of other items that's coming up. but i just wanted to quickly ask. has there been any conversation around filling the heights on fillmore corridor? >> that's not something that's come across my desk. >> this common, this minimum square foot of 800 square feet. i know that's being eliminated in the divis. but i don't have anything like that in the district that i represent. is this common that we have this type of larger square footage minimum? >> yeah. the districts that are controlled by that ratio run from 100 to 200 and hr-3 is three units so it is at the upper end of the restrictions. >> thank you very much.