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.

supervisor brown? [please stand by]

>> with we take that without objection. >> to modify -- >> thank you. i believe we have oewd also carline grobe. >> good afternoon, supervisors. again, project manager at office the economic and workforce development. as shared by the supervisor

tang, i believe she's staffing the mayor so she won't join us for this hearing. the item before you today is an ordinance introduced by mayor breed to amend the housing ordinance, section 415.3b of the planning code. the ordinance modifies the date by which a grandfathered project must obtain a site in order to include the rates. as you may know, in june of 2016, voters passed prop c, which allowed the city to increase rates on private development. the board of supervisors amended ordinance for application prior to january 12th of 2016, to grant fathegrandfather their rae them until december 7th of 2018 to secure their site permit. the biggest issue with that is that not all-pro jets wer all pd

at the same time. creating a ability to reach this key milestone. while many projects grandfathered have been able to secure their site permit, there's still 34 projects that have yet to secure this major milestone. and the looming december 7th, 2018 deadline puts housing units at risk. four of these projects representing 500 units were entitled by the planning commission in the last 30 days and another four totaling well over 1,000 units are still waiting for entitlement. it goes without saying that given our current process, it's impossible to secure site permits in less than two months. the legislation levels of playing field and ensure that they get the same amount that other projects have had before them. in very care cases, projects have secured their site permit in eight to 10 months but it's far more common for this process

to take 24 to 30 months. i have been tasked with assisting through the site permit process and i can tell you firsthand, there are countless hurdles in the way of sponsors acting in good faith to build these critical units of housing. i have heard countless times the phrase death by a thousand paper cuts. in researching these paper cuts, i have found that many of these are in fact deep incisions, requiring surgical maneuvering to keep these projects alive. for example, inter agency conflicts come into play. a project sponsor was stuck in between one agency's requirement to have a bulb out at the corner of their project site and another agency is required to place a paratransit stop at that same corner. while competing requirements are unavoidable, the amount of time to resolve those issues can and have losted months. mayor breed has issued her recent executive directive and while departments are working on streamlining our post entitlement processes, that work

has just begun and those results won't be in place by december 7th. all this legislation does is level the playing field. it insures that ever project is offered the same timeframe to get through our complex process. we all know that these entitled projects to get us to the entitled projects getsing built. however, with this legislation we risk losing over 4,000 units. including more than units. we hope it will join her to preserve those units and approve this ordinance. we will continue the dialogue at full board. thank you for your time and consideration of this amendmentment i'd like to ask carlie to speak on behalf of the technical amendment. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. carlie grove, department staff. the planning commission recently heard the proposed planning code amendment at the regularring scheduled hearing last thursday,

october 11th. commission comments and questions around three separate topics. first there was confusion about the duration of the extension for each project. the deadline created a strict timeline for grandfathered projects, which started when the project submitted an application. entitleds and a set permit in a set time. the 2017 compromise ordinance requires a project had 30 months from the date of entitlement to abstain a site permit. it would give the sponsor 30 months from the date of entitlement to a date of site permit and not 30 days from the date of the ordinance. in practice, most that have less than 30 months from today to obtain a site permit as many in 2016 and 2017. for example, if a project was in july of 2016 the project would have until january of next year to obtain a site permit. commissioners asked about the

process to switch from the on site option to the inclusionary fee. witching from on site to free requires the planning commission hearing which adds additional time to the process. and note the fee rates were are between 25 and 30% depending on when they submitted an environment apenvironmental app. they asked about modifications to these projects including the use of the city bonus. projects that added more than 5% additional density within the approved building envelope must go back to approval. more substantial changes, such as a larger building massing or adding density that the density bonus may allow, would require a new application and would bring projects up to the current inclusionary rates. after this discussion, the planning commission approved the resolution to recommend the board adopt the proposed ordinance and i am available for questions. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> this time we have questions from supervisor kim. >> thank you. and either member of the planning department can answer

this question. so, as the primary sponsor of the original ordinance that came to the planning commission and the full board, and i know it came to land use committee on april 25th, 2016. i don't know the ex act date that it went to the planning commission. did any member of the department or any commissioners bring up the point you are bringing up today? >> i don't believe so, no. >> if this is such an obvious issue, why wasn't it brought up earlier. >> the planning commission and board did discuss what the sunsetting provisions should be for projects. i think what occurred here was a little bit of a shift in gear from the prop c legislation that was in effect that had the hard date and the shift to the other ordinance. because the ordinance of the board was being discussed, and which that was not an issue, it is an issue that didn't come up.

it was consumed under the broader conversation of should we have 36 months, is that from entitlement and when does it start. those are the conversations i remember having. >> at no point do i remember any staff member or economy commissioner bringing up our chew user clause which stated a project had 30 months from entitlement date or december 7th, 2018. which date comes earlier at that point in time. we knew we were talking about projects applied for their e.e.a., 2013, 14 ask 15. we knew we had projects from three different years applying threw this process. at that point, there was zero opposition from the commissioners or staff members about how we set up the use it or lose it clause. this was a carefully negotiated deal that supervisor peskin and i engage in with mayor lee at the time, and a number of projects in this pipeline and at that point not a single person brought up the equity that some

projects may be coming along later in the pipeline than others. in fact, most of these projects aren't from 2013. they really are the projects later down the pipeline. so i think for me, it's a little puzzling why this issue is coming up today and why this issue wasn't identified earlier when this ordinance was written with the consensus of our board, the mayor and the planning department? i mean, the point you are bringing up is not new. right? it's not like we didn't recognize this issue when we cut this deal back in april of 2016. why is this an issue today? why wasn't this identified earlier? >> supervisor, the primary reason it was not identified earlier is because the legislation that was under consideration at the time didn't propose changes to that portion of the code and so it was not actually -- because it would have been adopted as the trailing legislation to prop c.

it wasn't before the commission or in the amendments by being reviewed at the time. it was the section that was not amended in that ordinance. >> what d >> supervisor tang: what do you mean? >> it is the grandfathering legislation and the subjected set osubset thatsays the expirae grandfathered. there were no changes proposed to that and any version of the ordinance that would have been seen to that specific section. that's why it didn't come up for consideration as a proposed change. >> what do you mean? >> the ordinance lang, there was no area where it showed any revision to that section. it was skipped over with. >> the use it or lose it clause wasn't included? >> it was included for future

projects but none -- >> i'm not sure that's possible when the supervisor and i introduced proposition c in december of 2015. so how could that not have been under consideration? >> there were two proposed after the trailing legislation for prop c and after prop c passed as well. those two ordinances, neither of them had changes to that section. >> at the time, this did come to the planning commission, right? so why weren't these issues identified then? >> there were no changes to that section to be considered at the time. >> when it came later to the commission, why was it not vetted then? >> that's what i'm referring to. when the two ordinances after prop c passed came to the commission there was no changes to be considered. regarding grandfathering projects specifically. >> i remember this specifically -- i'm just pulling up the ordinance and i'll go to supervisor peskin while i find this. i remember this being an important part of the negotiation that we engage in. i do have a number of questions

on the projects in this pipeline that the mayor's office submitted to us. before i do that, i will go defer my time to supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam chair. colleagues, let me first take issue with the statement from the representative from oewd that these projects are at risk? i don't know we know that. we now have a list of what the projects are. fundamentally what this entire conversation was about, well, what prop c was about, because s taking the inclusionary number out of the what ar charter, whet never belonged and where we underwent a rigorous process with a technical advisory committee and stakeholders from the development community and the housing community where we came up with some numbers that were the maximum economically

feasible numbers. everybody knew the rules of the game getting in. this is what often happens, which is the rules change to benefit the developers and the real question for these 32 separate projects. this is what i asked the mayor in question time last tuesday, is what is economically feasible? i mean, we should stress test each and every one of these. if they can economically do what inclusionary is today, 19%, we should be forcing them to do that. the reason we had the negotiated use it or lose it provision that was included there, that everybody knew about, i cannot understand how this board could have voted on the december 7th date without it having been in front of the commission, i can defer that to council. generally the charter holds that your commission has to review it. i don't know how the hell that

happened. that's neither her nor there. the real issue is, can these projects be built today at 19%? i mean, so, this whole notion that they're at risk is conjecture on your part, respectfully, and i can see some equity arguments relative to extending some of these dates. i don't think the unentitled projects should be extended at all. we want to capture that additional affordable housing in that universe. by the way, i spoke to the largest of those four not-yet entitled projects. the largest one of those expects to do far in excess of 19% and the other three, which total about 200 units of housing, should also not be at 14 and a half percent.

they should be at 19% and be halfway house and to the fire to say, i don't want them sitting on entitlements, i want them to build. that's why we had the use it or lose it provision. i want to build with the most affordable housing that the projects can bear in today's market. remember, a lot of these folks bought at lesser values, lesser than today's values. values. there's a path forward. with all due respect to the mayor and her staff, this proposal is not it, but we can make some amendments. unfortunately, because of the scheduling of this meeting, which while it may have been noticed within 72 hours, i'm speaking for this supervisor who, for years, has, on thursdays, gone to the board of supervisors website to read the land use committee agenda.

it was not posted until the middle of the day on friday. i didn't even know this was going to be on here when i usually know it. then i can go to the city attorney on friday and say start drafting me amendments. instead i went to the city attorney this morning and asked them to start draft ago mendmentamendmentsand that was y today. i don't think this is ready for prime time. i did mention that to the mayor. if the december 7th date comes and goes and we don't ultimately adopt this until mid-december or early january, i don't think that's gap in time is problematic. let's get it right. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. i mean, i know i'm just asking the question that has been asked alalready before. commissions last thursday as well and that discussion there. what is going on in that post entitlement process and why is it so challenging?

again, i know we spoke to process improvements that are underway and won't be available in time for these particular projects in the pipeline. maybe you could shed light on what is happening to these projects? >> yes. so, my colleague is here and she was formally at our department. i've taken on the work since her transition. so it's been my job to reach out to the project sponsors subject to this ordinance and without going into every single project in the nuance of this, it's just the bureaucracy is complicated. our system involves at least going to nine different departments to get your site permit approval. some of which has been mired by life safety, new state legislation, and code interpretations that have held the departments back from negotiating what is weekly required and what the project

sponsor can do and so, i do think that ever project is extremely different. we have done a little bit of analysis where each project is at in that site permit process. some are further along and some are far from achieving that. i guess to the question that supervisor peskin raised, on why now and why december 7th is such a critical time, i could not say with confidence it's going from 13 and a half to 19% was a deal killer for most but i know if we don't do anything we're taking a risk in many of these units. i do believe that there are projects sponsors that already now are talking about -- that this process has been burdensome on them. some are these are small. you can see some of these projects are less than 50 units and some are run by family operations. so just speaking on behalf of

those, those projects would quickly die. they would not move forward. and some of those projects help to fulfill development along commercial corridors and help to fulfill under utilized parking lots in communities where we need neighborhood revitalization. i do think that the conversation is critical at this time. especially with increasing construction costs and receding financial investment in our market in san francisco. >> thank you for that. from what i gathered from the planning commission hearing, the majority of the cases where the project sponsors were waiting on city staff and change of regulations and so, would you say it's accurate that it's not that project sponsors were lagging on their part? what is the -- >> i would say that in most cases, it's not exactly on the project sponsor. there are situations where plan

checkers from the various department have been reassigned or left the city and the project sponsor was not notified of staff leaving and the re-assignments. there's been situations where plan check meetings were secured months in advance and then the plan checkers just don't a arrive to the meeting or don't notify project sponsors. it keeps the little paper cuts adding to the difficulty in getting these projects built. i know there are several project sponsors here to speak during public comment. i just had one last point. >> from what i saw with that, only six projects on the list were not approved by planning commission. the majority of the remaining, i guess 27 applicants, are seeking site permits. i'm just wondering, i'll just throw it out there for group discussion but could there a way

to address concerns by allowing at least those projects that are seeking the site permit to move forward. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor tang, just point out clarification. for projects not entitled at this point in time. >> there's actually five. 450 ferell is not entitled at this time. >> there is six. there's another one in appeal. 2750 is also on appeal. 2750 -- >> i was just going off of what was in our packets. >> there are two upper lists. this is a technical detail. >> they've recently been entitled by the planning commission but maybe under the relevant appeal timeline. >> right.

>> sorry, my apologies. >> a couple of things. i actually am very sympathetic to a number of projects on this list. particularly the ones that got their project approvals this year. i do wish that project sponsors have reached out to me and there are a few on this list that did reach out to me to explain the difficulties they're having. if you are here in chamber today and you are in the district i represent, i will not look kindly on your complaints. my phone number is accessible and available and i want to see housing projects that get built as well. i would say of this list of 27 projects only four of the projects sponsors reached out to me explaining some of their frustrations and also some of the challenges that they've had getting through this site permitting process. asking for assistance from my office to help with that. there's a lot the mayor's office needs t to expedite this proces.

we have a thorough process for a reason. that is because we want community input and frankly, i think ever project has improved through this vigorous entitlement process that we have. however, when you are entitled, i think that the city should be moving swiftly to get you to construction as quickly as possible. and that we need to be doing everything that we can to streamline this process so housing can get in the ground as soon as possible especially since these developers really went through a lot to get support. a couple of quick notes, 1515 south van ness should not be on this list. they committed to 25% affordable housing. any increase requirement will not impact this project. we should delete that from the list. i want to concur with supervisor peskin, i don't think that we should be extending your

grandfathering. a number of these projects, all of them are in the district i represent. one of them as supervisor peskin said, will far exceed our inclusionary housing ordinance and this is the honda site. i want to work on negotiating an extension beyond december 7th. this was just at planning commission on thursday. it's land use on monday with a community report until tomorrow. we did ask the city attorney as supervisor peskin mentioned, to start drafting amendments. they're not going to be ready when you request them at monday 9:00 a.m. and we did try to e-mail you all on the weekend but we understand why you didn't respond to us. i do think that we do need additional time to workout what the -- to right size the extension to be. also have a clear understanding of what the delays have been. i'm just going to point out 555

howard street. they want to be 100% hotel. they're not going to be under housing ordinance. so anyway, i could go through this project by project. i'm not going to do that with everyone sitting here in the room today. i do think that we need a little bit of time to right size this extension and i'm happy to work with the mayor's office and the planning department in order to do that. we also need to give our city attorney's office some time to craft those amendments. >> thank you. supervisor safai. >> do you have a specific amendment that you want to talk about? or not talk about those now? >> i'm happy to talk about them. first, i think if you have not received your entitlement yet that you should not be the beneficiary of this grandfathering. some of these projects have been in the pipeline for a very long time and have a number of different challenges. and so, i would not include them

in the extension. for those that are the remaining, i would say, 25, 24 on this list, i would be open to giving 12-month extension from entitlement date and we can talk about how to handle appeals, which are a little different from litigation. that would be what i would propose. >> got it. >> so i just wanted to jump in for a second. i know you and supervisor peskin were involved in the negotiations prior to our inclusionary housing. one of the things that was a little bit difficult is it's hard sometimes to contemplate the amount of time that post entitlement it will take to get your final approval. i'm just curious to know, i didn't hear this put out there but from either of you, how the december date was chosen and was that based on discussions you had with the projects while they were in the entitlement process or as part of your prop c

conversations, december 7th was a date -- what was magical about that date? if there was nothing magical about it, i think that one of the things -- maybe i'm seeing of reflecting back on our housing compromising in 2017, we came up with a 3-month extension post entitlement. so i can see why i haven't had many conversations with the mayor. i haven't had any conversations with the mayor. i can see maybe that was why that was the choice and if we're not going to do 30 months, what would be the basis for something less than that? i think the idea -- i think we all unanimously agree on this body that we want to see more housing built. i think, i agree with supervisor peskin, there's nothing wrong with asking the question on are the proposed rates that we're grandfathered in, are those the right rates? that's worth while. at the same time, we should have

a real conversation that when you receive your entitlements, it's significant -- each project has its own hurdles whether it's appeal or shadow studies or additional work that back and fourth. i know that i got called more recently. >> adrienne: supervisosupervisoa determination that roof decks are not allowable. that caused a complete halt to many projects. some that were in the review process. some that were in construction. these are real life responses that add delays to those projects. again, i'm 100% on board with the idea of getting as much as we can in terms of affordability. i think that was part of the compromised we all reached. i agree with the statements that you made supervisor, kim, about all of these projects that just received their entitlement in 2017, i think obviously those are going to have different type of consideration than those that are older. i think we should really look

deeply and taking the right amount of time. that was the intent to give folks the right amount of time to go through this post entitlement. >> thank you, supervisor safai. >> i wanted to answer to the december 7th. i don't know where that came from? >> december 7th. >> so, we were pushing for a two-year use it or lose it provision. mayor lee and his staff were pushing for a three-year use it or lose it provision and we cut the baby in half at two and a half years. that's exactly how that happened. >> got it. so it wasn't based on entitlement date. >> it was based on when we did the trailing legislation two and a half years out. so everybody had a running head start and two and a half years of notice. by the way, some of these things, i agree with staff. i'm not sure about the paper cut

analogy, are due to no fault of the project sponsor. ok. some of them are due to the absolute fault of the project sponsor. so, it's fun because ms. chang has provided differen different iterations of the spread sheet. if it's because the project sponsor chose ta change architects mid stream, that's not my problem. and then prove to me why you can't do 19%? everybody else can do it and we knew it was economically feasible and everybody agreed to that. i want to capture that 19%. i mean -- there are some good stories here and i associate myself with supervisors kim and safai about the ones approved in 2018. that doesn't mean that everybody gets to keep moving the goal post back. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. i concur with the statement or add to one of the statements. i definitely want to help those

projects that have done he have everythineverything on their pa. we're waiting on the city front. but for those who may have had issues of their own i think that's a separate consideration. supervisor peskin. >> there's also one other thing that supervisor kim did not mention. a couple of things that supervisor kim did not mention. one is around fees for bonus units that chose state density, which is currently the law. i would like to be able to go back and recapture those fees in those handful of projects here. i think they're getting a discount on a discount. i would like to add that to the list of amendments we're asking the city attorney for. i think that should be non controversial on this panel as we made that city law in all other instances. finally, for those -- this is actually cribbing some language from the original prop c which

was the proposition charter amendment in 2012 that created the housing trust fund and unfortunately, ensconced the inclusionary percentages in the charter, which the subsequent 2016 prop c took out. there is some interesting language in that measure that talallowed project sponsors to appeal to, in this case, it was the zoning administrator, which might not be the appropriate case in this instance. to appeal and show cause why they should get an extension and we may want to look at that language as well. >> thank you. supervisor safai. >> i have one more comment. as i look this over, in terms of supervisor kim's comment about if you have not even received your entitlement and i was looking at the planning department number case and so on. the only thing i wanted to ask

was or just at least for your consideration, for this body and particularly supervisor kim, if one of these has changed ownership, if for instance, someone bought this more recently the price was negotiated based on the understanding of what the inclusionary rate was based on that time. that would effect the price of the purchase and sale. i don't know if they have changed hands. i'd like to know a little bit more about why they were submitted in 2015 and 2014. other than 10 south. i think that one has already do a higher rate of inclusionary. some of these others are smaller. they're all under 100 units. right around 60. it would be interesting to see if some of those changed hands and changed ownership and how that might play into the decision-making in terms of the over all structure that could affect the ability of someone to build based on if they had just

purchased these recently under the understanding of an older inclusionary rate. just putting that out there for the record. >> if i may make a retort to that, anybody who bought an entitled project, knew or sure as heck should have known that december 7th date was coming. >> at least on our information it doesn't say if it's entitled yet or not. i don't know if they are. >> everything in group 2 is entitled. >> group 3. >> i'm talking about group 3. >> i was referring to the not yet entitled but they have older application dates. i wonder if those have changed hands. >> i would say the same thing for the unentitled ones. they knew december 7 was coming so shame on them. >> ok. if there's no other questions, comments at this moment we're going to jump to public comment first on item 4. so if you have any thing you wish to say on this, come up. we do have some speaker cards for item number 4 so i'm going to call those speakers first.

we have tim wong, katie martin, tyrell romero, peter, diana martinez, sherrard buckta, susan marsh, john mendoza and peter collins. feel free to lineup after these speakers. please come up. >> my name is katie i'm with the street community services. there's no housing crisis for real estate corporations or developers. they are making more profits than they have ever made before in san francisco. this is a historic housing boom for them. the people in crisis are the people who need affordable housing. and this is a give away to those interests. this housing crisis exists for

working people of san francisco. plenty of projects got their permits in time. why are we rewarding the slowest-moving developers? when you miss a deadline, that's it. now they're showing up like a d student. if they can't get it together then they need to get out of the way so companies who have the ability to build affordable housing can get in there. many of which have. we don't need politicians who will coddle the multi billion companies into doing their jobs. we needy elected officials who can light a fire under them and build the affordable housing. we the government's job is to regulate the market and we can be affordable and not just to accept when people say this isn't feasible there are no next steps. how do you clear out the way so people who it is feasible for can get in there and make it happen? that can be you. you can stand up for the working people of san francisco and make this happen. i have to say that this legislation overturns a voter mandate about affordable

housing. 77% of people voted for prop c. so don't be a politician who places themselves above the electoral process and the will of the people. if you can encourage everyone to vote and participate in the civic process with the upcoming election day, when you are going to turn around and negate when the people decided. stop give aways to these mega corporations. listen to the voters and vote no. >> hi. i want to say it's already 18 in october and they've already had more than two years to figure out the process. i agree with everybod everythine said. i want to say that, you know, if we don't hold these developers to hirdevelopersto higher stand. we have, in the past, given tax

exemptions to companies like twitter and if you look, you know, they turn around and they don't give much back to the city. they don't support the new prop c and just using it as analogy to say we shouldn't have these -- we shouldn't be lenient to companies like katie says, that don't get things built and are unable to complete their requirements that the voters mandated. i hope that you will do the right thing and figure out which building should be built and which ones should be turned over to have more affordable developers build them. thank you. >> hello. good afternoon. i'm diana martinez, the program manager of mission s.r.o.

collaborative. we are in opposition to the extension of the grandfathering for the inclusionary housing from prop c. by going through with this extension, you would undermine the democratic process. over 75% of voters chose this deadline. it is your duty to honor their voices. by extending the deadline past december 7th, you would be responsible for the loss of affordable housing in san francisco. in the mission alone, we would lose 62 affordable units. dignified housing for 62 low income individuals or families rest on your shoulders today. be a leader who represents solutions to the housing affordability crisis in this city. prove to voters that as civil servants you honor their votes. the very votes that got you here. show us all that san francisco

politicians rise above and that you put people over profits. do not allow the extension to pass. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is john corso. i'm representing union 38. we support dis to be dinnance. this will save over 4,000 units including over 600 below market rate units. we're seeing less projects built and more approved projects are not getting built and we can do whatever we can moving forward. thank you. >> good afternoon. we are opposed to this legislation. it feels like they're being sacrificed for more market rate. even though we're getting a little bit, it feels like scraps

but it's not enough to keep our communities intact. for example, 2675folsom street, if this were to pass we would lose 10. we negotiated with them at 21% so this is taking away things that we have negotiated in the past. with many developers in the mission district. i do want to say that some of the developers that we met in the mission are experienced developers, this is not their first time around. they've been building across the country and east bay. we've only dealt with one that had -- it was a family that was trying to develop in the neighborhood. so, to say that there are a lot of family-type developers out there, we haven't seen any any mission. thank you. >> i'm sorry, could you just repeat the address again? i missed it. >> the family developer comment was a little over the top. i agree with you.

>> do you want the address? >> 2675 folsom. >> got it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors, my name is john and we're here to object for the approval of this project in the mission. we are asking for the board to exempt this mission due to the hyper density dumping without planning and using the mission as a district to comply with the statehousing element. i've been in the city and it doesn't seem -- [ please stand by ]

-- developers have refused to build what the voters of san francisco have demanded and there's no point in rewarding this. contrary to what people have said up here, we already know that there's a need for additional affordable housing. we already know that the developers have been making massive profits from this housing crisis. and all of this legislation does is to help maintain those profits. the messaging of losing thousands of units because they refuse to build between 5% and 10% more affordable on-site is false. the legislation is exactly what we think that it is. it's a favor for the market

developers who banked on this extension coming up to you and getting passed, a reduction in necessary affordable housing units and a betrayal by the mayor london breed to the voters of san francisco. apparently the mayor and the city staff seated behind me are more compassionate towards capital than they are to the needs of people in this city. we can't let -- you can't let economists impose their views of the world on how we run this city. how big is a human right? that's not something to be debated. people are dying on these streets. more than 80 people apply for every affordable housing unit that's available in this city. that means we have a need for affordable housing and not a need to stop letting developers bank off market rate and luxury development in this city. >> my name is spencer hudson and on behalf of an organization --

>> clerk: can you speak more directly into the mik microphon? thank you. >> i am spencer hudson on invisible centers... and we are opposed to this amendment and we ask that you vote no today. in 2016 a super majority of voters decided to increase the inclusionary rates for new developments. and at that time the board of supervisors agreed that two years was an adequate waiver for those developments. now as the deadline looms and dozens of developments have failed to move forward in a timely manner there appears to be concern that some of these developments will never get built. we disagree with that assessment. and we believe that the developer should be held accountable. with this amendment, the developers get an almost indefinite extension and dozens of affordable housing units that are mandated by corruption will

never get built. housing delayed is housing denied. please do not deny affordable housing to the hundreds of low-income families who will desperately need that housing and will be severely and adverlease affected by -- adversely affected by this amendment. as elected supervisors, each of you must listen to the voice of the voters, your constituents, and vote no on this amendment. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, peter cohen, community housing organizations. i guess that it's frustrating to be at this point after such a sort of kumbayah in the legislation that now we're faced with a situation of changing negotiated timelines and goalposts. but you already are. and i would offer just a few things as you decide what's

appropriate. a use it or lose it provision should be progressive and it's intended to actually put the fire under the process and the onus should be on the project sponsor. so whatever you think is appropriate at this point it should be as aggressive as it can be for those projects that already have a deeply lowered rate, they should be moving it fast. that was the original intent. the second point is that there should be cause for an extension. and i think that we've heard that already. i'm glad -- i think that it was supervisor peskin pulled out the 2012 prop c of trying to figure out what is the right process for flushing out where there's been cause beyond the project sponsor's control, versus sitting on one's hands and taking advantage of a lowered grandfathered rate. both in an aggressive time frame and a process for making sure that that is demonstrated as a need and not just a gift. and, thirdly, it has been brought up that one of the benefits that grandfather

projects have is they do not have to pay any fee on their bonus usage and we have seen projects now that i think have grossly taken advantage of that opportunity. to already have a 13% or 14% inclusionary and take state density bonus it cuts them to 10% or %. 11%. it could be eliminated with a stroke of a pen and they pay the fees like all developers going forward whether they're grandfathered or not, it would be good policy. thank you. >> good afternoon again, cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action co aare alegislation and we're -- coalition and we're in support today. we saw units hit the market for folks and that number went down in 2017 and going down in 2018 and going down again in 2019. what our biggest fear is that we have a year like 2011 in the ner

future where there's housing built city-wide in order to make sure that the projects keep moving forward and they need to be able to maintain the rules that were given to them throughout the original negotiation process. one other quick fact to state on there, yes, it's 4,000 plus total units in there but as mentioned earlier by one of the other speakers in support, there's 600 subsidized units, that is not insignificant. that's not scraps for folks that need a place to live, that do have housing uncertainty in this city. a combithaig combination, that n franciscoians who will have an opportunity to live here. so we do have thousands of homes on the chopping block here, that's the reason that the planning commission approved it unanimously last week. so we absolutely adjudicate moving it forward and approve this legislation today. and one of the other facts that

was stated incorrectly, it passed at 67%. thank you. >> good afternoon again, supervisors, peter papadabolous. and i want to highlight a few of our concerns about this legislation and also to pick out a few of the things that does seem like a rules shift at the last minute to those of us who are heavily involved and invested in prop c. i feel that there's a significant long-standing negotiation that seemed to result in an agreement that was okay with everyone of what our timeframe was and now we're suddenly moving off of that at the last second. we're concerned that this would result in actually the loss of dozens of affordable housing units in mission alone. and we think that every affordable unit is critical. we don't think that unmitigated

housing growth is going to be ever a scenario that will stabilize our neighborhood and particularly our vulnerable residents in light of things like the new federal reserve study, which i'm sure that you're familiar with, that modeled for every 5% of new housing built in a neighborhood that's highly desirable, you can only expect the rent to drop roughly half a percent. in the mission that would mean for every 1,277 units that you added to the mission that the rent would go down on a one bedroom only $18 a month. so we think that mitigation such as affordable housing are going to be critical ongoing to our community. we think that this issue of not entitled projects, i'd like to support those comments by supervisor kim, that those don't seem like they would need to be included given where they are in this timeframe. additionally when you look that we could fall all the way to

11%, to 12%, we would very much support the idea of at least recapturing that state density bonus through fees. that seems like a fair enough solution. so we -- i encourage you to look at these adjustments, thank you. >> good afternoon, jordan davis. you know, the mayor is saying 25% of zero is still zero. well, here's the counter point. only 13.5% of inclusionary means thousands of black and brown people displaced from their homes and forced into either homelessness or the east bay. these projects that would be covered by this legislation are those that are controversial for a reason. and we housing advocates aren't just here to delay projects for giggles. there are real issues at play. we need to stop using elementary school economics when it comes to housing production inclusionary. it hurts far more than it helps. in fact, i want to conclude with some numbers here. 35.

the percent of affordable housing at trans-bay, we can do better. 40, the percent of affordable housing at mission rock. 215, the percent of rena goals for market rate housing. 85,117, margin of victory for prop c in raw votes. 38.5, the percent of victory by percentage. and 2546, how many votes mayor won last june. 20,210, the number of jenkin supporters who put her over the top. what am i getting at? reject this, and which is rammed through way too quickly and tell mayor breed to start being a mayor for all san francisco and stop pushing for unincliewtionzary trump powers and other endangered neighborhoods. thank you.

>> hi, laura clark, m.b. action. i hate the way that we talk when we talk about inclusionary. it kills the discourse. inclusionary is one of the only policies that pits market rate against affordable where we debate what's going to be the magic number. well, what we really need to talk about are genuine and sustained funding sources for subsidized affordable housing. proposition one is a $4 billion bond that's going to make an actual difference in funding for affordable housing. this body could put a parcel tax on the ballot to really jack up and to get us more money for subsidized affordable housing. we all know that land is getting more and more and more expensive and i would say that it's your job to tax away some of that increase in value and spend it on subsidized affordable housing. we all know that 19% isn't

working. you may have passed 19%, and you may want to pat yourselves on the back for having come to a negotiation about 19%, but the city economists told you that would be a bad idea. and it is. and you have already heard from a man from labor here today to tell you that it is already killing the pipeline. we know that 19% isn't working, isn't going to work and we're going to have to deal with that. and so going forward what are we going to do about the few stragglers in our pipeline that we have managed to make to take longer than they should have taken? we have to make sure that the current pipeline doesn't die and we'll have to rescue the rest of the pipeline going forward. i hope that you do things to put real funding towards affordable housing because i don't want to argue about inclusionary anymore. it makes us all speak very poorly towards one another. and it kills our ability to get real sustained funding sources

for subsidized affordable. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for letting us speak. my name is curtis bradford, i'm a long term tenderloin congress and a chair of the congress. and i'm against this, and the way that it stands. let me tell you why. a lot of us spent a lot of time and we came who hearings and sat on these hard benches for hours and hours so we could talk about this issue. we already spoke a lot about it and we had negotiations, we worked for weeks and months even on prop c to get it done. and we all came to an agreement, we found a way forward. and at that time the developers told us that they had other things in the pipeline and they needed to have a grandfather clause and if they had that they could get this housing built. so we gave them a special set aside and allowed them the space to get the work done and gave

them that lower percentage and they still couldn't build the housing. and it's not even the incliewtionzary number. i think that the 19% is workable and working and that is to say that the housing crisis in san francisco is a housing crisis is not because there's not enough housing, it's because it's not affordable. the only way to get affordable housing and the market won't build affordable housing on its own and it requires legislation to make that happen and it requires you to stand firm and to make developers do what they promised to do and they have to pay their fair share forward. we don't to give them more giveaways to build. we need to make them do their job. so i agree with an extension but only in a very aggressive way and i think that we need to make sure they have some means mean g to see if we need to go back and make them re-do it from scratch. thank you.

(please stand by).