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. 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.