for a space in their building for communal space is a real gift. they worked hand in hand with the people here in the tenderloin to ensure that this area of the city continues to lift all of the people who live and work and learn in this city of san francisco. may we continue to grow partnerships like this in the city that we all love. deeply grateful. >> all right. thank you, everybody. we'll see you at the next ribbon cutting. [applause]

>> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the land use transportation committee for october 22, 2018. our clerk is erica major and from sf gov-tv, thank you to jim smith. madame clerk, are there any announcements? >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of a file should be submitted to the clerk. fems acted upon today will appear on the october 30, board of supervise source agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. can you please call item one? >> yes. it is amending the planning code to for amending the

planning code to require conditional use authorization for restaurant and prohibit new brewpubs within a subarea of the mission alcoholic beverage special use district. >> thank you very much. >> please planning code amendments affect the special use district and mission and they're intended to encourage in all retail, arts

nonmanufacturing arts in the in addition to thrive and grow, further strengthen protections for legacy businesses and reduce rent pressure on these mom and pops from competing uses and large scale development. as you all know, the mission school district historically working class, thome latino immigrant families. the area has a rich cultural history, home to so many nonprofit service community organizations, art institutions, legacy businesses and light industrial jobs. the area's now san francisco's ground zero for displacement and gentrification with devastating and very real damage to both residential and commercial diversity. in response, community advocates and planning department staff with input from other city. departments in cooperation with supervisor ronan's office are using pathways to support a thriving mission that is home to low and moderate income business, place for families, arts and culture, nonprofit community organizations. they have been widely vetted

with a variety of stakeholders, commercial and residential groups. i want to speak about misunderstanding about the impact of this change on small breweries. supervisor ronan is a supporter of p.d.r. uses, in mission in particular, and including local beer manufacturing and brew pubs. we do now and continue to allow tasting room at small breweries and wineries in the mission alcohol and beverage s.u.d. there was a proposal to restrict those and we considered it but rejektsd it as too restrictive. what is being restricted is the use of the abc-type 75 hard alcohol license. which can be attached to a brewpub use. and that is considered a loop thoel avoid the mission alcohol and beverage s.u.d. that is the only restriction of brew pubs. this package of amendments proactive approach, practical solution oriented changes,

many, many thanks to our partners in city departments, diego sanchez and claudio flores of planning and to the very many grassroots community folks who continue to fight for the heart and soul of the mission and i believe diego sanchez is here for any questions. i'm happy to take some if you have any. thank you. >> thank you. we'll go to planning department staff report. >> supervisors, diego sanchez with the planning department. they see it as a balanced approach to preserving neighborhood character while still allowing new uses and users within the mission neighborhood. the commission did make two minor recommendations. they are as follows. the first is to allow nonretail professional services at the third floor and above within the mission street n.t.c. and the second is to amend the

prohibition on the consolidation or merger of existing ground floor commercial spaces that result in a commercial space, 1500 square feet or greater. the exemption would be to provide -- well, the recommendation would provide an exemption for projects having submitted a complete development application to the planning department as of july 31, 2018. which is the introduction date for the ordinance. this concludes my presentation. i'm here for questions. thank you. >> thank you. maybe this is a question for both of you. i see that the second amendment recommended by the planning commission or department was taken but the first one wasn't? or was it? about nonretail professional services at third floor and above. >> yeah. we spent some time figuring out what the best way to get to what we were after which is to expound some of the ability of using the third floor spaces for uses other than retail.

we realize that within the code t way it was already written, we would be able to address those needs. >> ok. just that one amendment today. ok. in terms of the exemption date or the july 31, 2018 date. >> that is correct. >> thank you. supervisor kim? >> thank you. and i'll be happy to move that amendment that grandfathers in projects that submitted an application before july 31, 2018. and by the way, i appreciate that a significant amount of work went into, this and as someone who has tinkered with the mission alcohol beverage special use district, it's been very interesting to watch t*ef lucing from its initial inception when the mission just was overloaded with liquor stores and other types of uses and, of course, it speaks to how much the mission district has changed over the last 30 years. i just had two quick technical

questions. one is what is the thinking behind limiting philanthropic administrative services to 2500 gross square feet? i didn't even really know that this was defined in the planning code. and my second question is how many restaurants -- limited restaurants and bars are currently within the district? >> i'm going to take those in reverse order. ? this would cap the restaurant at 167 and i believe that within that restaurant spaces so if you can do the math and take back down to what it currently is. and that is a total of 30% of the store fronts, which is more equivalent to a little bit under what valencia has, a little bit under what caliente

quatro has and what we think is a reasonable number allowing for some growth, but also considering that potential pressure that restaurants put on the rents of other store fronts. >> and then my second question for mr. sanchez. >> the thinking was to allow these types of uses but not to allow extravagantly large ones. so t thinking was initially about 2500 gross square feet. again, these controls like any controls are subject to change as they go on and as you noticed in section four, we also have built in a couple of reportbacks two and five-years to see if these controls are really working at the the sizes that we're proposing or not. >> what is the potential concern you're trying to solve for? most of the controls, i completely understand where they're coming from. for example, ensuring that large projects provide smaller commercial spaces at 1500 square feet and ensures that small businesss that are hopefully neighborhood grown

have a chance to thrive in the mission district. what is the fill [hra-pb/] philanthropic administrative service concern? are they take over the mission? >> no, but it is along the same sort of lines. we were trying to open up spaces for the smaller, newer types of businesses. and we -- >> can you tell me what it is? >> so, yes, it is a youth that engages in charitable activities typically to provide money, if you will, philanthrophy to -- >> like a foundation? >> a foundation type use, yeah. >> so we want to make sure that foundations don't occupy too much land in the mission? >> spaces, yeah above. yeah. >> thank you. thank you very much. any other questions, comments? seeing none, we'll open up item one to public comment then. any members of the public wifsh to speak, please come on up.

>> good afternoon. i think that you already had little exchange about this. i think from meta's perspective, we think that these are good common sense and pragmatic solutions that will help stabilize this corner and balance it out and that's what this exchange is, about trying to keep an overall balance and providing most notable opportunities for things like light industrial, or arts uses that weren't previously allowed in this context. and also to encourage our smaller spaces of whatever types including the sort of mom and pops retail spaces that, as we know, have been getting a lot of displacement at this point. so it really just seeks to bring an overall balance to the corridor. we're going to thank everyone who has worked so hard on this. the office of economic and workforce development.

and thank you to everyone for bringing this forward and spearheading this as we look for what are these bigger solutions that we need to stabilize this corridor because it has seen an awful lot of displacement as we all know. we think these make senses in a very pragmatic kind of way. and the only thing we would like to keep looking as we keep working closely with the supervisor's office and office of economic workforce development, to see what are the possibilitis that exist with certain elements of retail use versus restaurant use, for example, might we want to encourage accessory restaurant use to be in the back of a retail shop, to encourage that retail to be up front. or other kind of creative solutions we might find for issues like that that are tricky. anyway, we strongly encourage you to support this package. and thank everyone for their work on it. >> thank you very much.

next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i just want to thank supervisor ronan's office of then mraiing department, working closely with the community to create this package that will provide some kind of strategic plan, to be able to maintain our small businesses along mission street, to make sure that we retain the small mom and pop businesses and relieve pressure from businesses in the area and the high rents that are happening in the area. as you mentioned earlier, the mission has been impacted greatly. we've seen a lot of our small businesses leave the area. we're seeing quite a few happening again on 2430, although we have our special use district. so, this is a tool. it's not perfect. but lit give us a fighting chance to be able to maintain and make these businesses sustainable. so, we're in support of this package and these amendments and we hope to continue to work to refine this particular plan. thank you.

>> thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to comments on item one? ok. seeing none, public comment is closed. i believe that supervisor kim mentioned a motion for accepting that amendment and then so let's -- oh, supervisor kim? >> that was it. i was just going to make a motion to adopt the amendment. >> can we have a motion -- ok. we're going to do that without objection. all right. and then on the item as amended, if we could do that also without objection to send forth to the full board with positive recommendation. >> so move. >> do that without objection. all right. and now let's moves on to item two, please. >> item number two is an ordinance amending the planning code to add new standard required streetskaim provements under the better streets plan, modifying the triggers that would require project sponsors to construct streetscape improvements, clarifying the recommended sidewalk width, expanding curb cut restrictions and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you.

i'm going to turn it over to supervisor kim. >> thank you so much, chair tang. this ordinance has been in the works for a little over two years now. and so i do want to thank a number of people for their involvement. this was spuder initially by a project that took place in my district 340 bryants in 2015 where a very large parcel and building that was zoned p.d.r. and being converted to office required additional improvements, particularly pedestrian safety improvements as it is at the mouth of the 80 bridge. and we realized that with a lot of change of uses occurring throughout city, that it would be better to standardize these requirements versus doing them ad hoc per project and changing what requirements we mandate. this legislation is being proposed to help the city meet

better of our policy groups or better streets policy, our vision zero policy, our transit first policy and our complete streets policy. it does follow the policy of the original better streets plan in 2015 which gave the city the ability to make improvements to the public right-of-way. after several years of experience now implementing this policy, we have learn what had works well and what can be improved, 340s bryant being an example of that. this legislation did involve the input of staff from multiple departments and we-and this legislation will also enable our staff to more effectively implement the better streets plan and improve the safety for people walking and biking and beautifying our city's public recommends and meets what i believe we've been talk about which is that we want more people out of their cars and more people walking and biking and want development to refrekt this.

-- reflect this. this legislation does primarily a number of things. it implements the better streets plan through private development projects. this code section allows the city to require large developments to make improvements to the public right-of-way, including widening sidewalks, landscaping, special repaving and pedestrian lighting. it also governs curb cuts on certain restricted seats, particularly those streets which have protected bike lanes. this section allows the city to prohibit restrictions on the street0's or require a conditional use authorization to approve a new curb cut on these streets. this ordinance establishs the criteria by which the planning commission will use when deciding if a conditional use authorization has been grant and it creates a criteria that the commission will use if a new curb cut is granted on a restricted seat, which is identified in section 155. it also discusses design review and approval for large projects

in the downtowns and eastern neighborhood plan. streamlining allowing projects to consolidate their hearings at the planning commission. currently projects that are required to attend the planning commission under sections 309 or 329 and are required to get a c.u., have to come to the planning commission twice. this would consolidate them to come to only one hearing at the planning commission. the legislation will result in safer streets and sidewalks, by reducing conflicts between vehicles and people walk and biking. lit create more beautiful public spaces, improve our transit operations, improve safety and comfort for people waiting at these transit -- we will be prohibiting any curb cuts at muni bus stops and streamlines the process in a more efficient use of city staff time. so we do have the planning department here today to present on this item. and i do have a number of

amendments -- well, actually i have four amendments that i'll be introducing after the presentation. after which i will be duplicating the file due to a very important amendment that was requested by the planning commission. which i'm very excited about, which was to eliminate all minimum parking requirements city-wide. and so i will be asking today the city attorney to draft those amendments for the duplicated file. along with -- well, i'll get into that later discussions around the m.s.c. district. so, without further ado, and my notes don't say who's presenting, but i see paul walking up to the dais. >> good afternoon. i'm paul chaser. and i want to thank supervisor kim and her staff, especially noelle for helping introduce this and i have a short presentation. but before i do, i want to say the commission approved this unanimously.

and recommended all staff recommended amendments to the board and that included some sort of technical group of amendments relocating the $50,000 [inaudible] and 138.1 that was cited in the wrong place in the code. planning staff is recommending the change of use trigger be increased from 10,000 to 25,000 square feet, exempting r.h. districts which i think there was consent from and expanding the definition of the bike network to match the kind of definition of the code. and when staff had gone in and taken the 155-r, what we said is if you are required to get as conditional use on a street where there was no minimum park requirements required, i'm sorry, if you're getting -- if a city requires a conditional

use authorization to paut street where we said we don't want a curb cut like on the bike network or transit network and you happen to have minimum parking requirements, that seems an unfair thing. we should eliminate parking requirements for projects whose sole frontage is on one of these networks because we have already said we don't want the curb cut there. when we presented this to the commission, they sort of requested that we sort of eliminate minimum park requirements city-wide. we don't think that's been notice enough so that would require -- i think we're referring back to [inaudible]. i just wanted to clarify that. i have a presentation if you wish to see more about this or if that's not, then i can [inaudible]. >> ok. >> no. sorry. i think we're ok now. you sent over a great summary sheet that helped clarify the legislation. any other questions, comments? >> no.

but at this time, we should open it up for public comment. before we do that, i handed out the the members of the committee the four amendments that i'm making today. two of them are linked together. they're technical amendments on page 16, line 12, deleting a reference to section 145 to find a development lot and on page 25, lines 14 through 23, we're undeleting section 1-5r, definition of development line to original code language. and then just for today, i will be -- well, for this file, i will be taking planning's recommendation of returning the n.s.c. district to the list of districts exempt from the curb cut restrictions and deleting all the changes to the n.c.s. table. but my intention is to duplicate the file, keep that current language around n.c.s. as it is today and direct the

city attorney to eliminate all minimum parking requirements city wide. this will then perhaps go back to the planning commission. we'll talk to the city attorney about that. and then come back to the land use committee. i did want to move forward with these really important improvements to the better street legislation today and get this passed by the board of supervisors. >> thank you, supervisor kim. so, we'll open up this item to public comment. item two, any members of the public who wish to speak? please come on up. >> grn. executive director of livable city. we are very much in support of this ordinance. we think it addresses compelling needs in our city. as we know, this city can be a dangerous place to walk and bicycle.

the city can also be a city where its access to transit and transit performance is subpar. so this ordinance addresses those directly. what it does is makes sure as big development occurs, hopefully we make our streets and sidewalks, transit access accessibility for seniors, pedestrians, people with disabilities, etc., we make those better and at least don't make them worse. so we think closing the loopholes, some very large projects that we're able to flip through doing no improvements and also exempting some small projects. and small residential projects won't be required. we think that is right-sizing the current right. requirements. we like the emphasis on improved crossings as well. section 155-r, same thing. we piecemeal extended these curb cut restrictions along various streets. this does all streets of a specific type. the most important transit systems and the most important

walking and parking streets in the city should be street where is we want to minimize the curb cuts. it protects them in the same way. clearly exempts them on the streets from minimum parking requirements. which is an option they don't v. ok, i'm not going to do park on my front or go with the c.u. we think that is a positive. we definitely support it for all walking distances. these should be our priorities in every zoning district of the city. and we also, of course, support getting rid of minimum parking requirements. everything we want to do as a city, making housing more affordable and making the city more sustainable and accessable further by eliminating parking requirements. they are an aknack -- anacornysm and we should get rid of them. thank you.

>> hello. i'm from walk san francisco. i'm here to express our strong support of this important amendment to the planning code and i'd like to extend a special thank you to supervisor kim for all the work she's done. the are view of projects by the planning department is vital to ensuring that they include key elements that serve pedestrian. a few years ago a project fell through the cracks. 340 brant was approved from a change of use from industrial to commercial but didn't meet the threshold to trigger a better streets plan review. so planning staff couldn't require the developer to ensure that there was a safe way for the buildings tenants to cross a highway onramp at bryant and sterling. the only way the safe crossing was installed was because of the tenacity of the community advocate, alice rogers but we cannot rely on community advocates to ensthaur developments meet basic safety needs. that is why we're so excited about the amendments to 138.1 before you today, which will ensure that projects like 340 bryant don't fall through the crabsing. finally the curb-cut

modifications in this amendment are desperately needed to reduce conflict between car, bikes and pedestrian. walk san francisco also strongly supports the planning commission's recommendations to eliminate minimum parking requirements to city-wide. in closing, we ask for your support today. thank you. >> hi, laura clark, n.b. action. very excited to hear about the potential to remove parking requirements city-wide. that is one of the think things that is at scale with the scale of the problem. bringing down some of our highways would be another at scale with the scale of the problem type solution. but bringing -- these are big steps and i think you guys should be prepared for a big fight about eliminating parking requirements city-wide. especially when we're going to be asking our western and southern neighbors to be building a lot more housing. so really take that series.

that is an awesome thing to take on. and we will celebrate you if you really get serious about that. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm alice rogers. as one of the complainants on the lack of safe crossing provisions on the 340 bryant street project, i very much support this muchly needed legislation to close the existing loophole and to more consistently ensure safe pedestrian routes. we cannot afford to terrific life or limb of anyone using our streets and pedestrians and bicyclists are the most vulnerable. i think supervisor kim and her staff for investing a great deal of time, developing this legislation and expanding its safety provisions to reduce street conflicts, hopefully by eliminating the minimum parking requirements and reducing curb cuts, where feasible, while making sure that reasonable

building access and disabled mobility is not impaired. i commend walk san francisco and livable city for their valuable input in guiding the code revisions. as a side note n case you were all holding your breath, i do want to mention that the safe pedestrian crossing is in process for 340 bryant street. and aning interim installation is in place now and full signalization is on the way either at the end of the year or beginning of next. this happened only through the considerable involvement and goodwill plus half a million of the project sponsor group i, the guidance of walk san francisco t more than two years of participation of neighbors and all relevant agencies in the proactive work of the engineering division which assumed the construction drawings and found a way to bundle the project and for cost efficiency. and all of this was made possible through supervisor kim's office who stood behind

me as i signed that m.o.u. to get this done. thank you. please support this legislation. >> good afternoon. todd david on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. we're also in support of removing parking minimums. we'll line our comments with those of livable city. we think that they spoke very eloquently and have all the advancing. i just want to add that removing parking minimums that were also thinking about expanding access to transit to the southeast part of the city and to the west side. right? if we're going to remove parking, which is a great thoing do over parking minimums that, we have to make sure that we do have great public transstoit all parts of the city. so i hope that those two things go hand in hand. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public who wishl to comment on item two? seeing none, public comment is closed.

colleagues, i just want to ask if we can adopt my motion to amend before i articulated public comment? >> yes. we'll do that without objection. and on the underlining item as amended? >> i did just speak with our city attorney and he wants to recommend the best path moving forward, whether it's actually continuing this item or dup -- duplicating the file so i ask that we come back to item number two later in the agenda until i get the best legal city attorney advice on which one we should go do. but i do want to quickly thank -- because i don't want members of the public to wait. i really wanted to give a big shout-out to paul chacin at the planning department who has been working with our office for almost two years on this. and so helping us get this across the finish line and, of course, to tom radillovic and kathy delucca. but i do want to give a particular shout-out to alice rogers who's here today who is

the one that first pointed out the issues with pedestrian safety concerns at 340 bryants and help with our office in negotiating with the project sponsor and then want to work with making sthaur we standardize this request with large development projects that we're within the better streets plan but inconsistently requested of assistance of making this a safer neighborhood for all of our walkers and cyclists. of course and to noelle gloung my office. i request that we move this item to later in the agenda and then i will come to you about the final pathway. >> ok. so, we'll continue item two until later in the agenda. let's go to item three, please. >> item number three is an ordinance amending the planning code to require additional affordable housing or payment of a fee for certain sites that obtained higher residential development potential as a result of the rezoning of the divisadero street neighborhood commercial transit district and

the fillmore street neighborhood commercial district and making appropriate findings. >> thank you. and we're joined by supervisor brown. >> thank you. excuse me. thank you, chair tang. supervisor kim and safai. today i'm introducing legislation to rezone divisadero to an n.c.t. this was introduced by my predecessor and then supervisor london breed in 2015. one month later, legislation was introduced at the board to place 2016 proposition c on the ballot. this december will mark three years sthins legislation was introduced. the amendments i introduced today make several significant changes. the first change is to remove the fillmore n.c.t. from this legislation. i've done this because there are not currently any pipeline projects on fillmore, meaning there is not the same urgency as with divisadero where there

are two pipeline projects. the second is that the code mandated economic feasibility study of these two n.c.t.s found that increased on-site affordability requirements were not financeableserly feasible for sites in the fillmore n.c.t. district and i have jacob blintliff today from planning to speak on that if anyone wants to address details or has questions. for the divisadero pipeline, on the contrary to fillmore, there are currently two projects in the pipeline on divisadero. the first is 650 at grove and the second is 400 divisadero at oak. 650 is scheduled to be at planning on november 8. it has been in the pipeline since 2014. what's more, this committee is also now considering legislation to extend the

grandfathering turned city-wide inclusionary program. s the for these reasons that i'm concentrating my efforts on divisadero. i worked closely with my staff and staff experts at planning and oewd. i met with. developers on this pipeline project and i've also met with a lot of community members and i'd like to thank all of them for their input. i've met with board members and attended community meetings including north of the panhandle, neighborhood association and alamo square neighborhood association, affordable divisadero group and the new fillmore leadership group and other fillmore western addition community leaders. i've also held two very large meetings on my own to hear from and speak with community members, specifically about this legislation. between 75 and 100 people attended each of these two meetings, one in september and it was september 17 and the second one last week on october 18.

last week, i spoke specifically about the details of these amendments. introducing today for heightened affordability on divisadero. so, let me get into the details. the structure of my proposal should strike everyone as familiar. because they follow closely the structure of the city-wide inclusionary program section 415. and i want to thank supervisor kim, safai and kim. -- tang. while proposing to raise the affordability requirement for the two pipeline projects to 20%. so, to raid affordable requirement for 650 divisadero, it goes from 13.5% to 20% and from 400 3* divisader from 13% to 20%. so both projects go to 20%.

our experts at the city told us 18 would be pushing these projects to the point where they would be -- there was a real chance they would not get built. but we looked closely at the numbers and pushed the developers hard to find a way to build them at 20%. they assured us they can do it. on the a.m.i. mix, we pushed hard again to be able to follow the city-wide inclusionary program's lead and required that the lion share of these affordable units be at the 55 a.m.i. level. we're doing it at a 12-44 split. so, 12% at 55%, 80 -- and four at 80% and four at 110%. this is really important to me. as i know it is all of you. it is at this level that our housing is affordable for our food service workers, our child care professionals and our nonprofit workers.

the n.c.t. legislation also requires a mix -- a unit mix of 40% two bedrooms or 30% three bedrooms and some mix of two so there will be housing for different household types. it was important to me that people have choices to stay and grow in the neighborhoods that they love. we need more affordable housing for our young people just starting out. we need more affordable housing for our growing families and more affordable housing for our seniors who may be rid did to down size but want to help stay in the communities they help raised and we also have neighborhood preference so that 40% of these units will reserve to create choices for people in the neighborhood. the neighborhood will be able to use neighborhood preference on these units. yes, the units are smaller but no smaller than in any new construction everywhere in the city. these are not microunits, they are standard for new construction. so to close on the subject of

the pipeline project with the n.c.t. legislation and a [inaudible], we're going from a total of 79 units to a total of 243 units. from 15 affordable to 49 affordable units. that is the increase. that is dramatic. that is 25 new affordable studios and one bedrooms and 24 new affordable two and three bedroom units. finally, for future projects, we're lining the affordability requirements with home s.f. tier 1, which means no additional height, which i've heard from the community. they do not want over six feet. and we're going to go for 23% for rentals with a mix of 10-8-5. that is 10% at 55 a.m.i., 8% at 80 a.m.i. and five at 110% a.m.i. the 23% is higher than our

economic feasibility study recommended for renle thats. it is recommended 20 to 22 for rentals depending on the rents. the great thing about aligning home s.f. tier one is that this affordable requirement will be studied by the technical advisory committee and moved with home s.f. to ensure that it's appropriate during future economic changes. otherwise, we would have to revisit this every time there is a major change in this economy. this legislation today is being introduced to next week, land use on the 29th. it will come to -- it will come up again and then it will be at the board of supervisors on the 30th. tuesday the 30th. and then we'll have that -- that will be the first reading. so, there is plenty of time that we have to be able to discuss this legislation more but today i'm closing and hope for your support. thank you.

>> thank you, supervisor brown. any questions, comments from colleagues? ok. so at this time, i'll turn it over to supervisor brown to open up public comment. >> i have a robert firchman? >> thank you, supervisors. my name is robert and i live in district five. i was fortunate enough to be able to attend both of the meetings that supervisor brown held on the subject and i heard a number of people, like several dozen people from my community who stood up and said we want more housing, we need more housing, and we need more tooerable units. so, i want to thank you for negotiating with the developers to increase the number of affordable units. this is a really big change for the community. and i just want to stress that

we need to build more housing across the city for all income levels. em on the west side and especially in district five. so, i'm very happy with these changes. thank you. >> thank you. martin russo? >> good afternoon, supervisors. my ?aim martin and i live in oak street in lower haight. i'm concerned about the extreme affordable housing crisis in our city. i see nit two ways because of mid century exclusionary zoning laws. not only are there not enough homes for everyone who wants to live in the city, from displaced families to the children of long-time residents to immigrants of different skill levels from across the globe to millenials starting their careers, like myself, but

the homes that do exist are unaffordable by and large for most working people and families here in san francisco. i also understand that this doesn't have to be the case. that there are hundreds of opportunity areas across the community where we can and shoot build dent, walkable communities. i support these projects before you today because not only do they bring additional housing to a spot formally reserved for gas guzzling, manslaughtering and environment destroying cars. but supervisor brown has negotiated the affordable units to 20% each. which is more than what was previously required by the city. do i think the percentage could or should be higher? absolutely. but what i believe more strongly is that the affordable minimums need to be adjusted uniformly, not negotiated for years on a site-by site basis when we're in the middle of a housing crisis. i support these developments and urge the land use committee to allow more affordable housing where there was no housing before. and i also want to point out that these important meetings happen during work hour where is many working families can't

come. i've had the opportunity to come today and i want to come to more meetings. so, thank you for hearing us out and we need more housing. thank you. >> thank you. tamika. and your mother. hi. and then there will be katherine campbell and reverend brown. and then john men doe sa. >> good afternoon, supervisors. blessed to be here. i am here highly supporting supervisor brown. born and raised here in san francisco. fillmore, to be exact. brought mom who can definitely attest to that. 73 years of her life in the fillmore area. and here both i work and live and so i can definitely attest to what was just said in terms of not even knowing if we would be able to continue to live where we currently stay.

and every morning we both actually thank each other because we live together and my mom is always telling me how thankful she is that she has me and we're able to live together because, if not, she doesn't know if she would actually be able to stay in a city where she was born and raised. and i don't think we ever thought about that, living together for so many years that we'd actually come to this in terms of not being able to stay in a stay where you've lived. you know? and this is like second generation. so, definitely, definitely, highly supportive. we definitely need to look that the crisis. it hits home. it is hitting home. and something definitely needs to happen and i don't want to tick up all the time, but mom said to talk. please, say something. >> i love my area. i love the western addition. been there for 73 years and had it not been for my daughter, i would be out on the street. so, we do need affordable

housing. >> yes. so, thank you. thank you. i hope all of you encourage the same and thankful. just thankful to be able to work and i wish to continue to do work. i heavily work in the community and like i said, never thought about having to go somewhere else to live. this is home. this is where i was raised. this is what makes me who i am. in terms of diversity, you know, i was able to go to a french school and able to see the world due to being here in san francisco. and just continue, you know, i want to continue to be able to tell this to my next generation in terms of being here. thank you. >> thank you, tamika. >> good afternoon to all the supervisors that are here. and especially to supervisor brown. my name is katherine. i live and work in the western edition. i grew up here and my family is here. and what little family i have, that is.

and i'm here today to support the divisadero n.c.t. and supervisor brown's proposal. just so everyone is 100% clear, divisadero is part of the western addition. this is one community, as person -- as a person that actually lives in the community and works extremely hard to support my community, we need more housing in the western addition, period. we can't forget it. we're in a housing crisis and we need all types of housing. public and private. i've seen the plan and it does the real math. it raises the requirements from 13.5% to building 20% affordable housing -- affordable on site. that means 48 affordable units between these two projects and i think base for 48 more people and families to be able to stay

in the western addition is worth it. 48 units better than no units. which will happen if we keep -- it will happen if we keep at it. so we don't need to play politics. supervisor brown, thank you for your hard work. >> thank you. >> hello, my name is john men doe sa. actually you called my name but i was project four not three. ok? >> sorry. madame brown? >> good afternoon. supervisor brown, members of the committee. i'm amless brown president of the naacp and pastor of the historic third baptist church.

very succinctly let me say i may not deal with the particularities, but just say that we need more affordable housing as much as we need breathing to live. so just do it. your measure is right on. >> thank you. >> all right. any other members of the public who wish to speak on item three? please come on up. next speaker, please. >> hi, good afternoon, supervisors. my name is gus hernandez, co-chair of affordable [inaudible] speaking on behalf of the fillmore n.c.t. legislation. so i sent you a letter which i have copies of here. if you can take these, please. supervisor brown, [inaudible] on october 9 but she did not mention to us that this

legislation was up for hearing for land use committee today. we have asked for a new version of this legislation for now three years and recently asked the supervisor to reintroduce it. when the committee first met with supervisor brown on august 27, we asked about the time and substance of any plans to advance this legislation. at no time since then have we received proposed legislation until this weekend. so at the october 9 meeting, supervisor brown told us she was not satisfied with the adjusted percentage of 20% to 23% for the divisadero. she said she would consider what the developers could afford now. we expected to hear back from her but we did not until this weekend. at the last meeting that she held on october 18, she did not present the specific proposals on the breakdown of units by a.m.i. pentserage.

so, you know, we barely got a chance to review the legislation. there are parts of the legislation as proposed that we agree 100%. but there are many questions to be resolved in the legislation as proposed. we are concerned about the following elements -- elimination of the fillmore n.c.t. district from the scope of the legislation. without solving the fillmore n.c.t.'s unfair density deregulation giveaway. supervisor london breed always ensured that the fillmore district was included once she began efforts to re[inaudible] deregulation. we ask that the -- [microphone cut] >> thank you very much. i think there is a question. sir? >> mr. hard then daz e. were you at the meeting on thursday? >> i couldn't make the meeting. >> so, you don't know what i read and what i discussed. in detail yourself. >> could i -- i mean, we didn't

see the details until this weekend -- >> so, members of your board and asna was there, your members of your community were there and also members of affordable divisadero was there, correct? >> correct. >> and they heard that the numbers of the breakdown -- because i did talk about the breakdown of the a.m.i.s. >> so, we -- for the first time we've seen the legislation -- >> no, you were saying that i didn't mention it at the meeting, mr. hear than dez. i did not discuss it and i'm asking you were you at the meeting -- >> i was not at the meeting. >> ok. thank you. because i did discuss it at the meeting and we did a breakdown. i had questions, everybody asked about it and i had a breakdown and i even had the charts there to show the breakdown and how much people make.

>> i did attend first meeting that you held on the n.c.t. >> ok. thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i was at that meeting thursday. [laughter] we talk -- a good way to start. we're talk 13 to 20% more housing. right? so let's just be clear. you know, you have a lot of these terminologies. this is about housing, creating more housing in the city. which is headline news. and had the meeting that supervisor brown had conducted and there was people there that just moved into the city having problems with housing. right? so how did that affect us. well, i would say that if you want to bring people into the city and they can't even afford it, then looks like this techie plan is backfiring a bit or hasn't been thought out. i'm with the group that is working to bring housing workshops and education to the community. and i definitely support more

housing in the city. i think everybody should. i support affordable housing and let's not make this too technical. this is the number one problem -- one of the number one problems in san francisco for students, homeless, teachers, middle class, the only people that's millionaires not problem for. this is a problem for new techies moving in. the new techies complaining too? like we had [inaudible] the new techies. so, let's strategize and i would like the say everybody that's in this room that's for better housing, let's work together to create more housing and i'm going to take phrase that i got from supervisor brown -- if you want to stay, you have the right to remain! if you want to stay, you have the right to remain! if you want to stay, you have the right to remain! all right. [applause] >> here's someone's keys. they left them on the bench. i'm just going to put them back.

>> thank you very much for sharing that again. lost keys on the bench in the first roe. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm tess willborn, a member of the coalition. this is one of latest chapters and one of the worst examples of a developer giveaway that we've seen in recent years. the divisadero was rezoned to n.c.t. in 2015 that allowed for trimming three times as many or four times as many units without any increase in affordability. now increasing affordability when you can have three or four times as many units to 20%, no. you need to increase affordability to 40%. i also strongly object to having this legislation heard today. people i talked to who attended the meeting on thursday that supervisor brown refered to did not get hand outs of all of this information on the legislation.

it looks to me like a run-around. getting information on sunday before the monday hearing is not really the way to run things. and i'm also very concerned about leaving out the fillmore because fillmore will have other projects in the future. so, we need to make sure that it is included. now we don't -- there is no justification for giving a 20% affordable housing requirement when you've given three or four times as many units. and we need to get the most we can from our developers here. nobody objects to having more housing. we just object to having housing that's less than we could get. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. my name is david wu, born and raised in the haight where i still live. i'm with the group neighbors united.

so the reality of why we are here discussing this is because of the work of organized community members who fought back against the original rezoning that was done, with zero community input or process. because of that, we are now finally discussing an increase in affordability and that was absfrenlt the original legislation. so, unfortunately this process continues to unfold without a real community input or process. this legislation today was not provided with enough adequate time to review beforehand and before this hearing today. and initial issues of concern are held by community members around the legislation, including insufficient affordability rates and as others have mentioned elimination of fillmore from the legislation. so we request more time for community members to evaluate what the proposal and to actually engage directly with all community members with the

district supervisor and have a planning process that does not plan on top of, but plans with communities. thank you. >> calvin walsh, affordable vis steering committee. three objections to the legislation first. it seems rather curious to base a percentage on a city-wide nexus study that specifically did not look at density bonuses. this is second, this is a huge density bonus as ms. wellborn testified. we're talking about a 300% increase in allowable density and a 50% increase based upon a city-wide survey that did not look at density increases in affordability. that is the second. 20%, it's backwards. the first two projects purchased the land based on the

original zoning, which is one-third of what they'res proposing now. these folks should be paying the highest amount of inclusionary zoning requirements because they bought the land at the cheapest price. subsequent developers will see the value of the land increase and perhaps it makes some sort of sense to be only 23%. but this is a killing for these first two developers and we ought not to participate in this public education of affordable housing opportunity. finally, it seems odd that we would want to adopt fewer affordable housing units in the future, which is the proposal on the legislation to reduce the amount at 55% a.m.i. from the initial period to subsequent versions. again, they should be reversed. that is to say that portion should not be adopted at all. we should keep the maximum

amount at 55% affordable -- to 55% a.m.i. households. for those three reasons, i object to this legislation at this time. i want to thank the supervisor for doing the legislation. [microphone cut] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, committee and supervisor brown. corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. we are here in support of legislation. the two projects that were referenced were grandfathered in in the june 2015 prop c deal. both of them have essentially been sitting and waiting for a planning commission date to actually, you know, have numbers going forward. as the supervisor stated, this does push these two projects. construction costs are on the rise. obviously the supervisor is very familiar with how the economics of housing development work. we hope that these things end