Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  February 1, 2019 9:00pm-10:01pm PST

9:00 pm
the housing team, as well as the data and analysis team in preparing this briefing for you. thank you. >> commissioner hillis: thank you very much, miss chiung. we'll open this up for public comment, and i'm sure we'll have questions andme comments. there are a number of speakers. others are welcome to speak. just lineup on the screen side of the room. mr. whitting, you want to start? all right. mr. -- whomever. three minutes. we're generous. >> good morning, commissioners.
9:01 pm
i wanted to say first -- [inaudible] >> -- coming up with its own conclusions, the 1.5 billion in taxes, make it harder for s.f. to issue our own long-term debt, and we will feel the impact over time. jumping to s.b. 50, it's just a redo of s.b. 827. i think commissioner richards hit the nail on the head when he says he read the same report. no effect on housing supply
9:02 pm
when you upzone, no price increases. if you look at last year's rina figures, you'll see that 108% of the housing that was built was market rate and 19% was affordable housing. and an interest side effect of all this building up is contrary to popular belief, upzoning actually near transportation has a great increase in greenhouse gas emissions as opposed to diminishing them, which you can think with other trains and people taking all this
9:03 pm
transportation would decrease, but it does not. i think s.b. 50 is a joke, and that we've seen it before. it's also a red herring in that it is simply a bunch of place marker bills, and it is s.b. 50 that we are supposed to be excited about while other bills and legislation from the state will slide by without any tension at all from this commission or the citizens. last -- please look at the lack of f.a.r. requirements in the 850. there are none. rather than building density, you're allowing people to build
9:04 pm
large buildings that are empty. >> commissioner hillis: thank you, mr. whitting. next speaker, plse, mr. webber. >> good afternoon. my name is paul webber. i'm a north beach resident and a delegate to the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. in december, i sent to each of you and to the board a memorandum entitled fair housing -- paired housing and office space. in it is described a solution for san francisco to protect its very limited housing space for residents who work in the city. it provides the development projects in san francisco must provide office or commercial space which could be freestanding in order to create more than a specified number of residential units. i suggested 25 -- or a specified number of square feet the office space and vice versa. the pairing could be across local boundaries. there must be available public
9:05 pm
transportation between them with maximum specified riding times, i suggested 15 minutes, and with specified frequently intervals during peak hours, i suggested ten minutes. there would be suggestions for 100% senior and possibly some classes of below market rate eligible units. there would be the notion of bringing up to parity the housing and office space, and some affordable housing would be required which would vary based upon the satisfaction of historical averages of affordable housing levels. currently proposed legislation and statewide solutions do not manifest fair housing requirements of keeping workers much closer to home. this is true, for example, in s.b. 50 which although
9:06 pm
comprised mostly of place holding discussion points clearly tilts toward further requiring housing density in san francisco particularly in the out lying districts. unless stopped, developers will continue seeking out cheaper land in the outer districts in san francisco which in turn has had and had continue to have the effect of forcing out many lower and middle-income families who haven't already left for more distant housing accommodations along with long-term commutes. a proposal such as this would be a positive step toward providing housing equity for lower and middle-income families, but it would require a proactive effort on the part of the planning commission and the board. this transfers the responsibility to a -- to a local agency to provide housing not with regard to whether it's a local bucolic community, but rather what are they proposing
9:07 pm
to build in their city and let them take on the responsibility for providing both housing as well as office space. thanks very much. >> commissioner hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is james clark, and i'm a resident of the sunset. i have a total agreement with the people who have concerns about the affordablity of housing. my children can't afford a house. i couldn't afford a house if i wanted to buy one new, and i think we need to find solutions for this kind of a problem. the difficulty that i have is that opinion pieces like casa and the rationale behind here's how we solve this major and very complex problem is i believe up and downering to the first few elements of c -- is i
9:08 pm
believe pandering to the first few omts of casa. the end of it is to how to find the billions of extra dollars of tax money to afford it. and the central piece is how do we take away the roll responsibility and pull it all together in a pyramid up to the state where real estate interests and the people who profit from building have a much better focus and a much stronger issue and solution that benefits them and not us? commissioner richards had brought forward the m.i.t. study that came out, which is fairly convincing, but it is not new. if you look at research and
9:09 pm
academya, the university of toronto and a number of other universities, i can site those studies if you want at some point, but it's important to understand that academia has lined up behind the idea that density does not yield lower prices. it does, in fact, not the opposite, but it pushes prices up as well as infrastructure costs, and the total scope of life within a city. so casa is, i think, a shill trying to usurp again as s.b. 827 tried to do the ability of the neighborhoods in this and in california to determine their own futures. the people who are residents, who are here. there are ways to solve housing problems. one limit is what was done back in the silicon valley. they moved to santa clara and
9:10 pm
washington and nevada and arizona. they had a diaspora of housing. why don't we do that. why don't we do -- all the telecommuting that we express that we have, why don't we do that. third, why don't we do -- instead of fast trains to l.a., who would want to get there, let alone fast, why don't we have that same kind of transportation locally and radiate like hubs and spokes? >> commissioner hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. lorraine feddy here. i'm a senior and i'm an affordable housing advocate living in district five. i'd like you to urge to reject some of the conclusions in the briefing, particularly the staff assumptions that the casa compact, including s.b. 50 are inevitable and worthy.
9:11 pm
these plans should not be given commission approval. they are both incomplete, divisive and punitive to local housing determination. determination is a laudable concept but not when its burdens and benefits are distributed unfairly and unequally. regional cooperation is a wonderful idea, but not when the public is largely excluded from the process. regional cooperation is a great goal but not when cooperation is really coercion. both the state and the region are dominated by those far removed from our lives and our needs. they must not be allowed to overrule us. our greatest potential lies in our own efforts which are considerable and are rising to the challenge. our greatest potential lies in our own community generated vision of what's in our best
9:12 pm
interests. i know it, and the 10,000 people on the closed housing authority wait list know it. the thousands waiting for nonprofit housing know it. and the thousands in an inadequate or threatened housing or waiting for b.m.r.s know it. tenants and the homeless know it. what good is accommodating the future when the present needs are not met? thank you. >> commissioner hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is loann bassen, and sir, i have the letters for you. >> commissioner hillis: thank you. >> i have a letter to each of you, and i ask that you include it in your packet and that you read it at a later date. obviously, you can't do it now. i've read the memo by miss
9:13 pm
chiang, and while it's interesting and covered many points, there were a number of points that were either ignored or omitted. first of all, san francisco is already the most densely populated city in the united states. the current density right now is 18,679 people per square mile, exceeded only by new york at 27,000. the memo estimates that there are going to be 1.1 million people in san francisco within 2040. this would be a 37% increase in population, and the density would increase to 23,000 people per square mile. this is unsustainable. it's choking.
9:14 pm
it is absolutely choking. another thing that was not included in the memo was the fact that san francisco geography is cop stained on all sides. on three sides by water, and on the fourth side by the san mateo county line, meaning that the only place to go is up. there's very little available free land in san francisco. do we want san francisco to turn into another manhattan? i posit that most people in san francisco say no, they don't want that. a third item that was not mentioned in the memo is this act that the city and the developers are the ones who are profiting. the developers are ghg to make their profits and the city stands to gain a lot of money from property taxes for every unit that is built. if you take one footprint of a single-family home and turn that into an eight-story
9:15 pm
building with 40 units, that is a lot of tax revenue for the city, and the city is ravenous for this. we need to keep this in mind. another point is environmental issues and sustainability. we don't have enough water now in san francisco. we are just coming off of a drought. the state of california has already threatened to cut our water supplies by 20 to 40%. we can't sustain additional people, not to mention earthquakes and fires. we had an earthquake yesterday. another point that people need to consider is that the promise of affordable homes for all is unrealistic and it's impractical. and just because people come to san francisco and demand housing does not mean that the government should just jump and respond. >> commissioner hillis: thank you very much. >> last -- >> commissioner hillis: everybody's got three minutes. >> you need to list an existing housing stock.
9:16 pm
>> commissioner hillis: thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis: thanks. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. david wu with the south of market community action network. this housing works plan continues to overly focus on housing production while focusing on protection issues that have been led by housing protections group and regular folks in the city. the continued focus on production as a solution to housing issues and the housing crisis in san francisco is ironic considering the facts presented by the planning department's own memo to the planning commission submitted today that describes san francisco's very high rate of housing production especially when compared to other cities. however while san francisco has continued to build more housing, rents and land values continue to rise, evictions at any time and displacement is
9:17 pm
commonplace. not only is housing production, which is overwhelmingly skewed towards the development of luxury housing is not bringing down prices, it is actively gentrifying housing across the city. therefore, a continued focus on the production of luxury housing is not just mind boggling, transgender continue to further gentrify our neighborhoods in san francisco and continue to push people out. streamlining deregulating, upzoning further letting loose the forces of the private market on an already failed attempt to let debunked supply and demand theories supposedly solve our displacement and eviction crisis will continue to have terrible outcomes for the working place, people of color, immigrants and vulnerable communities. s.b. 50 is the reborn version of s.b. 827 which was rejected by communities across the state
9:18 pm
of california. communities saw this as a threat of further displacement and gentrification. casa was put together by a rogue body, guided by private interests such as developers and big tech. it represents another attack on vulnerable communities in san francisco and the bay area. plan bay area, like s.b. 50 and casa, prioritizes the need of luxury development at the expense of communities already facing displacement. protecting vulnerable communities is how you prevent displacement. we must focus on things like passing a strong community opportunity to purchase act, to allow nonprofits to secure existing rent controlled buildings. we need a funding source for afford habl housing that is not inherently tied to luxury market rate housing in the decimation of housing. we need working class housing in san francisco. thanks. >> commissioner hillis: thank you.
9:19 pm
next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. cory smith on the san francisco housing action coalition. okay. so just kind of a few points. number one, the m.i.t. study did not say anything about adding density over a long period of time. i agree if we upzone the city and don't build anything, that will be absolutely worthless. i think upzoning is step one and building more housing would be step two. over the last 40 years, we've had a local control system in the state of california. i think everybody in the room agrees that our housing situation today is as bad as anything could possible be. back to einstein's conspiracy of sanity, why would we think, if local control got us into
9:20 pm
problems, why would we continue to rely on local control? [please stand by]
9:21 pm
>> if there is a sensitive area, communities can have that conversation and drive a community driven plan, and figure out a way we can add more housing, and make sure we are protecting people against displacement, which is a goal that everyone in this room shares. one last point that was made, this will result in a lot more property taxes for the city, and a lot more revenue for the city. i think it is awesome. i know the mayor touch office of housing bank account is close to zero right now. i think more money in the city's
9:22 pm
pocket will be a fantastic idea. thank you. >> thank you >> i have some materials, please >> my name is jury, i am with san francisco land use. i will discuss the housing authority ability survey prepared by the former principal of urban planner of the world bank. this man is a subject expert. the report calculates housing affordability, the ratio of three and below is is affordable, a ratio of over 5.1 is severely unaffordable. san francisco's ratio is 8.8, and this makes san francisco one of the ten least affordable cities in the world. a high number indicates a discrepancy between housing, supply and demand. each city should conduct
9:23 pm
detailed root cause analysis to understand their ratio, and benchmark their development practices against cities with a low and high economic growth rate lake auckland, new zealand's. unaffordable housing -- two economist calculated the misallocation represents nine-point 4% of u.s. g.d.p. in 2014. the report identifies three myths embraced by politicians, and urban planners. i will try and go through all three. one of my favourite is the compact city fallacy. a city can accommodate increasing income and population through densification of the existing built-up area because expansion into greenfield would result in sprawl.
9:24 pm
in some oregon dust urban locations, removing housing regulations would allow housing supply to increase, however, the growth generated by densification of existing built-up areas is both slow and limited. existing low lowrise areas should be acquired, the occupants relocated before the delve -- developers can replace them with new and taller buildings with more housing units. that is number 3. i like number 1. planners know how to allocate land equitably through the design of increasingly complex zoning regulations, while ignoring pricing signals. complex new zoning regulations allow only the construction of luxury housing for which the minimum requirements are non-binding. might summary highlights a few aspects of the excellent report.
9:25 pm
i gave you a full copy. the take away from the report does unaffordable housing is not unavoidable and should not be a consequence of economic success. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is caroline kennedy. i chaired the dolores heights improvement club, the neighbourhood association west in district eight. i have great respect for you and the staff too. today, i'm here to request that you request a detailed analysis of the bill 50 and its impact on our housing needs. planning staff's summary and the housing strategy and plan does not -- is not sufficient. what we need from planning staff is a detailed analysis of how this bill will affect our neighbourhoods and our city. for example, it is clear that
9:26 pm
dolores heights and nearly all of san francisco fall within the quarter-mile of a high quality bus stop. however, the bill does not clearly defined the next category of major transit stops. is that the ferry building? is it all part stops? is at my stop at the top of dolores park at 20th and church? the bill also states that the projects will receive up to three incentives and concessions pursuant to subdivision d. of section 65915. i'm not a legislative analyst, however this reference has me worried. i need planning staff to explain what these incentives and concessions are and how they change the project's height, setbacks and other elements, and how they impact our city. with a detailed and alum -- analysis, we can ask how well this solves all our housing prices -- crisis in san francisco. our city exceeds the goals for market rate housing. do we need more incentives to build market rate housing?
9:27 pm
or does san francisco need more affordable housing. your department's housing balance report documented this crisis situation. we are not closing the data -- gap in affordable housing quickly enough, well enough. so my layperson's read of s.b. 50, it will mandate more incentives and concessions, and will not produce more affordable housing over and above san francisco's current inclusionary requirement, and more affordable housing is what's desperately needed in our city. i ask you, commissioners, planning staff calculi offer developers more incentive to produce more market rate housing in one of the hottest real estate markets in our country? why not offer these incentives and concessions in return for a higher percentage of affordable units? so these valuable locations give san francisco more affordable housing, over and above the
9:28 pm
current inclusionary. maybe this can also be aligned with san francisco's affordable housing funds and programs to provide more incentives and subsidies to help us get that affordable housing in the pipeline and built. planning staff should analyse s.b. 50 and comment on how it addresses our affordability and crisis. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the san francisco land-use coalition. i'm here to comment on s.b. 50, and i just want to say that miss kennedy's comments were right on mark, and that is what we really need to, affordable housing. what's missing from s.b. 50 as it does not encourage building of affordable housing, and of course, it is very uneven in terms of its spreading of production, of even b.m.r. and
9:29 pm
regular market rate units. senator weiner touts his generous offering of honouring local governments anti- demolition laws, but not not unless they are consistent with the housing accountability act. it d. d. regulates density laws and allows for an unlimited number of units. so let's see. how would you be able to consider, you as the commission, other circumstances such as affordability when you are asked to authorize a demolition of a modest r.h. one home to replace that with an r.h. 99 structure? the density regulation secondly gets rid of demolition control, then we have his other generous offering of inclusionary requirements, except that by allowing developers to use local inclusionary laws, such as the one in san francisco, he lets them fee out of b.m.r. units, instead of building them on site so much -- there is so much of a
9:30 pm
housing crisis that we need to build homes. where will we build to these units? ninety 6% of san francisco is impacted. while san francisco was up zoning its eastern neighborhood from building apartment after apartment to, the suburban outposts were busy building office parks after office parks, with the most offending county being the san mateo county. overhead, please. there you have it. between 2010 and 2016, san mateo county added 79,000 jobs, while building only 3,844 homes. every day 46,000 people commuted to san mateo county from alameda county how would building homes along the rail, ferry, and buses in
9:31 pm
san francisco cut a dent in this figure? transit-oriented development to me is beginning to look more like a boondoggle as opposed to a solution. we need job oriented development. let's spread the pain. here is the impact of san francisco versus the impact to suburban communities to help fuel the crisis by approving more office space than living space. this is from last year. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am a tenant and the valley, and i think the planning staff for their presentation. moving along with s.b. 50, despite senator weiner's claims
9:32 pm
about providing tenant protections in s.b. 50, excluding a list of properties that are currently tenant occupied, or have been tenant occupied, it is meaningless for san francisco unless, overhead, please ... we have a rental registry. i ask you, commissioners, how do you suggest we implement this bill if we don't know if the properties have been tenant occupied or are tenant occupied? you have had this problem before , you know, in cases of iris canada, carl jensen, the greatest thing is displacement from their homes. tenant protections do not go far enough. san francisco needs to create a
9:33 pm
rental registry so we know exactly where tenants live, and what properties are tenant occupied. is fundamental to creating housing policy, safeguarding against tenant displacement, and preserving our existing affordable housing stocks. ellen wu from urban habitat was invited to participate on the hearing committee, however, she has chosen not to sign onto the compact, and with her permission, i quote, the final compact falls short in protecting vulnerable communities from the risk of continued displacement. policymakers need to put in place strong tenant protection policies before introducing up zoning and streamlining of market rate housing. in addition, no up zoning or streamlining should take place in communities at risk for displacement and gentrification. these places should be identified based on geographical analysis, developed with meaningful community engagement. elements will now be turned into
9:34 pm
state bills and move through the legislative process. we must continue advocating solutions to the housing crisis that are rooted in racial justice, self-determination, and d. commodified housing alternatives, and stop all solutions that continue to tear apart low income communities and communities of color. i look forward to a discussion here at the commission by planning on s.b. 50. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. and from senior and disability action. i ask you, please to think about -- who was at the table and who was not? a lot was talked about in terms of current workforce and future workforce, but not our retired workforce.
9:35 pm
again, the a.m.i. levels have been quite skewed, especially over the last six years, so that for the median income for seniors today in this city is actually at 21,000 annually. so for whom are we building? s.b. 50, to think of scott weiner as a former san francisco supervisor who also lives here , those who know on the ground what is going on for tenants and how things are working, how even good things like soft story retrofits are being used to actually harm tenants, so this is what i ask you to think of. who is actually at the table and who is not quae ? why wouldn't scott weiner reach out to us tenant advocates, he did not. when you think about these
9:36 pm
pieces of legislation, or a packed, what is the input, what is the real picture? if we had a registry, this is very true, you would know where we have buildings, where we are losing units, and how we are losing units where other cities actually reached out to in terms of tenant protection to be able to claim they are tenant protection in this. i ask you to please consider those things today. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> good afternoon.
9:37 pm
i was at the department, and i was in the copy room and looking at something on the fourth floor, and there was a bunch of files. i stumbled upon the top of the pile, montgomery washington building, supplemental e.i.r., dated july 1984, so i picked it up and looked at it and i read the housing part, and the thing that stood out to me is the following. despite rising housing prices and rent, the private market continues to be unable to produce enough new housing to relieve competitive pressures because of high cost of land, financing, construction, the private market cannot produce housing that is affordable to many households. nothing new. they said the same thing about the regional issue of housing back in 1984. also over the holiday, there was an article, maybe missed the article about -- the residential builders, they are not going to
9:38 pm
do anymore building. how do you get this housing that everyone says that we need to get? a couple of ways i was thinking about. you have your a.d.u. policy. in fact, can i have the overhead, please class some places have a de- that are good and some places are not. this is the site at 65328 street which you may remember. it was a perfectly fine house. it was a tunnel entrance, it was ideal for an a.d.u. per the handbook that came out in december, which is quite good in a way. you could have had how -- had housing faster.
9:39 pm
you could see what the usages were, that would give you a sense of how many units are actually occupied full-time, or sitting empty or just there as placeholders for people's income. that would be an interesting statistic to know, and i think the other thing that is important is the tenure of housing that you approve needs to be considered. if you're going to intensify in the rh, you need to know, are they condos, or are they going to be rental? i think that is a big issue in terms of affordability and occupancy, and i hope that that can be considered in the future. thank you very much. >> thank you. miss howard? >> good afternoon, commissioners, catherine howard to. it is said that all politics is local.
9:40 pm
to this, i would add that all zoning is also local regional level sounds like a noble goal , it comes down to, what is of sound is a specific lot on a specific block, in a specific neighborhood. it is always tempting to give up our liberties and voice in the name of a noble goal, but by right, and ministerial approvals in certain types of streamlining our facets of the trend to divide the people of a say in what happens in their community. as would giving up any rights, this is a slippery slope that will lead to further disenfranchisement of the people please look at all these proposals and legislation with an eye not only to what might be gained, but also to would -- to
9:41 pm
what definitely would be lost. >> next speaker, please. >> edward mason. today, it took me 45 minutes to go to and a half miles to come to this meeting. the jay came, and there were three, than the one got turned back. i can't believe that we are proceeding with a housing aspect without consideration of transportation before -- and any decision making. transit-oriented development is really an experiment, and i think that you need to consider the transportation funding that's going to be coming down from the state. the east yard is going to cost $38 million from the expansion of over 100 additional cars behind the current fleet that we have.
9:42 pm
some of the funding is coming from pier 70 on the eastern neighborhood's program, but the balance, according to the transportation authority is going to be general obligation bonds, munimobile bonds, and prop k. funding, which is the current half% sales tax for transportation. in my opinion, growth is not funding growth. munimobile has their 90 day solution, and tuesday i found out that the 90 day solution is a rolling 90 days of incremental improvements into the system. the initial design of the subway was to accommodate 60 trains in our. that is one minute. it has never achieved that, and you have unreliable switches in the subway that are gradually being replaced, in any time you go into this dosage of the subway, my opinion is, it is broken and has been broken.
9:43 pm
when you have unreliable transportation, it collides with a culture of convenience ready to tap the app for the transportation network companies. that will add more congestion. so it's a myth of the transit-oriented -- in san jose, the housing tax is basically inadequate for services. that is why a, several years ago, the police department was reduced. they have less than a thousand police officers in san jose. now san jose is saying we need to have more commercial development to upgrade the taxes that are going to be received from it. so you need to have a transportation consideration into any future housing development that's going to be here, because if you can't move the people, you've got to
9:44 pm
consider the total iceberg on this, and we are just looking at the tip of the iceberg, housing, but you can go over to munimobile and the transportation authority, and their tip of the iceberg is transportation. they are symbiotic and have to be considered to. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners and thank you for doing this job it is very important. i am speaking as president of the haight-ashbury neighborhood council. i will first make some general comments about the presentation we heard on strategies, and then some specific comments that you have received. you have received my letter from the haight-ashbury neighborhood council. i will highlight some of those comments. one of the comments in the presentation on housing strategies and plans was a new
9:45 pm
neighborhoods. i would like to see a map showing some of these prospective new neighborhoods. we all know that san francisco is pretty well built out, so show us where the beef is there. there was a comments that local control got us into this problem , and local control did not get us into this problem. san francisco would not have so many approved housing units if we had a problem approving units don't fall for that one. don't fall for it. if there is a sensitive area, they can have recourse. think about what has been done in central soma. think about the filipino population community that used to be around st. joseph on tenth and howard. our communities have gotten pushed around, our sensitive communities have gotten pushed around by our own planning commission and planning department, and having a regional body that has even less
9:46 pm
contact with reality on the ground is really dangerous. i would also like to point out, as you well know, construction costs on low rise buildings like five to seven stories, you can do a stick over podium. that is one of the sweet spots that we should be looking at. concrete high-rises cost way more, and we can get a lot of housing done more inexpensively with either stick construction, or even some of the new models of housing development that include prefab. it has been said that a.d.u.s could take care of the entire need for additional housing in san francisco if we built an a.d.u. in every possible location. there is a lot that people do not know about a.d.u. his. they do not know fully what it
9:47 pm
would mean if they have a rent-controlled a.d.u. they don't know what code changes that implies for whether the relationship with her wind -- rent board and pastors mean. they never had a public hearing. it has only 10% affordable. we would laugh in san francisco at only 10% affordable. thank you. >> thank you. >> i am here from the outside lands. at the final meeting at the committee, one of its members stated, and i quote, the problem is too much democracy. it is true. when the compact was voted, an number of caveats were included as part of the vote. both in included two caveats at
9:48 pm
the very beginning, and i quote, authorized the chair to sign the compact, however, it does not constitute approval of the compact itself. these caveats do not appear to be part of the staff report. regarding the term sheet, the majority of its elements have already been implemented in san francisco. the one that hasn't, and from my perspective shouldn't be, is a zoning near transit. 90% of san francisco is near transit this would devastate zoning controls. regarding the funding sources, it calls for a sales tax increase which san franciscans have already rejected. it calls for yet another parcel tax even though san francisco already has four parcel taxes. director ram is a voting member. on generally 17th, they voted
9:49 pm
on the compact. based on the city charter, and administrative code, should he have abstained rather than voting says the planning -- since a planning commission has not had either an informational hearing, or taken a position on cassa. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this item while seeing none, we will close public comments. commissioners? >> commissioner phong, would you like to go first? >> go ahead. >> this was a great overview. it obviously took -- at there's a lot of moving pieces that we hear -- that we have here. regional solutions or solutions, state solutions, and each one of them have their parts to play
9:50 pm
play amongst each other. i think, i guess the question -- the biggest question i have coming out of this is, for this city, and maybe for the bay area, what is the total cost of the solution in dollars, and then the second question, what is the total cost of the solution and number of units needed? what are we working towards, what do we need to get to? when the mayor lee put a bond measure on the ballot a couple of years ago, three years ago at 50 billion -- $500 million in transportation, in his speech he said, we have 9 billion-dollar problem, and here is my solution. my response was why aren't we going for the $9 billion, and forget the 500 million because you are solving the problem, because transportation is experiencing an incredible amount of gridlock.
9:51 pm
i think we really need to understand the impact of s.b. 50, and the reason i'm saying that is if you look at how s.b. 50 was sold, on one of the pages it says preservation of local control. housing projects will still be subject to environmental review under the sequel act, and existing labor employment. local development, community engagement processes, architectural design review for each development will result remain as it is additionally. they retain existing -- to restrict demolition of existing housing consistent with the housing accountability act. come on. [laughter] >> the list goes on and on and on. we struggled with demolition and what the new project was in terms of additional density and what our powers were, which were pretty much none.
9:52 pm
let's call a spade a spade. we will be hearing a demolition legislation coming in february, i think it is the 21st. let's put it through the context lends to. that is the most important line in senator weiner's entire marketing piece. subject to the housing accountability act. here is s.b. 50. if you look at s.b. 50, it is thin, it is a few pages. into six pages, five and a half pages. there are things in here that when you actually go down and look on page four, it refers to three incentives and concessions pursuant to subdivision d. of section 65915, which is 24 pages so what are we getting here? they are by right projects, they are code compliant. we can't say no.
9:53 pm
are we saying here kept under s.b. 50 that every project seeks the s.b. 50 exemption is now going to be code compliant, so therefore our discretionary action is zero again? we will go from 90% discretionary to probably low single digits if everybody uses s.b. 50, because remember, s.b. 50 rezoned the entire city, and with the addition of schools, i wouldn't be surprised if it is 100% of the city. clearly we need a real deep analysis of s.b. 50, just like our great staff did last year on 827, they produce lots of documents. we had two hearings on it. here are the papers and all of my notes. i think we need that. s.b. 50 is more complicated than a 27, and it has of an impact. if you do not believe me, there
9:54 pm
was a page here in the staff report -- you know, i just want to make sure everyone understands the impact of the bill. if people understand it, and they wanted to, let's -- that's great. you need to realize what it is. this diagram is the money shot. this page 15 that shows the transit line, the type of development, quarter-mile, half-mile, than single family homes that -- this is what you will start seeing in your neighborhood. i worry with no demolition controls because you are adding additional density in the housing accountability act, it is just going to be -- we will have a big steamroller roll over most of the city in the name of density. the other thing on s.b. 50, before i get to the other one, is our study says we need to produce 0.31 or 0.37 units of housing, affordable housing, for
9:55 pm
every market rate housing unit that we produce. how in the hell can we keep producing housing at 0.19 and 0.24 or 0.10, and everett dig ourselves out of the hole that we need to dig ourselves out of? if s.b. 50 applied like s.b. 35, 50% affordable unit projects that can combine commercial and market rate, i would say i am behind it. if it is 100, i'm even more behind it, and the reason is, developers are competing for the same resource. the land, the for-profit developers get money to actually do site acquisition and planning, nonprofit developers can't do that. they get financing for the construction, they don't get the upfront fee. they have to piece together all this money to make a project work, so let's get behind s.b. 50 to build the right kind of housing that we need, which is
9:56 pm
the affordable housing. let's take senator weiner's s.b. 35 standards and apply them to s.b. 50, it all be the first one to send my money into the campaign, or to stand up there with him on the podium and say, we've got a winner here, because i will get us out of the crisis that we are in. building more market rate housing and not a prude producing enough affordable housing will not get us there, it is not. secondly, casa, i read the staff report. the first thing that came to my mind was what came first, the chicken or the egg? because as you look at casa, and you look at the bills -- hold on, i have a lot of paper here. you look at the bills that have to support it, these bills have been in process for a while, so it was a predetermined outcome, but this is what we were going to get, and it was led by a group of people that are
9:57 pm
affected, and i have no issue with them because they are job creators, you had some equity folks, you had elected folks, apparently there is even an article in the chronicle on page representatives were actually chosen to vote on the casa compact, and a guy in a park got bounced off because of his views on it. but if you look here, the rent up -- rent limit, prop ten, it carries san francisco 50 2% pure get lost in the state 61 to 30 9%. my fear is if you need to join all these bills together, because potentially they can work in concert with each other, but if you don't join them together, the sponsors don't agree on all these bills with all these authors and sponsors,
9:58 pm
sponsors can join them, you will get the worst of this, which is going to be the production piece, and you're not going to get the rent limit piece. float into other municipalities that voted down rent controlled by very large margins and tell them that they will have rental limits, and they will say, what happened to prop ten? what are you guys thinking? all these together could work, but don't just give me s.b. 50 and no preserver or protect provisions. i think it's a sham. i really do. if we really want to put our money where our mouth is on casa, during the bills, make sure one can't go into effect until they all go into effect on the regional housing enterprise, it needs to be elected. no more appointed bodies. it needs to be elected. outright elected. i think it's crazy that we've got private folks, who is appointing these people? the other item i has is, where
9:59 pm
is san francisco on this? we had director ram who voted yes, we have some on the mvc -- that we had supervisor mandelman who voted no. where is san francisco? i think this body should weigh in and advise the board of supervisors on casa and s.b. 50. and the board of supervisors should have a position for san francisco, because we have an an inconsistent position right now with some elective saying yes, and something no, and the directors are saying gas. i think that will really help us do it. a few other things i have here ... we need to raise taxes, right? and tax increases, we have the howard jarvis institute, and they sue everybody unless they can get there two thirds, which is really hamstrung.
10:00 pm
my fear is with prop c., and the other ones we had where we had initiatives by citizens, signatures, and we have things that are 50 5%, anything lower than 67% will not pass. i am worried about that. there's all kinds of funding sources, with us one of the most regressive ones we have. is a property owner, i am happy to pay a property tax if this will work and it will start solving things. the new regional housing entity authority will collect revenue, i guess that is taxes, invest in housing developments, and provide technical assistance. great, what does that do for the mere's office of housing here? how do they work together? i think we need a little bit more detail on this stuff. the other thing is, i'm sorry, i am skipping around here. on the next page


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on