Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 27, 2014 6:30pm-7:01pm PST

6:30 pm
hearing being generously conflicted again, we approved park merced a key part of the question we were not going to lose an implicit exception and they were going to be remembered rerld unit so here i think it is something to consider because if you can replace two rent controls units with 6 rerld units this is something i think we need to think about i know i'm milking this is a little bit more challenging to do that there the developments i will be interested in thinking about because the idea of demolishing sound rent control
6:31 pm
housing stock and replacing it with non-rerld housing stock this doesn't set well with me. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you actually supervisor wiener touched on some of the points i was going to make i wanted to ask questions of the planning department i think there are a number of positive things as mentioned by staff the creation of 6, 3 bedroom unit is extraordinary and having looked at a lot of massive development in the district i represent it is still nice to see the developers made the commitment so we see it's largely studios and bedrooms a struggling of 2 bedroom units we have a need for multiple apartments here in san francisco i was going to ask the planning department how many
6:32 pm
bedroom units have been constructed i think 2007 do you have that data point i. >> through the chair emry rogers in the city's housing inventory the number of housing unit built by building type you're interested in the number of bedrooms. >> 3 bedroom units. >> let me look and see i'll add this is the commissions decide was one that was debated by the commission a closed decision and certainly not a clear-cut issue certainly the production of more housing units but finding that point is difficult we appreciate our guidance and get back with you. >> i think i'm you know on the one side i'm conflict by the demolishing of two rent control
6:33 pm
units the project is adding a positive value to the city i'm sure you're aware of we can't build for rent control heirs - this is protected by rent control and others who are not they've seen extraordinary hikes and so the protection of this housing stock is important. >> i'd like to add to the city attorney's response, of course, there are development argument you can get rent control housing but there has a ellis act rent control a that's included but 0 a that's for a point of information. >> i think i found the data point out of 1 one plus according to the 2013 only 23
6:34 pm
were 3 bedroom units the richmond is a great neighborhood to add those types of apartments but i'm stuck whether or not we have to demolish two rent control sound but we have vendors that or i can't begin to initiate a discussion because that's a bottom line so i guess the question it came up in the appellants brief what could you build on the lot next door you you know look at the google maps it is fairly large what's the alternative and the second question was there exploration with the project sponsor on if we did allow for the demolishing if they'll agree to two below market rate unit for the project of this size i know that will make me more open i would like
6:35 pm
to build for housing this is a step in the right direction but i'd like to work with the developers to make sure that a few units are daeblthd to the mayor's office of disabilities program what kind of alternatives we've explored with the project sponsor. >> so a lot of those questions it will be great to ask the project sponsor if you look at the exist the lots xhrths to do a new project and preserve the existing project we'll need to preserve the rear yard there will be not that much room for the backyard. >> can you explain that why preserve the rear yard and open space. >> there's more flexibility when you consider a new project together and so the new project we're looking overall at the
6:36 pm
open space that is provided and configure the two buildings to use the roof as american people open space jointly to help a make-up some of the loss of the open space that's lost under a configuration general they're an the corner of the 6th street and the next lot is dedicated to parking generally we'll keep the rear yard with the existing housing and generally look at the parking area that is potentially a substandard lot love problems trying to fit a new building open the substandard lot was not considered by the commission. >> i know that the project sponsor has to apply for a variants and want a variance on the radish simulating you're describing you're saying not demolishing the knowledge and
6:37 pm
not create a surveillance because open space open the rooftop. >> so the variance was for the amount of radish priorities with the zoning administrator considers are not within the appellant are there extraordinary cascades open spaces being provided in general to see if their comparable open space to be provided the da approved it on the ground floor why there was no yard and the rest of the 4 stories compliant and on the other building two feet short to the zoning administrator felt the rooftop made up for the loss and if you have key building there maybe less flexibility. >> i appreciate you answering the question it didn't look like it is completely out of the realm of possibility but chablg for the project sponsor to build
6:38 pm
on the existing vacate area of the lot i think based on some of the information we have right now i'm not the move is for a turns to explore other alternatives i'd like to see more density and housing i love the 3 bedroom units and i think we have to do this in balance with the loss of rent control housing that's clearly became a proprietor with the players particularly in the housing market i'd like to find a solution to address those potentially but i will also reserve some of any questions for the project sponsor thank you for your response. >> supervisor mar. >> yeah. i want to answer a few of supervisor kim's questions in january of last year when i office convened gabriel the
6:39 pm
architect and tom the owner and a number of the residents i know that that was a concern expressed how to preserve the two units of housing that is when amy lee working with the project sponsor in our office has been discussing that there was an effort to try to figure out a win-win for the project could preserve those two units but still move forward as others have said there are benefits from a project it's right bid hard knox and the theater there's a need for housing in the city that concern of the loss as supervisor wiener mention if you demolish two units of rent control housing you're not going to get that back but working with the project sponsor work with a development agreement and building on the rest of the lot
6:40 pm
and supervisor kim suggested so when alice barkley and the pardon come forward those are questions and more time for the residents to raise concerns i know that some of the residents in oppositions that support the appeal there's a lot of differences within them they have to sit down to think about the issues i wanted to thank emry rogers and christina for walking me through the code i understand how they're following that 303 and 317 we as the boarding are the policy body that has to consider the bigger issues p rapid decline of rent control and we with the mayor have to insure that housing is affordable for people and have that diversity within the richmond district and throughout it city i want to say that my decision
6:41 pm
two of the if 3 december servants focused on the loss of the rent control housing and the demolition that helped me to understand the prospective from 3 of the 7 that i share similar concerned audio hope we can find time as the project sponsor come forward to think about different oppositions we're preserving the rent control stock as well as others lastly i want to appreciate supervisor wiener's questions as well and how we could look at this in a bigger picture of moving forward with a project that benefits the community that is sensitive to the preservation of rent control unit as well. >> supervisor campos thank you, mr. president just going back to the discussion i think that a lot of good points
6:42 pm
have been made and certainly bends family housing being built but going back to the question of the demolition of the two rent control units one question i'll ask s have for the city attorney is the enforceability of the agreement with the project sponsor i mean those of us who oppose park merced did so for the fact that even with a strong development agreement there are still questions about the enforceability within that context let alone the context we're talking about here beyond how it this will with work with the legality of the approval of what supervisor wiener was saying and certainly be open to more discussion in hearing more from the project sponsor but the issue of
6:43 pm
enforceability of such a condition will be critical for me and john gibner, deputy city attorney again supervisor i would recommend that if the board is interested in pursuing that option and having that condition you continue it i'm happy to come back and talk about the how enforcement will work and what authority the rent board has if they imposed that type of condition i said the 90 dazed for the appealed exteriors in january that the board has a little bit of room if you want to continue to explore that option. >> first of all, i don't know if it's a good idea the demolition of rent control units is a substantial step i don't know if it's a step to tackle of
6:44 pm
the board takes the step if there's enforceability of the conditions places so that's one of the sdargdz as park merced us who voted against the project it set a precedent and from the prospective of many of us it's a bad prospective and the fact we're considering this illustrates that point but again, the issue the legit of the enforceability goes to the court whether or not this is possible thank you supervisor wiener. >> thank you and just to be clear my view it is quite worth looking into i will definitely not once we get an answer definitely not advocating we precede that route through a cu
6:45 pm
unless we're remarkably confident we can defend it in court if we're going to have a walking by wobbly defense if it's weak i'll not advocate moving in that direction with you the first one it is definitive in the law we don't have an opinion so maybe we should consider whether to continue this matter until december 9th to get more advise from the city attorney's office and make a decision one way or the other and in terms of park merced we have a firm sharp disagreement about that project with the supervisors but have a very, very strong argument there that that development agreement
6:46 pm
is quite defenseable in court. >> supervisor kim. >> i want to clarify any point i wasn't suggesting whether we negotiate in the park merced i was suggesting for two units below market rate the city has control or not control but sound administration ability to regulate and specific applications that went out that income was verified it's not the same as affordable housing and it is in park merced e.r. the likeness of the rent control hours i'm proposing number two, of the demolishing of 2 rent control units but we say ask for the two market rate units to be part of our housing program. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you. i want to say i appreciate the comments by
6:47 pm
supervisor kim it raise the idea of our below market rate program but the challenges of the below market rate program it changed is a a very important first housing for low income people it really we produce very, very if i bmr units it's the nature as far as rent control units whether pre1979 can apply to a broad aspect of reaching into the boarder income unit so another conversation. >> okay. colleagues unless other questions why not go to the project sponsor. >> members of the board i'm
6:48 pm
alice barkley i represent the project sponsor this case does raise interesting policy questions for the city, however, there is one portfolio and there's another policy that has not been discussed the fact this building is located in the neighborhood commercial district as such this board policy on occasion is very different from that in residential districts number one any residential unit that is on the ground floor you can demolish it and it's principally permitted because the city wanted is very active continuous retail frontage in that area the only conditional
6:49 pm
use use for the board is for the second floor unit and as far as the second floor is concerned with if this board balanced it and decided that because on the upper floors called the commercial district and go back to when it first became the neighborhood commercial district came into being in the 80s is that you wanted different type of commercial used on the upper floor so the people don't have to consultant to the do you only downtown for dentists and attorney for cpa for other kinds of office uses so as a result this board decided if you're going to xoosh any kind of residential unit on the upper in a residential
6:50 pm
district the consideration is that the board will look at it in terms of conditional use and whether or not the benefit of the demolish versus the benefit of the new building in balance justify the conditional use to be granted new conditional use and the general plan what you're doing is you're asked to in a way competing public interests in this case the don't guess of one rent control unit which has not been used or rented for almost 18 years what we're talking about in in this case bringing to the city the type of housing 3 bedroom units which the city have long recognized have very few in the
6:51 pm
city and in fact, because we don't have family outizing in the city when you adapted the eastern neighborhood plan required that all new buildings must have 40 percent of the unit be 2 bedroom and more to accommodate families but let's face it 2 bedroom is not real family housing you need 3 bedrooms to and up to really make it quality family housing vbd i think in our competing public interests you're talking about at the hearing was the presents to the planning commission this is a commercial district so that the public interest balance becomes a little bit different than a
6:52 pm
demolition of town housing which quite frankly under 317 can't be grant so we need to look at that also and then the members of the board have talked about the fact you would like to have some kind of some of the units be affordable this is not going to be a rental project this is going to be a for sale project and what i suggest and i have to consult with the project sponsor is perhaps we can look at one of the unit as a for sale unit that is for the workforce housing that is right now we have two policies one is that 90 percent
6:53 pm
of medium income is section 13 and recently have a well, this last election the policy of having housing raising it up to one hundred and thirty percent i think one of the points this board has talked about although planning hadn't moved forward aggressively to address is the need for workforce housing also so one of my suggestions would be and again is the city attorney has to jump into it whether or not it's improbable whether they're for sale units there are people in this town who wants to purchase units but they're not available at a rate they can afford so perhaps it's the other debate we need to
6:54 pm
bring into this decision. >> thank you supervisor farrell. >> so i understand there are currently two rent controls unit your mentioning one unit as a bmr scenario can you explain the discrepancy. >> one is subject to rent control currently, however, the record is that none of the units has been on the rental market since 199 of they have been used by the previous owner when at the come into the town and they have not been part of the rental market value for a a long time. >> to be clear it's 2 rent control units today. >> right now no. they're not
6:55 pm
right now those unit at the bottom - okay there are two questions you're asking one is are they rent control units yes, but under section 7717 which is the outer complooement neighborhood district you can ask to demolish a residential unit. >> okay. but to be clear today, it's two rent control units and today, there are two residential units neither one is going to - >> okay. >> and has not been. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you i just had two questions
6:56 pm
actually, i wasn't going to ask but there are actually a member of the public said she was a tenant in 2003. >> there's a care taker it was broken into and it is vandalized so one of her sons friend that graduated from college looking for a job and so she offered the apartment for him to stay in while he's looking for a job so the place will be vandalized. >> when did the owner purchase those. >> in 2013. >> in 2013 so when it solid it was vacant. >> yes. >> and the last known tenant
6:57 pm
was the caretaker. >> not consider taker didn't move in until may have 2013 and he didn't pay any rent. >> okay. back to actually, my earlier question because i'm interested in looking at a number of different options what did the option look like in terms of i'm not the your building on the vacant lot next to the two unit building. >> the problem is again, the size of the lot what is left of it by the time you have a radish you don't end up with a site that is big enough for 3 bedroom units and one of the goals of the project sponsor is to constrict 3 bedroom units. >> and i know this site allows
6:58 pm
for 8 unit as stated by the planning staff will there be 8 smaller units. >> no, this building is all right. maxed out in terms of height so if you go to one to have 8 units urge you to have to take one of the 8 bedrooms and reduce it in size. >> i got it okay. but it's great to hear there's an interest in working out a solution we need more time to talk to the members of the public but i appreciate there's movement on the dialog. >> colleagues any further questions to the project sponsor. >> okay. at this point why not hear from members of the public who wish to support the project sponsor. >> good morning supervisor i'm
6:59 pm
george i'm the retired real estate business broker along richmond resident i have a question i'd like to address a question that supervisor jane kim brought up this builder she built a of unit building and 3 of them are actually affordable as you can get square footage is 11 hundred secret so to swedes 3 bedrooms in 11 square feet is not easy that's pretty much any private builder can do on affordable basis now if you take an additional unit for the affordable and put on the affordable side 3 unit are affordable then the other 3
7:00 pm
units are slightly larger make them as affordable then the private owner has two unit to recapture their investment this is discouraging where people are trying to develop additional new housing for the city so you have to realize the city should give extra incentives for a smaller builder like marching to build this kind of unit rather than discourage it but if you supervisor jane kim if you are considering we put up we required the owner to provide additional affordable but their though the building luxury unit in in my opinion i will in the richmond district for a a long time with 3 bedroom