to new residential relevant

reviewing existing exemptions revising discount rates for new development projects that mr. parkin, amend the planning took to clarify provisions of existing legislation, and approved administration of the administrative appeals process. director nolan: i understand we had some communications. >> mr. chairman, it is clear that the owl -- that we normally pride ourselves on was not completed as it related to this item -- the outreach that we normally pride ourselves on was not completed as it related to this item. what was expected to be down by another agency was not done, at least was not done to a satisfactory degree, whether we have individuals who are supportive of this or not supportive of this item. it will be my suggestion that you give us an opportunity as a staff to go back out to meet with the public, meet with the

developers who are concerned about this issue, and it will not be brought back before you until we have done that. >> also our policy and governance committee -- >> yes, that would be a good place to start. director nolan: since people of given up time this afternoon to come here, we will be happy to hear your thoughts, but there will not be any action by the board this afternoon. with that, do we have some speakers? >> [reading names] >> i will come back when you are ready to have a presentation and make a decision. thank you. director nolan: thank you. good afternoon again. >> executive director with wok san francisco. -- walk san francisco. we support offering a discount to developers who do not build

parking. all new developments obviously depend on the transportation network to work, including residential developments, whose residents will obviously need to travel to get to work, to get to shopping, etc., and the more that residents and workers in the developers are able to get around on public transit, the more efficient and save our public streets will be, our city streets, so developers who do not build public parking and therefore do encourage public transit use should be rewarded by lightening the load on our transportation system. we believe that this is a smart step forward for connecting how we build to how we get around and also a smart step to make our city more sustainable and more safe. thank you. >> howard stroessner.

good afternoon. i'm only partially in support of this. it seems to continue an old feared that muni has that to will cost too much and will not be able to provide the service. i think that is the wrong way to go about it. to count bedrooms, that is not right. people need service. you have to provide it. on the other hand, the 50% discount on building -- on not building a garage is a good start. issue b 100%. it is not riders who destroy the system, but you are working -- except some who get on slowly, but you are working on that. when you move your car, you are

impacting muni, and they should be the concept you want to have when you're talking about parking fees and meter rates and meter times. you can constantly do this kind of thing. i hope that when you reconsider, that some of this will come up. i will come back and helped you more. i want to take another minute because it may have a much later, to talk about the school kids. i think it is nice to give away the 12,000 passes here probably is -- probably some of these are kids that jump on the back and do not pay anything, so it will be good to get them trained to have them get real passes and use the system, so a little more thought on this issue would be helpful. >> thank you so much. every city has a valiant to live. maybe you can only enjoyed 50,000 value of the city resources.

san francisco, you look in, 250,000, the public. they count in asia. they do not count in america. everybody is moving in to some town to enjoy the public resources. that is money we already put in and we build. so anybody living in, and they want to build a house in heywood or san francisco is very different. you should get it because they bring more people in the city, but they already make money as they run away. they make a profit. they do not count on the city. they do not put any investment in the city, so you have to charge with -- you have to charge them.

i do not understand, but you should get money. thank you. >> good afternoon. thank you for hearing us today. first off, thank you for moving it so we can review documents. it is important that we hear from people like myself who are builders in the city and stakeholders and the decisions that are made, we request documents, and we hope to get them and sit down with you and work with you. thank you. >> jonathan perlman. >> i'm not a builder. i'm an architect. this kind of fee, certainly, it affects a number of buildings that get built that are not built because they cannot afford

them because the fees are so high, then i have less work, so it affects me directly. just to make a comment about the people who take advantage of the city and run off to other towns. i live and work in the city. most of the people i work with, the developers i work with live and work in san francisco, and we love san francisco, but in our professions, it is getting harder to make a living because of the costs. a lot of my clients are single- family -- build single-family or two-family houses, and we are wondering why housing is so expensive in san francisco. this is one of the reasons. also, the whole issue of this apparently was not even that it out -- vetteed out with public hearings or no way see in the legislation still a couple of hours ago i think it's a shame, and i appreciate that this is being postponed till a later date.

>> [reading names] . director nolan: good afternoon. >> also an architect in the city. this is the most ill-conceived job killer i had ever seen. i'm just glad that we are going to get a chance to talk to you further about. if i have a client that builds a debt, they have to inform the lady and all the neighbors. we're just lucky that somebody saw the little blurb in the "examiner" about this. it affects a lot of people. if i had a client that build a new house, 5000 square feet, it would cost an additional $50,000 to that client, almost $10 a foot. that is just ridiculous. this is just a job killer at a

time when we need jobs, not just here, but throughout the country. everybody is talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. to add $10 a foot to a project is just not right. at this time, we should have a moratorium on all fees on projects if you ask me. all fees on residential should be off until the unemployment rate gets back to a reasonable level. thank you. director nolan: thank you. next speaker. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i would just like to say that it is an extremely poorly written document that was submitted to the commission for consideration. two, i like your staff to really

look at the impact report that was prepared by the planning commission -- department for the planning commission on the last round of planning. in that report, there was a recommendation and statement that the impact fee for that area cannot be as high as the actual process because the development community is tapped out said that they can no longer afford to go beyond and development fees. also, in every planning district reasonably in the city, their impact fees aren't citywide for different types of infrastructure. what i see is that there are in pac fees by every single agency,

and they really need to be coordinated so you know what the taxes are on the developers. finally, i'm grateful that this commission is going to take this out and act on that after you have more information because i was extremely offended by one of your staff that said that it is this commission's policy not to have any out reach until after you acted on it today and it takes place after you take action and the time it goes to the board of supervisors. i realize i'm an immigrant, and a lot of the people that will testify before you are immigrants, but i do not think that our language ability is so bad that i misunderstood her statement. director nolan: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, commissioners. to reiterate the last few

speakers, if you have a product, you play -- pay approximately $11,000 per unit, the average unit being 1000 square feet. if you have five units, $50,000. 10 units, $110,000, and we have to bear these costs. the industry is being crippled. we need jobs. we need people to create work. not put a hindrance on it. it is not even present today. it is a disgrace that this has been jammed through. i appreciate that you are continuing it, but let's look at it and everybody -- let everybody, all the stakeholders, get a say in the matter. director nolan: next speaker please. >> good afternoon.

while i do not doubt with an apartment with usually do on our reach, i would question with the q&a is for making sure that things happen. if we do not have quality assurance, at least the rest of us in the public really dowling the integrity, especially when we do not have legislation, it is something that is generating money for the department. i look at this and say that this is a complete -- we are being dropped as far as it not being a situation that is being brought to life. you want to talk about unemployment. everybody says we've got 17% unemployment in the state of california. try our industry. we cannot afford any more fees. there is stuff not getting built now. you have permits at a record low, and we want to add more money to that? we need a break in the building industry. you hear from every commission,

every council, everybody that steps up here. we need jobs. we have families to feed. i will take one last bus out there if it means that all the guys who work for me can come back to work because we can actually build something. i think a lot people would do that. i urge you to consider this and look at the real human impact of it. thank you. director nolan: thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i will keep my comments brief because my voice is going, but i do want to speak specifically to the process. it was my responsibility to coordinate and get my colleagues out here today. we heard about this at 4:00 yesterday afternoon from a reporter. he was calling for our opinions. you made a comment, the quality of out reach was not done on this item that is normally done on items such as this.

i would beg to differ. it was not long ago that we were before you with a similar experience. no outrage being done. we had to go back to the policy and governance committee, and eventually, through endless communication, we finally found ourselves in a position we were comfortable with going back to our members and making them aware of an increase. i was told that it is not staffed policy to do it out -- on items such as this by this body at this point in the process -- to do it out reach. it was recommended to us that we should go to the board of supervisors to engage in public comment. i think that is an absolute disgrace. i really do. i know our members are very concerned about jobs and the economy, but it is my responsibility to do the out region share with them what is going on, and -- my

responsibility to do the outreach and share with them what is going on. if we are not on your radar, i do not know who is. we should be on your radar. i think this is an absolute disgrace. i do look forward to dialogue, and i appreciate the continuance, please, learned from my testimony today that i am very angry and annoyed, and our members are, too. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i just really want to talk about small business. we are a small construction company. we build residential homes. most of our subcontractors are in that area. we all live in san francisco. we pay property tax. we pay taxes.

going back to residential construction and fees, every time we turn around, there is a new fee. it really does affect small business. you have your plumbers, your electricians. you look at a residential home and the amount of people that were in them, regardless of the size of it, it impacts everybody. we have kids in school in san francisco in the neighborhoods. and this is one more tax that is going to cripple our industry, which has been already decimated in the last two years, so please, consider what you are talking about and did a lot of thought because it really does affect the communities, the schools, the subcontractors we all work with, we all live with, so please consider. director nolan: thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i'm a developer in the city.

we've been trying our hardest to get the construction industry moving. our crews are out of work. there is a lot of subcontractor- related industries down in a grave stances because of the downturn in the economy. this legislation right now would cripple, on top of the hardship we are going through trying to get stuff moving, this is going to definitely crippled the whole process. i would beg you to defer this legislation and go through and out reach study analysis, which will, i'm sure, clarify the sense of where we are at. when all the other government departments realize we are capped out with these right now. we cannot take any more. we need to get the industry moving. we need you guys to put this

legislation behind us for a while. thank you. [-- >> [reading names] >> i'm a small developer, small builder here in san francisco. i live and work in san francisco. the people that work on my projects live and work in san francisco. this analysis on how much the industry can bear at this stage because of the situation with the economy right now. basically, i see it as another tax, and it is a job killer. i think, obviously, we are going to be following this. there are going to be layoffs in the planning and building department. i think you've got to keep that in mind.

thank you for your time. director nolan: thank you, sir. >> good afternoon, directors. san francisco bicycle coalition. we support this update. we have supported tidf for a long time. we are particularly supportive of the two corrections happening in this update. you have heard speakers speak to the inclusion of residential in the scope. it has long been inexplicable you could build a building on market street that is commercial markets face and the next or build a building and filled it with residences and have no tidf. that seems wrong, and this proposal speaks to us, and we applaud that. obviously, the particulars of whether you are building a 1000- square-foot building or 40-foot tower might come to bear, so

further review seems in order on that. the other big adjustment in this round is that we are discounting projects that have less or no parking. this is important recognition that parking is a trip generator. if you build an office building or residential building that is half parking, you will generate a lot of car trips. that will affect muni and street safety and generally be an impact. to the extent that every word products that have less or no parking, that is a very good thing, and it takes us towards a much more defensible and meaningful evaluation on transportation and hats. again, by coalition supports this. i understand, and we understand you have to have more conversation with the community, but these a two important corrections to the longstanding tidf.

>> anyone else who would like to turn in a speech here card at this point, please come forward. >> thank you for hearing this today. i am president of walk san francisco. the city has many expenses to keep it running. the transportation system, being, obviously, a very large expense that is needed to keep the city functioning. the reality is nobody wants to pay for it. nobody wants to pay bus fare. nobody wants to pay for parking. nobody wants to pay for taxes, but the reality is that as nice as it would be to say that we have the transportation system and we would love to just a completely free, that is not possible. obviously, we have to pay for this room, for the drivers, for gas, maintaining buses, and things like that.

i think that there is an inherent inequality when commercial office developers have to pay this fee and residential developers do not because both uses to generate trips, and i think that going in the direction of offering a discount to folks who built less parking is the right way to go. it is consistent with our transit first policy, and i do want to mention one small thing -- i do sympathize with the folks in the bill would association when they talk about outreach. it is something that i think this agency needs to do a better job of. i'll leave it at that. thanks. director nolan: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon.

i will fill out a speaker card in a minute. i woke up this morning at 5:30, and the "chronicle" was thrown at the front door, and when i opened it, i saw this article on those impact fees. you have to understand that the city -- when we say the city, we are talking about the people that work here. we cannot bear any more impact fees. i'm a contractor. i'm a developer. the people that buy the homes from us that we develop -- they add some much to the city by actually buying the homes. between property taxes, between working here, and what they get to the city. and you want to add so much more to it. the planning department did an analysis, and they found that you just cannot bear any more in the city at the moment. there is a limit to what you can

put on developments. what they've put on is even too much at the moment. because of the recession, there's nothing happening, so we cannot even judge the analysis that they have done, you know, because there is nothing happening. i implore you to forget about this and just leave everything the way it is. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i do want to thank you guys for continuing this item because, as some of the speakers said earlier, it is very important we do have a copy of the legislation. i come to this room a lot for the planning commission, and there is always copies of the legislation right here. it is very important, and we

have been the biggest stakeholders. dialogue is very important. when we see that we are getting hit with more fees, we get very nervous. a decisive steady says that we bear most of the impact fees in the neighborhood now. now, we're looking at more fees. so again, i think that we need to keep the dialogue open. but due process is very important. i found out about this thing this morning. i should have known about it three weeks ago, four weeks ago, and a lot of our members did work with mr. ford and his staff on this. they knew about this. they should have told us. that is how you do it. we come to all this commissions. this is the first time we have never been notified. so thank you for the continuance.

we look forward to further dialogue. >> thank you. first of all, i would like to say what was proposed today was an outrage. without any due process whatsoever, it was recommended for approval today. there is a sun shine in this city, it is renowned for sunshine, so we know what happened. this needed the input of stakeholders. what we need right now is a fee moratorium because the construction industry cannot bear any more. the problem is that you create a fee here. puc creates a fee over there. school board has another one. there is an accumulation, and nobody knows what the other is, so there is a straw that breaks the camel's back, and this is the last straw on the camel's back. back in 2008,an