on november. it is not a living wage. we still have a ways to go to make sure those can stay in the city to thrive. it is a powerful measure and powerful step in the right direction and will affect thousands of workers to ensure they are economically secure. thank you. >> thank you. just a reminder if those can put their phones on vibrantte -- vibrate or silent. >> david elliot louis. 30 -year resident, long time social justice advocate and also on the board of community partnership. i know our director hasn't always been supportive of this. that's her opinion. i think there is huge value in promoting this. it does trouble me that san francisco chamber of commerce

supports this. it makes me think we didn't go quite far enough. this is a great start. i strongly support it. 10 supervisors or supporters, to me it's a complete, i'm preaching to the choir, i know it will pass. i want to thank you for doing this. you are really going to help a lot of people and you will help people at the bottom. i live in district six and i see poor people everyday and people who will be helped by this. i'm hoping that in maybe two or 3 years we'll have another adjustment. i hope there is no watering down to dilute this. so please go forward and carry it forth as designed. you will really be helping poor people. thank you supervisors. good day. >> thank you. mr. louis. >> good afternoon, my name

is grace martinez, a community organizer for community and empowerment. we organize income for communities and social and economic justice. we are here to support the minimum wage increase. earlier today at the press conference we had in front of city hall, one comment that resonates with everyone is that the rent was too damn high and a lot of that comes from the fact that there is a growing inequality here in san francisco with the cost-of-living and increased profits for a lot of koreans -- corporations. $15 an hour is a great start and this is a livable wage. thank you very much.

>> hi supervisors. mario, from san francisco. from the community groups from the advocates of podder. we are proud to be part of this fairness economy. as so many have said one of the pieces to make this affordability crisis in san franciscans. i want to get on record to make sure the municipal election an intense voter outreach program. we employee 10 people, we contact 4619 voters where many supported an immediate measure and we identified 77 supporters which this

committee heard. we are looking forward to working with our allies to make sure this becomes law. thank you supervisors for bringing this measure before the votesers. thank you. i do have one more speaker card. ward log ins. any other person that would like to speak on this item? >> just good afternoon supervisors. thank you for allowing me to speak. i love my supervisor jane kim. appreciate you. thank you for doing a great job. i support the minimum wage increase and support affordable housing. i think san francisco has a lot of services that we provide and we have a lot of people wanting to go back to work. we have a large amount of people on general assistance and welfare. i think $15 an hour will be an encouragement to going back to work and cost

of child care and person earning minimum wage who can't hardly afford the cost of child care. i think $15 an hour will be great to have an income for affordable housing as well. i'm hoping that $15 an hour will boost our local economy, businesses and raise funz for our city because we provide a lot of services for our residents and we need this minimum wage to put people back to work. thank you. >> thank you. i got a couple more speaker cards, jesus perez, marian. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jesus perez with south of market network. i'm here to support p minimum wage. you guys support the minimum wage because we have families that live in

sro's and they are working two jobs. so i'm here to see if you can increase the minimum wage, thank you. >> thank you, mr. perez. you mean come in any order. >> i will take it then. thank you very much supervisors. we are all in support of this. you can see how broad the support for this measure has been and thank you for taking the initiative on this. i have also been a restaurant worker and when people talk about the restaurants and how the jobs really affect us. most of my co-workers work two jobs just to make it here. my mom worked three jobs. she woshthd woshth in -- worked in a

restaurant and flower shop. it's about living a rich life. that's why it's important. thank you. >> good afternoon. thank you for taking the time to be here. my name is lydia. i have been working with comcast for the past year. i have been in san francisco for the past seven 7 years mainly with working families. basically what's going on right now in the city is as you have all seen and it's all affecting us is high prices. the biggest impact has always been on our immigrant community. the families that work in the kitchen, the families that are serving your food and minimum wage that's on right now is

not enough for our families and to increase the minimum wage would be a small relief, but it would help families that have five and four kids trying to exist here in san francisco. thank you for your time. >> thank you. are there any other speakers on this item? seeing none, mr. chair, can we please close public comment. >> okay. thank you supervisor kim for conducting this item. you had earlier wanted us to introduce some amendment to this item. we heard the amendments already that you wanted us to introduce. is there a motion to introduce the amendments as outlined by supervisor kim? >> so moved. >> okay. without objection, the amendments are passed. is

there a motion to pass this item out? so moved. >> there is a motion and are there comments? >> thank you, chair. i wanted to make a quick comment. i wanted to thank all the members who came out today. this is a very compromised solution. it was a compromise for a lot of employers who are worried about the rapid increase to $15 even though they agreed that $15 needed to happen and of course workers who are struggling as workers and need the $15 now and i want to thank you for the support because there are so many that need this measure. i'm speaking for someone that is the coauthor of these measures. we know we need to

prevent the eviction and we need to build more affordable housing in this city. i'm excited that we have this agenda moving forward for the november ballot and i want to thank those who made it possible to introduce these measures. the organizing that's happening with the labor is in incredibly exciting. i want to thank all the supervisors that are here, they are all cosponsors of the minimum wage proposal. >> thank you. i would like to add to the course here and thank you for your leadership on this and also with the may i see -- mayor's office and community members and all the people that have made this possible. i lived through many many years of minimum wage myself and it was a struggle. as many of you know, i spent most of my life in the

nonprofit world where it was pretty much minimum wage. for me to see this little bump up in salary for the people that actually run our city and make our city as rich as it is in terms of what's available for other people, i am happy like probably everybody else here on this committee to be a cosponsor of this item. so, if there is a motion on the floor, and without any objection. >> what was the motion? >> supervisor campos? >>supervisor david campos: the motion is to move the ordinance as amended. >> we need to continue this to july 24 th for the amendments being made. >> okay. we need to continue this to july 24th. >> without any objection, then the motion passes. thank you

very much. we will continue this item because we made amendments today until the next rules committee meeting. okay. that means if you would like to leave, unless you want to stay for the rest. madam clerk, can you call item no. 11. city clerk: item 1: [settlement of lawsuit - jay korber - $4,072,519]1405991.ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by jay korber against the city and county of san francisco for $4,072,519; the lawsuit was filed on april 12, 2013, in san francisco superior court, case no. cgc-13-530600; entitled jay korber v. city and county of san francisco, et al. city clerk: sf 11234 item 11: [hearing - initiative ordinance - planning code - city housing balance requirement]14071611.sponsors: kim; campos, avalos, mar and yeehearing held to consider the proposed initiative ordinance submitted by four of more supervisors to the voters at the november 4, 2014, election entitled "ordinance amending the planning code to establish, in the approval and construction of new housing, a balance of 70 >> okay. supervisors kim. you want to make some comments on

this. supervisor kim show today. >>supervisor jane kim: first of all. i want to thank the rules committee. you have had a tough calendar. i didn't know i had quite the calendar that you had. i do want to thank supervisor tang and chair yee for all the many ideas and proposals that we have proposed for the ballot for november 2014. i wish this was one. i know we are going to have folks coming in to speak on the housing balance measure. i did want to give an introduction for this measure. this as i had mentioned earlier today is a big legislative year in san francisco. an equitable affordability is important in san francisco. despite our growth in our economy and decrease in unemployment in san francisco, san francisco is still leading in the largest income gap in the country. san francisco can also lead in our commitment

to address this gap and commit to the strongest affordable housing production in the country. i had mentioned before that it was exciting to have three potential ballot measures that would address equity in san francisco, one we need to raise wages for workers so they can live here and the incredible increase of evictions of long time city of san san franciscans and seniors and families and finally our legislation which is about a commitment of 30 percent affordable housing here in san francisco. this legislation has a lot of history and a lot of folks have been working on this concept for a long time. it began in 2007 when the western market community began meeting in 2007. this plan was finally

improved last year march of 2013 and our office began to work on the trilogy legislation of which housing ballot was one. we know that there is a broad consensus throughout san francisco that luxury housing what we are currently producing for people that makeover 120 percent of ami is not creating the housing that the vast majority of san franciscans can afford. our goal of construction should be affordable to 50 percent of san franciscans. something we don't think about when we talk about affordable housing. who does affordable housing include? it includes individuals who make-up to $81,000 a year. that is how expensive san francisco is. you can make $50-80,000 in san francisco and still struggle to live here. we are talking

about the majority of san franciscans. no one opposes a 30 percent goal mark. we know it's achievable with a little bit more effort. however, i think the question is whether we as policy maker and whether we as a city should be accountable to that goal. i want to say personally that i support growth and development. for me it's never been about height, density or even on the water front. but everyday i hear from residents who maybe on fixed income and seniors but even or working class residents who say they can't afford the housing popping up throughout this city. i hear from people that their kids coming out of college can't find a place to rent on their own. i hear it throughout san francisco, i hear it at harvey milk clubs

and even hear it at chamber of commerce. residents are concerned and frustrated that they can't live in units that are built that they can not afford. we consider so much in our city, we consider height, all small businesses from formula retail. shouldn't we also consider affordability. shouldn't affordability be a value in the planning code. shouldn't we protect low and working class residents in san francisco. we should be held accountable. as policy makers to make this vision of affordable san francisco a reality. building more luxury housing is not going to build more affordable housing. economic impact fees are not going to build more affordable housing. it is striking that

today, the day we speak about the legislation, we also read in the news that san francisco's median price for buying a home in san francisco has hit a million dollars. the median price of purchasing a home in san francisco has hit a million dollars today despite the largest construction boom in san francisco. residents don't believe that supply alone is enough in san francisco. i believe it's part of the answer. we have not seen the decrease in cost of housing. that's why we should continue to build at 30 percent. i heard two major criticisms of this legislation. one i heard that this legislation will stop development. i don't think anyone in this room believes that. i have never seen anything stop development in san francisco except a bad economy and banks closing their doors to financing

development. this is a tool to ensure rather not that we want to stop development but that we want to ensure balanced growth and this is our commitment to residents that 30 percent new growth in the city will be available to the average resident. we can build at 30 percent, if this legislation will never take into effect. if we don't, then this process will give the community and the city an opportunity to be more thoughtful as we support new development to create real plans for creating a deficit when we fall below 30 percent. it is an additional planning review where the community can participate in that process and the planning can consider the affordability as a factor of what we build in san francisco. i have also heard that this legislation is a threat. i want to be clear that we are not threatening anyone. this is about

accountability. we can say all we want as a goal but we have to be accountable to the people of san francisco. i do want to say finally before i bring up our powerpoint presentation. that we want to continue to work with the big stakeholders and the mayor and the affordable housing and housing that addresses the need for increased revenue and inclusionary housing policy. i strongly believe that housing balances the tools and can compliment these reforms but i understand that conversation and dialogue is important as we continue to discuss how we can build affordable housing which i know is a goal for everyone. i have distributed a powerpoint presentation. i have brought someone from our office to go through legislation itself. >> good afternoon. i just

wanted to walk a little bit through the presentation and see if it's on the screen. supervisor kim mentioned this which is simple. this legislation gives the planning the tools they need to consider housing affordability as a condition of approval. there are four main goals of the legislation: one to encourage a balanced approach to the construction and approval of new housing in san francisco. two, to preserve the mixed income character of the city in our neighborhoods. three, encourage the deployment of resources to provide housing affordable to a broad range of individuals especially for families and individuals making from 0-120

ami and finally to enable the planning commission and public to consider the issues of equity and housing affordability in the planning approval process. " why is this important? the housing affordability gap for individuals making $81,000 or for a family of four making $116,000 per year proposes a significant problem for san francisco. based on the last census, these households make-up 60 percent of households in san francisco. bhiel this is the overwhelming need for housing, the latest report shows that we have built luxury housing at 211 percent of the need while motion derate income and low income categories have

language wished at 25 percent and 58 percent respectively. the legislation does three main things: first it establishes housing balance count. that it establishes a rolling 10 -year count on number of affordable housing produced in the housing market. affordable housing is defined for individuals making $81,000 or family of four making $116,000 per year, we are talking about teachers, principals, beginning firefighters and police officers. basically housing needed for san franciscans. doing this rough count, the city will remain unbalance for the next 3 years. if a city

in affordable housing production false below, new development will be heard at the planning commission. certain projects are excluded which i will go into more detail. the third part of the legislation is it provides a city buy in option when we are out of balance the city will have an option to buy it's way back to balance thereby circumventing the process for luxury and housing development. if as a city we fall below the threshold, a project will be required to go through a hearing at the commission and the following criteria will be considered. one, will the project cause or exacerbate the low income, motion moderator: income from the immediate neighborhood, and two, what was the project's

contribution to affordable housing in addition to that required by the base zoning which currently is 12 percent on-site. if after holding the hearing and reviewing the project, the planning commission does continue to grant a conditional use permit, the planning commission should make explicit findings that explain any failure to authorize sufficient affordable housing and secure sufficient development sites to meet the city's share of housing nonetheless is important and should move forward. we have written certain exemptions into the legislation. and it's intended to be exemptions that fast track affordable housing development and developments that contribute more than the baseline. so, 100 percent affordable housing projects

and 80/20 projects or 20 percent of rentals are exempt from this requirement. less that 25 units. projects that are existing building and historic buildings, projects that are within any area subject to a development agreement that already requires an overall minimum of 30 percent affordable units. properties located in a redevelopment area or treasure island. when will the project find out if a cu is required? the count will be applied following the environmental review application and all projects that have filed for environmental review application prior to january 1, 2015, are not subject to the housing balance act. in

addition, the legislation also requires specific reports by the planning department stating they shall review the housing balance ratio every quarter and the housing balance ratio shall determine citywide which would be upon application of the threshold but should also collect data by district. these reports shall be made to the planning commission and the board of supervisors with an annual hearing at both. that is the overview of our legislation. >> thank you. i want to recognize all of april's work. she actually spent the last seven 7 years working on this legislation as well. there is so much history to this and it's really exciting to bring this to the forefront today. i know this is confusing for members of the public and

even board of supervisors. i want to make clear that we have two ordinances moving forward, one with five signatures and we'll be having a hearing next week on an identical that can get amended if there are potential compromises. i want to thank surps campos and yee for their support and staff for their support and our multiple community members and stakeholders that have been meeting with us for three 3 years and discussing what is the best way to build more affordable housing in san francisco. i'm not sure if there are any other comments or questions from the rules committee? >> supervisor campos? >>supervisor david campos: thank you. i want to thank supervisor kim and her office for working on this important

measure. i know there is a few people who want to speak on this item and i want to thank them for coming to city hall. i think this is a critical measure that we need to make sure that we create housing that's affordable to san franciscans. i know there is a sentiment that's been expressed time and time again by people in this building that we want to do that. bottom line for me is that you can talk about affordable housing but until we actually make it happen, nothing is going to change. the fact remains that for most of us, it is simply impossible to be able to afford to live in this city. unfortunately the housing that has been put forward and has been created is housing that is out of reach for most of us. so this legislation i think it's a very motion dest approach that

simply says that as a matter of public policy it makes sense that 30 percent of the housing that is created be affordable for most san franciscans. i don't believe it's a radical concept at all. i think it's a very motion dest concept that ensure that everyone who has made this city what it is, working people, middle income people have an opportunity to live here. the reality is that all we do in areas like health care, wages, you name the policy area, that enables people to actually live in this city to benefit from the laws we in fact, it doesn't really make a difference in their lives and the fact remains for these people and not just low income op