>> it's one of the values that we place in our planning code is height and density, right? so isn't creating kind of these additional planning process also creating hurdles to building more housing. >> i think you are absolutely incorrect to developing housing in san francisco. to remove them and we are trying to do a number of them which we had so much valid input too, will make housing development easier. so absolutely yes. >> thank you. so i think where i left off was talking about not hindering production. i want to talk about the other thing that city ordinance does. and for middle class, that's important because this is not housing that we've been focused on and nor any

resources we have dedicated to. and based on the impact of luxury tax. we have based on this concept of impact. it does not take into account middle class workers. the last thing to look at. lastly,ennen shrines to public residents by making their housing stronger, safer and more secure. i want to emphasize that this measure and previous have the very same goal and the right goel to create, preserve and secure more affordable housing. we at the mayor's office are focused on rebuilding it and hope to do so. in conclusion what you heard today about minimum wage and housing metering, it's a very real cry for more efforts towards stabilization and more

affordability. this measure is an attempt and i believe the right attempt to continuing to provide that. we want to work on resources, not on process and we believe if we can do that together, that will be what gets us to our goals. thank you. >> i don't know who would have the answer to this question, but another way for me to look at this whole issue is in the previous presentation with the balance of housing, has anybody worked out the numbers if the balance housing indeed has passed and did some predictions that it might actually hamper affordable housing being built. does anybody know the numbers? how much would it hamper it?

>> i think the difficulty with that question supervisor yee, when we are talking about this is, what is going to happen in the future, it's a very difficult thing to estimate. we can estimate how many people will dissuade from developing, we can't #12i89 estimate how many will rule, we are worried that it will be in the negative and will i am panth housing. we can't put numbers on it. >> interesting. i thought that was the argument that you could put numbers, not you people. any other questions? >> i have a few questions? just recently, director lee, we did a big kickoff in my district for new affordable housing development that was built off site. it was the one located on page and market

and the developer shows to they built the affordable housing and one of the things that the mayor said and i wanted to get your feedback in how this is helping with the affordable housing stock that if you decide to, i guess build the affordable housing rather than fee out will make it easier for you. we will make the permitting process and work with you because there is no incentive because why build and support us in affordable housing if it's easier to say here is the money because we don't want to spend the money necessary to build it because it's 10 percent. i want to hear what your office is doing to facilitate the process to incentivize developers to actually build the affordable housing. that's one of my

questions. the second question is what can we do to change that, to make the requirement to pay out a lot more than the requirement to actually build the affordable housing. >> well, easterly yes, -- earlier this year the mayor looked at the department who can look at the effect of housing and directed the department to come up with better processes to allow projects to be approved quicker and that was directed both at the planning department and the building department. as part of the housing group we are looking at outside the inclusionary and as a way to create more affordable housing faster and so basically utilizing the

market folks to do what they do which is build and build for our affordable levels. we are looking at the program as part of the housing workgroup to see what incentives we can create to encourage more housing and sooner whether it's by non-profits or for profit. the whole expediting that the mayoren encouraged to do is the number of major affordable housing units. we have a number of developers who said if i can get through this process faster through speed and certainty, i will do the affordable housing. we can't emphasize enough the whole notion of trying to get through what some developers think is a very unwielding bureaucracy including my office. i can't imagine that,

but they would just like to get 32 you the process quicker. >> the other question is what can we do legislatively to change the requirement for developers so that the incentives to build is something that is a real viable option that they choose besides the circumventing some of the permitting process? >> i think that out of housing working group we are going to have some modifications to the inclusionary ordinance which will go both before the planning commission and to the board. we hope to be able to bring that to you before the end of the year. again, the goal is to try to incentivize whoever can build the housing sooner, whether it's market rate or affordable. and clearly, through that process you can make changes to various requirements. some of

it, some of those changes might require a charter amendment going forward, but others are strictly legislative. >> the last question i have is why is it so difficult for us as a city to maintain housing balance? why is that so problematic? >> well, we are blessed with being a very very attractive place to live. we are also blessed with having a very robust housing market. as we all saw what happens first in san francisco and in any city on a recovery is we get jobs first. jobs come first and everybody then says, oh, my god! we have all these jobs here and we rush to try to build housing and everybody tries to getten as early as possible because they think they know there is a boom and

bust cycle. as mayor said he's not predicting a bust in 5 years. he's an economist and on the other hand he could be wrong. there is always this question of you know, we have a robust economy and that's what we are fortunate in having that because it does help the general fund but it's created a problem and i think the mayor is very concerned about that problem and through his bill now will try to address the need for additional affordable housing. clearly the mayor and the board can work together on revenue measures ands other measures to increase the production for affordable housing. >> i just wanted to bring up one point, i know i said that was my last question. i have at least four properties that i can think of off the top of my head that are in my district that need to wait anywhere between 5-0 10 years

which are already lots waiting to build for affordable housing. why do i have to wait so long? >> part of the charts show that part of the housing trust fund was reliant on the community block funds from the government and the actions went away and we paid out $22 million in fees that were paid to the office with those projects that didn't go forward. there's no money. we are now getting the money and in the process of getting four rfp's for central park all which are in your district. >> that is one parcel. >> and we are engaged with a lot of other developments right now in terms of public housing, the residential --

rental assistance. and we were reluctant to do the rfp's because we didn't have the money in the office. now because of the influx of fees. we have to remember that not only did the economy tank as it relates to the building fees, we also created a policy to defer fees to stimulate the development. that delay in fees affected us. we dentist have -- didn't have the resources. as we have resources we can do more. >> i guess that's my concern here is that i have the properties and specifically in district 5. we just extended a lease with proxy and we know that lot is insulated for affordable housing and we have a lot that is shovel ready

and you have an rfp for that and we have all of these properties. i want market rate developers to be somehow developing these property now since they are ready to go. so i guess i'm asking how do we make this happen sooner and not just completely reliant upon the mayor's office of housing to do it >> it's going to reline eli on the mayor's office of housing as the gatekeeper but how do we get the market to joint venture with our non-profits. we used to have a profession that no market rate developers could not be in a project that had any public dollars in it whatsoever. we are looking at how we would build fire walls between those units so the market rate developers are contributing not to the entire cost to the subsidy of the

project could augment what would be subsidizing to get the stocks sooner. we are looking how to utilize the housing market rate developers in that way. it's not currently permitted in the inclusionary ordinance and we have to do some modifications in the da to do that. that will -- that is what we are looking at to stretch our funds and more affordable housing 100 percent stand-alone side too. >> thank you, mr. lee. i want to be able to call for public comments at this point. i don't know if there is any public comment. i know you have been waiting very patiently if you want to make a comment. so just lineup and give your name and you have two minutes.2 minutes. >> good evening. thank you

for holding this very important meeting. from the san francisco housing action coalition. i would say as san francisco, as a city we are failing in our rate. there is no disagreement on that. i want to say that we strongly support the testimony and eloquent ideas you heard from olson lee and dennis phyllis ips. they speak the truth. we want to see more affordability where we say the common ground is where is the money. no one a disagrees that we need it but where is the funding coming from. the shortcoming i see from the housing balance measure is it an appears to us on a premise that if we in accrues -- increase the restrictions on housing we

increase the subsidized housing. it doesn't make sense how that works. instead a better outcome to sit down and get the stakeholders and sit down and look at ways to raise more money to subsidize the housing. you saw some slides and i don't know if you noticed the production level of affordable housing. in 1 year, the past many years that did exceed 300 units in a year. do you understand what a dread fully inadequate number it is relative to the challenges we are facing. we are not talking about anything here that is talking about what is going to significantly change this. we need inclusionary things. there are other things we need to do, but the idea of opera -- somehow restricting the production. i'm not sure it makes sense. better let's sit down at the table and look for ways to increase funding for

better affordability. >> supervisors, mayor's office of housing, david elliot louis. long time resident, activist. let's speak truth to power. what this ordinance is about build housing now is about opposed jane kim's and avalos ordinance. it's rhetoric about changing policy to build mow housing with no real teeth; no means to do it. it's about preventing this new criteria of affordability of changing the planning code to add this whole dimension of what does the property do for affordability. it's really a bunch of the rhetoric wrapped

around sort of like a snake in the grass. rhetoric to stop this housing balance ordinance. that's what it's really about. why don't we just speak truth to power about that. when soopz supervisor kim asked about other criteria, why don't we limit the bulk of the criteria, the mayor didn't answer that question. it was a great question. if we are going to prohibit by statute some criteria, why not just prohibit them all like height and bulk. c'mon, bottom line is please don't support this. please support item 11 and not 12. please support housing balance. let's speak the power on this. thank you for your questions. i really

appreciate them. >> i will keep it quick because it's my second time up here today. i think the question of whether affordable housing deserves another layer of review because height or other issues have a layer of review, i sat there and i listened to that question and i thought it's a great question. but if we add another layer of review that doesn't necessarily ensure that we increase production and that's still my biggest concern that while i think we have the greatest intent to get to that percent of the numbers over that, adding that extra layer i don't thinken insures us to getting there and taking certain action to build housing. just again, i do appreciate the comment from the mayor's office and support the goal of building more housing and the focus of

finding funding for affordable and middle income housing. thank you. >> good evening supervisors. my name is sue and with the harvey milk lgbt democratic club. for one thing i really resent being characterized as standing in the way of a project. standing in the way is safety for people who use the commodity, utilities that the commodity does what it says it's going to do and speed over all to me seems irresponsible the reason we have a balance now is that certain segments when housing

is built. i feel very strongly when the need for housing in san francisco. it's the only way we are going to grow as a city but also the only way we are going to be ecologically sound. high density housing is absolutely necessary for an efficient and clean society. however, unless you prioritize who's going into that housing who is going to stay in san francisco and who is going to enjoy and be part of this city is going to be another big issue. the job issue, well, yeah, the jobs are actually down the peninsula for the most part. so i would caution you very strongly to heed the concerns about housing now and listen to the concerns about balance in san francisco. thank you very much.

>> sue hesser. i operate. here is a couple facts. late 90s three units 3 units in the city, there was one affordable housing unit. they avoided paying a penny for affordable housing. the merchandise mart is 1.2 million square feet. against my real opposition, they were given an xems exemption from paying housing fees and transit fees. who are the tennants of the merchandise mart? tech industry. they moved into 1.2 million square feet and did they pay for housing transit or anything else. you can

change the entire use of a fablt # factory to office and you will not be assessed even though the difference between factory and office rent is $10-50 a square foot. there is no reassessment happening on buildings that cheat the hell out of city of money. they avoid the assessment, housing fees and transit fees. next fact. if you go into gieb and do an improvement to a commercial building and no one looks at you a second time and you don't pay affordable housing fees, you don't pay transit fees. the area plans have created a situation where there are exceptions to everything. no project gets through without exceptions.

exceptions are the conditional uses in an area plan. and the other thing that happens once you do an area plan is you stop environmental review and you stop advanced notice of projects. >> thank you. any other public comments on this item. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i just want to recognize that chair yee has a daughter that is getting married. i don't want to keep you here forever. i want to ask more questions but i won't. i will say a couple things about housing balance because this resolution doesn't relegate anything on the redevelopment area plan. that is this: if

we go out of balance and a fee goes in place, a developer has certainty that they won't get a cu if they decide on 80 projects or they agree to a development agreement that has 30 percent affordable on that site. i really will argue that our legislation encourages and incentivizes for more affordable housing. it's not easy. affordable housing is expensive. that's why in the findings with more affordable housing while this contributes to the city. if the planning commission finds that it does, they can approve that project. so, i will argue that our legislation actually incentivizes the developers that want to build more affordable housing to develop on those cites and the developers that don't want to build affordable housing won't be buying those properties on

the cites. there will always be developers that want to build in san francisco. i think if speed is the issue in slowing down the i am coming impact fees is the issue, slowing down market rate housing is the issue, then we need to rethink all of the variances and conditional use. we can call it whatever we want. but those are all additional layers in the planning process. for me, i think, it's really stead fast. we have zoning in place because we want to have balance, balance of height, balance of beauty, shadow, all of these things. we have planning code in place because people think the skyline is important. they think shadow is important. they don't want san francisco to be ugly. all of these things are constantly talked about in the planning commission. all we are saying is we want affordability to

be part of that discussion. it can happen through impact fees but we also think that a conditional use authorization will force the conversation more, will place that as a value in the planning code and actually incentivize the development of more affordable housing and bring us to the table more often to generate that revenue so we never go out of balance. i do want to appreciate, i do believe that everyone in this room cares about affordable housing. there is no doubt in my mind that nobody believes that. i want to appreciate that. i feel really fortunate to be able to work with olson lee and buckly who come from the affordable housing wormd and have done so much with mayor lee to build affordable housing and i believe that our legislation is really part of that package. it doesn't fight that and it's really another tool that we can have in the

handbook to continue the pathway that we are on and the vision we would all like to see. i think we are lucky to have a smart and vigorous and debate and discussions so we can have more. i think we should appreciate that despite the fact that we have some dueling concepts for how that happens. thank you chair yee for being here. i know your family is waiting for you. >> i want to thank everybody for being here. it's true and i also believe that there is nobody in this room that would really not fight for affordable housing. it's one of these things where can we get to a couple -- commitmently -- come complimentary type of

solutions. i'm hoping as we move into future as we are talking about this time around or next year or the year after that we continue to have this dialogue because anymore we can solve in the united states is the issue of affordable housing i think we can do this in san francisco. we have the will and the brains. thank you very much. madam clerk. i guess i would like to have a motion to file this. >> so moved. >> no objection. this passes. madam clerk is there anything else? >> did you want to make a motion to excuse supervisor tang? >> i will make that motion to excuse supervisor tang? >> anything else? >> meeting adjourned. thank you very much. >> >> >>

announcer: b dreams and good grades aren't enough to get into college. there are actual steps you need to take. finding someone who can help is the first and most important. for the next steps, go to knowhow2go.org.