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 people, it's middle class, upper income people, this city is no longer affordable. i am saying that at least 30 percent of the housing that is created is affordable is something that most san franciscans would agree with. the great thing about the democracy that most san franciscans will be able to decide for themselves if that's not the case. having

that discussion with the public, with the voters is really important and i know that it's not an easy thing to do and i don't believe that it is antidevelopment to say that affordability should be a part of the equation, to the contrary. i think that having affordability being part of the equation will actually lead to more development and so, i'm very proud of that, very excited about this possibility and i think that the main thing is to hear from the public to see what they think and i look forward to that. thank you. >> i would like to welcome supervisor breed to the community meeting and supervisor tang. >>supervisor katy tang: sure, i'm going to make a brief comment since we have two measures. i want to say that when i think of housing

balance and what this is titled, i really think about a much more holistic view. for me housing balance also means that we really do accommodate for a different range of incomes. i'm talking about also the middle to motion derate income levels which is mostly the district that i represent and how we can achieve that to make it affordable for some of the different classes to be able to stay nr: here in san francisco. and i think about some of the planning that some of the officers have looked into housing to see how we can make it easier for those who want to afford a home in san francisco. why is it so difficult for people to achieve this 30 percent goal that we have here. i think that really is the heart of what i'm very interested in exploring. so, again i will save some of my questions for the next item. i just wanted to really share that and what

i feel housing balance really means in san francisco. >> thank you. for me, this is something that i struggle with with the people i have worked with the families and so forth that i have worked for and with and always do my non-profit. and serg i have more personal reason to support these efforts in which when we look at the medium housing prices that's in the market right now to be a million dollars. i just walked to, my youngest daughter came to city hall to get her license to get married. she lives in los angeles and would like to come back here to san francisco, butted -- but when i think about the housing prieshgsz -- prices, it just

becomes a dream. i'm in a seat now to make a difference and with the supervisors here, maybe this will be a reality for my daughter and those. thank you so much. >> the one thing i will say is that regional housing reaching a goal of about 60 percent that we should have a much higher goal. we picked a number that we historically have met granted with redevelopment as a tool for financing and we wanted to make sure we continue that goal without redevelopment. we think we can achieve it and with some effort we can make that happen. seeing no further comments or questions from the rules committee, i wanted to call up mr. chair, may we open up public comment? >> yes. i'm going to call up the first 10 speaker cards.>

good afternoon, supervisors. i want to talk about the issues on housing affordability of likely voters in the city. because likely voters are ultimate decision makers. i will run a few highlights. the first questions on page two determinants that 64 percent of likely registered voters would want at least 50 percent of future housing in the city to be afford able. a 30 percent wanted 50 percent afford able. 83 percent are

concerned about affordability and 60 percent were very concerned. when you look at question 3, you see that 59 percent disapproves the job that city government is doing so far on this topic. 59 percent. an overwhelming number. when you turn to the questions 6 on page 6 which asks a range not just on housing but all the impacts on gentrification in this city you find levels concern all above 60 percent. 64 there is a gentrification crisis in our city today. 89 percent, almost everybody feels the city is becoming unaffordable to families. 88 percent that families could no longer afford to live here and many people could no longer afford

to live here. when you breakout the sensitivity data, we learned that 86 percent of african americans and latinos feel the city is facing gentrification process. i think what i would like for you to take from this poll is that we must have action . rhetoric is not enough anymore. the next mayor's measure is basically rhetoric. we need action. to set the housing balance goal with supervisor kim and cosponsors propose is an important step in setting our direction and we have to follow up on it. it's up to you. elected officials know what they want to do. thank you.

>> in the queer community we see in the castro, in the mission. in soma, in the tenderloin and in queer neighborhoods we see lots of new housing being built, we see new cranes in the sky and people in our community being kicked out onto the street and members of the lgbt community where this city has become being forced to the east bay, to portland, to southern california