thanks for sticking around. i know you are aware that the housing crisis is real. as you know the mayor set out a goal with 30,000 rehabilitation units. olson brought out the goal from what are the units that fall within that, i do want to note that in those 10,000 affordable housing units we have open thousands of affordable units this year. the development of almost 1700 units will rent below middle income levels in september the newest residents will move into the shipyard with 5,000 units. this measure was created to protect the city's

ability to meet the housing goals. primarily it's affordable and housing goals. it confirmation the mayor's commitment to construct at least 30,000 units by 2020 with a majority with a financial reach of low to middle income household. the various households that we have heard everyone speak about today and i believe everyone in this room 100 percent behind. it urges the mayor and board of supervisors to urge all funding resources a real action plan to make this a reality and develop a funding strategy to do so. third, it urges the development of new revenue sources from middle income households and it directs the analysis of the impact of luxury development on middle income housing. fourth, it urges that no less than 33

percent appropriations from the housing trust fund of housing san san francisco housing authority units. we are all here for the same interest. we heard that again and again today. i can't say strongly enough how much the mayor is behind those goals. what this ordinance does is ensure we stay focused on our housing goals. i understand that in the phase of what we heard today is the feeling that slowing or stopping development will help the crisis we are in. the problem is from those of us who worked on these issues for years in creating the policy, that is not the solution. we need housing, we don't need process. arguing at the planning commission is not going to lower our housing cost. building housing will. building new housing, creating new funding resources and

leverage is the resources is what is going to make the difference. i want to translate the text we talked about. it makes the city policy to work towards those housing production goals and the new mechanism that needs to happen to put those in place in addition to the housing trust fund and the development fees that we already have in place. it prevents hurdles, significantly and specifically the hurdle that is put in place by the balance position that will hinder production. it does not impact overall community review, it doesn't affect planning commission housing that already exist. it doesn't prevent us from regretting affordable housing from each planning area. it folks strictly ensuring that we don't in fact a new view as to process because that additional process that it

could create and the project that it slows or prevents will only make our housing shortage worse. if we see that, why not get rid of those variances? >> as a planner i'm unaware and interested the know where we have the conditions for heights you are referring to? >> with a shall wash -- washington is a good example. i can't remember the exact

number of fees. was it 84 feet. they wanted to build a building with the same number of units but they wanted to create a better design. so a billion in the -- building that went back to 120 and then at 80. so they had to get a variance in order to do that. >> they got a rezoning. >> or a rezoning. sometimes they request a variance. >> we do not give variances for height. >> thereby creating hurdles and reducing impact fees or delaying impact fees to the process. is that correct? >> removing height limits would add more housing is that your question in >> 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