going to hurt. so why the rush? it takes 10 years to approve a project and yet you are rushing through this like it's got to be done tomorrow. instead, do it responsibly, get the study out there. that's your job, not our jobs. say this is a good ordinance. you need to do that. be responsible, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. public speaker: hello. my name issalia from spurs. there is more information based on what we have seen. from staff, we do not think that 25% is viable. imposing this requirement will disrupt the production of many thousands of units that are in the pipeline plus units that have not been built yet.

some community members don't believe that market race housing plays a role in affordability so they don't care if the numbers are too high. we have to remember that most of us won't win the lottery affordable housing or otherwise and we have to navigate our way through the unsubsidized market. this will apply the only way to impact affordability through much of the population. it does matter if you bring it to a halt. 25% may sound great, but we ask you to insure it is the right requirement. it should support both the market rate and affordable housing rate. we urge you to withdraw this measure and ask you for the language

acquired for this analysis. >> thank you. i think i see supervisor kim on the roster? no. okay. after public comment. all right. i'm going to call a couple more speaker cards. ( calling speaker names ) >> public speaker: good afternoon, my name is john, local 38 union. over the last few years our building and trades union have taking their work. these city residents will take their income and search for better houses for their families.

we want these city residents to stay here in the community to bring prosperity and example of accomplishment for them. to get inclusionary housing right and i will vote for all of us. get it wrong, those will face long commutes and strains for themselves and their families. right now we believe that 25% housing inclusionary requirements gets it wrong, thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. public speaker: thank you. on behalf of the housing coalition. a little history. i want to stand up for planning. the facts are that in 2011, the city delivered 269 units of which half were for affordable redevelopment. in 2012 it was starting to get a little better, but you have to remember at that time that was the

greatest regulation that anyone of us can ever remember. non-union was at 35%. staff was down to skeleton crews. there would be no distinction that there would be housing boom in 2012. we are crawling out of a huge hole. i would say on the 25% by the same logic, 50% would be better on housing. we agree that affordable housing is necessary. what is it so special about the 25%? then on this issue of the land price taking it down to zero, i'm your last expert. this is not my area of expertise, but i assume the analysis. what's clear in the limited cases that been analyzed is it takes residual land value, it takes a hit of 25, 35, 40%. you have seen the example

here. i know there is this bond myth that we can do this and the landowner will take the hit on the price. what i hear again and again and again from our members is that it's not remotely how it works on the real world. you are telling a landowner, what i offered you last week, i will pay you 40% less. that owner is likely to say, that parking lot looks pretty good right now. we are going to start to see falling applications. public speaker: morgan. i think we should proceed

cautiously. i know we do need more affordable housing and you know the market rate is real high, extremely high, but it's driving the market right now. i remember 8 years ago when all the other surrounding cities and other counties, you know the housing thing just collapsed and this thing was the only thing that was keeping all of us working, you know, realistically we need affordable housing and we should proceed cautiously and don't monkey around too much with this market because there is a lot of people getting jobs now in the inner cities, in some of the inner districts and bayview with city build and it's doing a lot of positive things. you know, i think we should

proceed cautiously to this. and be careful. >> thank you, next speaker, please. public speaker: good afternoon. we recognize and support the need to include housing mandates but we understand the effects of the members livelihoods. the question is not to just raise the levels but to maximize the production of housing and help meet the overwhelming needs and demands that is driving much of the displacement

in town. carpenters in local 22 are asking the right to the inclusionary housing by reform of regulatory analysis. those who higher the contractors as well as the investment community including pension advisors worry that the proper design would hurt our numbers. we are concerned that as currently designed, this change will also incentivize developers to drive down labor standards for all workers and cut opportunities for local workers to enter apprenticeship programs. we also continue to work on solutions and proposals to increase affordable housing production and

support labor standards for construction workers and provide opportunities for san franciscans enter the trade in sustainable construction careers. as you move forward, we want to caution you that simply moving this aside is essentially approved. 25% is still something. >> thank you very much. thank you. next speaker, please.. public speaker: i want to state a number of facts. the last four housing elements that was sent for us to review, each of those housing elements are before our courts because our faulty documentation. so, from mac russ to mr. green. i followed them, read all of them and

they truly do not address affordable housing. so we can revive it again and again which has been done here, but the most important thing that i want the planning department and those so-called experts is your heart in the right place. i don't see that. i don't see that. it's how you initiate things, keep things hid from the public and when it comes to affordable housing you have the lottery system and i went to the system. it's a gimmick. even if you have very good credit. whose got the money to put $300,000, $400,000 down to make reasonable mortgage payments? who in this city?

so we are bluffing ourselves and the people at home are hurting. in the last 10 years over 40,000 distant families have left san francisco. if you want to build higher type of housing for the new comers and destroy our cities, destroy the culture, destroy the hard work of good san franciscans, think about it, think about it. too many gimmicks. >> thank you. next speaker, please. public speaker: good afternoon, again, david sternberg, architects. first off, supervisor kim, i appreciate you responding to the comments that affordable housing financing may come from other sources, but it sounded like

it was minimal at best. so i should still like to state my opinion. i don't understand why developers have to bear the burden. but having said that, i walked into this meeting having no idea that these were not serious proposals, that they were just posturing from one side of our government to the other. now that i have heard that, let's remove them. we've done it before. we've had committees from both sides with anti-bills with economic input. let's get to work. thanks. >>supervisor katy tang: thank you. next speaker, please. public speaker: good

afternoon. villalobos, 251. if you go forward, i think it's responsible. we have names of developers supporting this. i don't see any. i would like to see one of them. and again, i would just like to echo everybody's overwhelming opinion on this. like somebody said, 25% of 0, it's still zero, you are killing jobs. thank you. >>supervisor katy tang: thank you. next speaker, please. public speaker: good afternoon, supervisors and planning department. i think this is one of those rare things where everybody's working hard to come to a resolution and i believe both sides have already stated clearly that they have a resolution, mr. peskin, we are happy to have you back and sticking up for the city which was long over due. but i believe peskin and

supervisor cohen said it best which is withdraw both legislations and let's do it responsely. i applaud the planning department and board of supervisors for coming up with a resolution. let's move forward and let's be done with this. thank you. >>supervisor katy tang: thank you. next speaker, please. public speaker: good afternoon, supervisors. to what the last speaker said, we pull both legislations because if owners from one to another, maybe we should cool off and think about the legislation and let's walk together. i think we all agree that something has to be done. it how we achieve the goal which will be the most important of all. if we make it too trek yann -- it

doesn't make things better. maybe it's kumbaya time. let's walk together and drop what it is right now. let's get back to the table and sit down and work it out. thank you, supervisors. >>supervisor katy tang: thank you. next speaker, please. public speaker: supervisors, ken buckley in san francisco. i will keep it short. i think i like what cohen said. i will leave it at that. thank you. public speaker: supervisors , i'm from san francisco. i want to give an example of my own personal experience. i have a project i'm working on now. the project is a 15-unit project that we've had since 2010. after 2012 we were working

on a financial project. prop c passed in 2012 and it was cut 12% and low and behold we got financing. i know it's worth only -- this goes back, right? i have another project in the pipeline okay that's coming up around 20 units. i don't know where we are going to get financing. that's all i'm saying. thank you for your time. bye. public speaker: supervisors, good afternoon, john with the residential builders. i appreciate the experience of initiative to work with the legislative branch to figure this out. i thank everybody for coming together here to get this right. we have made several attempts to the 2002 to 2006, through 2012. if you look

back at prop c, it was bad. if you look back at 2012, there were construction back in 2010. no financing could be acquired. at the same time we developed and what is being dmantelled by the state and to get funding and building affordable housing. at this time we should look at many different aspects. one size doesn't fit all. i look forward to get things right this time and hopefully everyone can get it together and figure this out. public speaker: sean, good afternoon. i'm happy to hear the words of a withdrawal. that would be very encouraging to everybody.

this conversation ultimately deals with grandfathering, on-site policies, off site policies and land dedication policies. it needs to deal with different sizes and scales and different types and different economic conditions. sometimes we are in booms, sometimes we are in bust. it would be nice to have policies that address this. different neighborhoods have different resale values. different deal structures. sometimes people get high bonuses, sometimes people get land, sometimes people get cash. these policies need to be nuanced. it is almost possible to achieve this in ordinance. this conversation when it happens needs to have every group at the table. hopefully that conversation will strive to maximize the

percentage of affordability. deal with the grandfathering issue. create a new set of rules that we can rely upon and they will not change in the middle of the game. most importantly, we need to create a policy which creates a stable economically viable projects for our members so we can provide for our families. that's what this needs and unfortunately this ordinance or anything short of gathering around the table will not achieve it. thank you. public speaker: hello, supervisors, any other name is greg. just to reiterate some of the comments that have been said. i would ask you to go back to the drawing board to reconsider what has been also been put out. >>supervisor katy tang: thank you very much. any other public comment on

item 2. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> what marks the sentiment that everybody seems to be expressed to come through and both matters will be withdrawn. the charter amendment was introduced originally on the 15th day of december of last year which is about 2 months ago. we could have done a few, according to you, mr. richards 2 months to do this report. that report could be done now and we can be negotiating the feasibility report. please go out and get one. we'll have one by the middle of april. it will inform our discussions. let's see what process i think members of the board would like to work with you to ensure that happens. i also want to note that

yes, nobody realized that in 2012 the market would take off. that was 4 years ago. the way i look at this is that a lot of folks in the development community have had at a minimum a 3% inclusionary holiday for 4 years in one of the most robust markets that this country has and maybe one of the most robust markets we have seen since the gold rush. i want to take that into account. what am i saying? it's that some of these individual corporations have made millions and millions of dollars. mr. sternberg who asks, who is paying, after the passage of prop a which we all supported. every proneers -- property owners in san francisco are paying, many are paying for the next 30 years.

everybody is shouldering the burden and there are handful of individuals who have a turn to pay as well and they have had an inclusionary holiday. let's make it right. >>supervisor katy tang: thank you. supervisor kim? actually i think supervisor peskin made all the concluding remarks. so i will submit. >> all right. thank you. i guess there is a lot of work to be done. thank you very much for being here today and so at this time then i would like to see if there is a motion to file this hearing? >> so moved. >> all right. seconded by supervisor mar and we'll take that without objection. this hearing is filed. mr. clerk, anymore items today? >> there are no more items. >> all right. this meeting is adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] .

>> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring

patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisc >> america and to the republic for

which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all that this is a reminder under the administrative code the ripping and use of paernlz and similarly be sounding electronics is disruptive set all to silent mode or turn the device off completely this is the regular meeting wednesday, february 10, 2016, and the time is 905 roll call commissioner president covington commissioner vice president cleaveland commissioner nakajo commissioner hardeman chief chief joanne hayes-white item 2 general public comment this time, members of the public may address the commission items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afed