Francisco or protective housing through acquisition offer low and moderate income households. No we build an additional percentage for middle income house look at the voters are demanding an action plan, not just a goal and doubling the current Affordable Housing is part of the plan. 25 inclusionary Housing Ordinance is doable. It again instead of pain are low income and middle Income Housing needs against each other this measure addresses both needs adding a second here to the inclusionary housing requirements in the form of the 10 for middle income households. This moderates inclusionary promise just like Construction Costs developer fees Interest Rates and any other cost to build here in San Francisco gets factored into the cost of land. Over time, the market and financing will adjust to these new requirements. As we confer value to the land is still in San Francisco we wanted developers to share this wealth and value back to the community by building as much affordable and middle Income Housing as possible. Over the last 10 years, we lost 4528 units of housing to nofault evictions. San francisco continue to see the highest rental prices in the nation. Inclusionary housing is one of the best tools we have to build housing for moderate and middle income san franciscans. There no public subsidies available as the at these income levels. This means, get them as i said households making up to 1 of average Median Income, give an example teacher making 70,000 a year or postal worker and restaurant worker with a child making 90,000 a year or for for some Home Ownership opportunities for households making up to 120,000 a year. Housing is the solution to many of the issues that were seeing here in San Francisco. One that were hearing a lot about his homelessness increasing visibility of our Homeless Community. But what often times people dont realize is that the growing, the fastestgrowing demographic or homelessness today the new face of homelessness in cities like San Francisco my new york and la is working families. It is often single moms with children that are fastestgrowing demographic anonymous committee. In fact, one third of our homeless account our children between the ages of 57. For some reasons the production of the for the housing sink readily and our in San Francisco we must do it at multiple income box. This only one tool. Weve seen the polls. The rising people that are supporting more Affordable Housing art at unprecedented levels because they realize it is not just those that least fortunate pushed out. Everyone is getting pushed out and squeezed out of the city today. I want to recognize a number of folks that helped put this ordinance together and are supporting this today. I want to thank and recognize the council of Community Housing organization, San Francisco and the displacement coalition, senior disability action network, Community Tenants association, eviction defense collaborative, chinese progressive association, veterans equity ctr. , chinatown Committee Development center, a formal housing allies, sf rising, asked me local three 3299 united educators of San Francisco. And uh w. Tenants together as well as a long list of other organizations that im sure will be speaking here today. I also want to recognize my coauthored supervisor peskin and who sponsor supervisor avalos and campos for your strong support it was my introductory comments for the legislation here before say thank you. Supervisor cohen thank you, thank you, thank you. It isnt just my know youve come for show and hearing for those of you that maybe participating in the rules committee, we are really interesting conversation. I want to possibly get on out maybe leader the visit that conversation in the rules committee because was very profound. Particularly the comments by my esteemed colleague supervisor peskin. I would echo similar marks he said. That it is my hope, local break him in these marks it is our hope that we have really honest and transparent conversation about this particular measure. Im in agreement with supervisor peskin when he says that hes looking for something that, a dynamic lot. We were taught about a dynamic law he mean a lot that will expand and contract with the market. I also am hopeful that possibly at the end of this hearing will be will to remove items from the ballot. Hope to hear from my colleagues and supervisors become an peskin particularly what will it take . It was admitted Serbian Committee that he would be ideal to pull the mayors version, to pull the peskinkim version and pull it off of the ballot so we can figure out collectively, as a board of supervisors, what exactly is the sweet spot and also most importantly, to begin to have a conversation and do with the grandfathering issue. I think that is a real pointed issue. I think its also important we get this out of the charter from 2012. I agree, we need Affordable Housing. I am listening in the listening session with the Planning Department last night in the debut community, about the housing density bonus, and there are very real people experiencing the challenges that, frankly, im a tenant. I feel the challenges. Avalos and i have had many conversations about what when life is like. Its really tough in the city. So, two things i have that i want to talk about. First, i have a set of amendment we could discuss that it will introduce and i will circulate, but i think more importantly, i would love to direct my comments to the sponsor of the legislation to pull the measure. The mayor will pull his measure and then we can get on with the get on and talk about other important issues that we need to deal with here in the city and county of San Francisco. Amendment. I would like to read them to you. First i have to do within a nasty divorce of either source even consider reports the controller analyzing the impacts of the interim inclusionary Affordable Housing obligation set in subsection but a golf to ensure requirements are appropriately to maximize Housing Affordability in San Francisco. The analysis shall be performed by december 31, 2016. The report should be accompanied by specific recommendations from the controller for legislative armaments to San Francisco inclusionary or for the housing obligation to maximize Housing Affordability. Second, the Controllers Office show because analysis every 36 months , or as often as the controller deems necessary. Future reports shall be accompanied by specific recommendations from the controller for legislative and moments to San Francisco inclusionary or Affordable Housing obligation to maximize Housing Affordability. Next section is future legislation. The board of supervisors shall pass legislation necessary to perform inclusionary Affordable Housing obligation to the findings of the report detailed in subsection h and l after the soon as practicable but no later than march 31 4017 and within three months of future reports pursuant to subsection h h2. Supervisor cohen, just for clarity are we talking about the Charter Amendment yes. You would make amendments to the Charter Amendment specifically . Yes that is correct. Thats what im talking about that is specifically i think for item number 35 35. So thats to the amendment. I also want to recognize that supervisor yee introduce a resolution earlier today that calls out three things to conduct a Feasibility Study, as the study happen every three years and also give grandfathering a specific definition that im asking is same thing. Why do it in a nonbinding resolution when we can actually put in form of a amendment and vote on and codified. So theres a lot of things at play, asking fori realize that for to the discussion from my colleagues and im sure ill be back on the microphone a little bit later. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor peskin thank you. First of all, let me thank sponsor and the many cosponsors for this and let me put this in a little bit of historical perspective. I just spent the last year running for election and everybody in the Northeast Corner of San Francisco, and i suspect everybody in San Francisco, realizes that collectively this government missed the boat. In 2012, as the market was beginning to go through the roof, which of the government of San Francisco do . The lower the percentage of required occlusion re the Affordable Housing from 15to 12 and maybe unconscionable choice to put it in the citys charter. The constitution. His is not clear subobject level detail of this kind of finegrained policy belongs. I believe there is now widespread agreement in this chamber, in the executive branch, that when you stick something in the charter it becomes ossified. He becomes static. When the heart gets changed, when the price of construction goes up among the per square foot sale price goes up to two north of 2000 a square foot with her inclusionary percentage should have been going up, this body in the executive branch were hamstrung. Nobody at the board of supervisors, nobody in the executive branch brought this up in 2013 coming in 2014, i salute the government for its general Obligation Bond for housing in 2015. But, everybody in this town knows that percentage should have been going up. Not in november of 2016. Its a crisis. In june of 2016. I am delighted that somebody, this body, is taking action. As a matter of Public Policy, this should come out of the charter. This should come out of the charter. I appreciate when you send transportation chairman cohens initial words in this conversation, which is this doesnt belong in the charter. I agree. We should all agree. Thats not hamstrung ourselves further by puttingtaking it out of the charter only to put it back into the charter. This body, and future incarnations of this body should raise and potentially lower the percentage of inclusionary housing. I have said to the development community, i had said to the advocates, to the people want to see more Affordable Housing built, i would love to come up with a formula that self adjusts his could take somebody a lot smarter than me to figure it out because the price of housing per square foot goes up. Sale price goes up. Theres differences in different neighborhoods. Theres differences between forsale stock and rental stock. Does the issue of entitlement time and the difference with somebody i should start applying for project notably gets permits and begins construction. Theres changes in the financing world, so all that makes us very different. I dont have this conversation every two years where every three years. Im assuming he drank some level of predictability and stability. We do not in any way want to reduce new housing starts. But, i know the mayor knows, you all know that for the last four years we have left hundreds, if not thousands, of affordable units on the table. That is a fact. When i hear the protest from certain developers, theyre not making a counter proposal. They are not saying that 15 and 10 would work if it were 15 and five, or if it were 18 and three. They are saying the sky is going to fall. Let me tell you, some of those exact same developers made windfall profits between 2012 and 2016. Now its time to give back. And look at the economic Analyst Reports, good the economic Analyst Report actually says this legislation would build less luxury super expensive 59 dollar condos that none of us can afford that San Francisco does not need, that would build more low income and middle income workingclass housing that this town is desperate for, that our teachers need to live in. There are nurses need to live in. Better City Employees need to live in. Im happy to look at the feasibility reports, but i dont think this body should lock itself into a feasibility reports. I dont think that our controller am a ben rosenfield, from everybody in this government has great respect, should be beefed the sees of these ability bizarre. I think what we should do all to me what we done it many figured we should look at different datasets. We should look at a feasibility report. We should potentially look at multiple feasibility reports and evaluations we should independently in this body by ordinance do our jobs that we were discharged to do under our charter. We should come out of the charter. I will strongly will say firstly oppose any amendment to the Charter Amendment because the Charter Amendment, in reality, does one thing and one thing only. It takes this 2012 error mistake out of the charter. It allows this board to change that 15 and 10, that 15 and 10 does not appear in the charter. It does not appear in the code. Its an interim ordinance until we act. Supervisor kim and myself met with the mayor yesterday morning. We are ready to meet with the mayor as often as necessary between now and the first day of march, a week from today, hopefully with the following results. The two initiative ordinance, one of which was placed on the ballot by the mayor through his representative who sitting here behind me on the 19th day of january would come off. The measure that supervisor kim emma avalos, campos and myself put on after the mayor put the measure on on the 19th of gnu ray would come off. We would come up with a set of bullet points that would become the ordinance that this body would enact prior to the june 7 election. I want us all to be very clear with the electorate. As to what that ordinance would be. I want the electorate to know precisely what they are voting on. What ordinance will go into place. What is being grandfathered. How long does the grandfather to use it or lose it, as happened in proposition c. That is the proposed. There are some details to work out. If it all goes back, all three of the measures will end up on the ballot. Ive been at that rodeo a lot of times. I know how to win that will be. Im not putting my chest out, but hopefully we will all do our job in these chambers. I will vociferously oppose any amendment to the Charter Amendment for the Charter Amendment is underpinned on getting this 2012 the stake out of the ballot. That concludes my comments at this point. Thank you. Supervisor wiener thank you. Im about to sit down with him asking questions of the City Attorney . Good. I promise supervisor peskin better withstand when i speak. Im glad were having this dialogue today about when the most important issues facing our city in terms of Housing Affordability and of course Housing Affordability, Affordable Housing is a critical part of Housing Affordability but Housing Affordability is much broader than Affordable Housing. It has to do with our overall housing policy am glad among other items we are are discussing we are discussing what i think is a sheer desire to increase inclusionary percentage could i support supervisor cohens proposed amendments. I dont see any harm whatsoever in requiring a periodic Feasibility Analysis in terms of making sure we strike the right balance good so, i will support that. I dont know if there has been a second. If not i will second it. But i do have a few questions of the City Attorney. I have read the Charter Amendment to our make sure im interpreting it correctly because i have a few comments acted. The first is, the 25 , the weights calculated, as i read it, it is the below market rate units divided by the total number of units. So, if its a 100 units product it would require 25 of the units be below market rate . Deputy city editor. Thats right the charter members 25 of all units shall be affordable i know this Charter Amendment is praised as an interim control that disappears with the board adopts follow. Can the board even change that afterwards in terms of how it is calculated . The interim peace, the board can replace with any new inclusionary requirements adopted by ordinance. So not just the number. Thats how its cultivated. Okay. In terms of how you get to the 25 , does this Charter Amendment require that the amount, whatever the percentages, say 25 , or 333 or if they build it elsewhere, is that all funded by the developer . Or does that include potentially public money . In other words, someone is devoted to building 100 unit project that