Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Full Board Of Supervisors 22316 20

SFGTV BOS Full Board Of Supervisors 22316 February 26, 2016

Numbers, people are out there in San Francisco six, in pain and dying. I am a senior. Im 73 years old this year. I live in San Francisco over 50 years. Longer than some of your ages. Ive lived all over in every district and this is now the 10th year that ive had to endure this terrific housing crisis could 10 years. First i was convicted in 2006 from my home, my rentcontrolled home of 21 years. I was so distraught i developed cancer in the middle of this move and i almost given up on finding anything affordable after year of looking. Im a local way. Ive written for some of the major magazines and newspapers here. That Small Businesses in this town. I currently now, because my age im on Social Security of 618 a month. I would like to know which one of you people here could live on that anywhere. Not even in detroit. I have 10 pages worth. How much longer can i do . Ive taken housemates to make the rent because now i am beingim getting evicted by the market rate increase. By landlord has raised the rent last two years 1350 per month in the last two years. Thank you. Next speaker, please. We appreciate your comments and understand where you are coming from. Next speaker, please. Maam, im sorry. Maam. Im sorry. Next speaker, please. My name is patrick kennedy, developer of rental housing. Been working for 25 years here in San Francisco the last three years. Im passing out a sheet that shows how much construction prices gone up in the last six months in San Francisco. Lowrise construction is going up 11 . This work arrival from culpability. Missed your attention because i like you to remember that we cannot build new housing and adopted new requirements in a vacuum. I think we need to exactly whats going on in the community. An arbitrary requirement that doubles the setaside requirement without taking into effect, without taking into consideration the massive increase in construction prices here in San Francisco will actually reduce the amount of housing that is produced. Berkeley has a setaside requirement of 10 and is produced roughly triple the amount of moderate and low Income Housing in San Francisco. As a per capita production of its population. I would also like to remind you that if this legislation passes without some kind of equitable grandfathering provision, and the consideration for feasibility is quite likely the ordinance will indeed be challenged and result in a legal disqualification of the cities setaside requirement altogether because legislation passed in 1999. Correctly, on the legality of the setaside requirement here in San Francisco. Finally, i like to encourage you to adopt the affordable onus or Affordable Housing Bonus Program is producing more housing in the city. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, supervise. Tim we have three of the members of the San Francisco action coalition. Said many times. We support the maximum amount of Affordable Housing being built but i think one of the issues that has not been discussed here is that in order to do that we have to build a lot of housing. The concern i have with this wellintentioned Charter Amendment is that the number, it doesnt seem to be borne out by any analysis. Any formal analysis. This is a problem because if by moving it forward overall Housing Production is reduced, the citys affordability worsens and its displacement in crease. The city was. Its incredibly important to get this number right. Its not a trivial matter. I dont like making apocalyptic statements. No one can foretell the future, but the 25 is more or less a onesizefitsall number that treats all housing alike which is not in the city. When of the chief fears we have is that by saying because someone can pay 25 we should put it in, the fear is this warhammer production of smaller scale or cost construction outside the urban core. We dont have a prayer of ever getting a handle on the affordability crisis up for doing it. I think in some folks mind theres this project is prototype project thats super wealthy and because that all projects are they the same. Your discussion about 5m. This is not a onesizefitsall. Im disappointed there wasnt a deal able to be made on Economic Feasibility and grandfathering because i think we shouldnt kid ourselves that things cant get worse. We can make things worse. The Housing Affordability crisis is largely of our own making 30 years ago. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is tony rodriguez. Her present local 42. Im also a native and resident of San Francisco. I would like like i said at the other meeting, my parents come here from foreign country. Theyre able to buy a house and raise four. I was able to follow the same thing. I met my wife was able to buy a house and raise for girls. Unfortunately, just like a lot of people here sure people here, our kids are not following having the same dream we have. At two daughters that were nurses. One of them could not afford to stay in the cities of it but house in oakland. The other moved in to help her pay the rents. My other two daughters one is a teacher. One is a teachers aide. Both going to school both living at home. They can think about buying a house let alone paying the rent to move out. So i do work withwhich i hope Homeless People all the time. All the stuff we are tonight is true. We have a crisis. For all different groups. But you supervisors are a safety net when it comes to making laws that are kids, grandkids are going to have to live with. Ive never seen Something Like this go before the board of supervisors and you voted in without doing the Feasibility Study. I brought a lot of stuff on the opposite nothing supervisors kim says what would make it work. So, i just dont understand how you could vote something into law cannot do a study could and if it does get voted into law i would suggest you do have something that goes in the chart of the basically says, you feasibility studies to make it go up or down. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Betook minus kelly johnson. My name is kelly johnson. I am telling you that this is not going to go [inaudible]. The 25 [inaudible]. Pushed around by a devil here. I am telling you this is going to change. [inaudible]. We will have some shelter. We are going to build houses. When not going to be playing games with you. [inaudible] time to kill all the people in the world by taking our food away. I am not going to have it. This has been discrimination. Because of somebody can take the world and take everybody else with it. [inaudible]. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is jeffreylocal San Francisco Residential Development firm. We recognize the critical importance building more housing specially Affordable Housing to keep her city diverse and combative and weve included that always and hes valid project that was having a higher 24 requirement may sound a solution to this problem is that may suppress the production of housing we intend to stimulate. It is therefore critical we conduct a proper Economic Feasibility study. Our firms focuses on smaller 50100 unit input projects which should not have the ability to sort a to x increase in requirements. The majority of our current projects would be financially infeasible and not be moving forward as they are today. Its also critical that we are responsible grandfathering provisions well projects girardi filed applications are made significant Financial Investment to move forward on the original rules that relied upon when applications were submitted. To not do so would open the city to lawsuits and show investment in the city more broadly it has investors wouldnt void environment were rules are perceived to change quickly and unpredictably. Thank you for your time and hope we can reach move forward cautiously and thoughtfully and carefully study the stability maximum out of housing at all levels. Betook thank you. Next speaker, please. Im the chairman of the admiralty fun. I remain deeply concerned that if we increase the affordable acquirement to 25 will actually have a decrease in the number of affordable units being produced in San Francisco. I vastly summative lots ofwhen i did the pro forma i was really trying to find outi asked the four largest contractors the cost to build a 16 story highrise i sent the pro forma to the four largest afford Housing Providers in San Francisco. 24 Largest Developers i did my very best to come up with an Economic Analysis and i talked with for major lenders. Right now, it is exceedingly difficult to build housing with 25 . I dont think it can be done. We can argue but the numbers but the best exhibit obscene for the somebody is 72 s. Venice and their budget is 900,000 to build 100 Affordable Housing units in San Francisco. Thats 900,000. So just be really careful. I presume that gets past that we work with a trailing ordinance there really allows grandfathering and the looks of the economics with 25 . Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, supervise. My name is brian spears. On the smaller local native san franciscan builder did i grope in the trades. I typically build smaller projects, former gas stations were buildings. The gloucester economic value. My concern is that 25 is onesizefitsall. To me, as a builder enough to demonstrate use make some profit and go out and get alone. At 25 with no increase in height or bulk than the existing zoning humid place that monies me subsidize his remaining 75 of that building. That means, market rate housing, the very least needs to remain where it is or go up when you can get on. Its as simple as that for me. I cant make it to them until i can get seven more stories and i know theres a lot of other builders similar situation. What concerns needs is onesizefitsall. I do applaud the intentions of more formal housing. Ive always been on set. I just recently built 23 affordable units at the corner of market and franklin so ive been there. Ive done a bit i was proud to do that but im very concerned that moving forward of a 25 one size fits of you i think the goal cost the city is a high level of Affordable Housing became begun the same way at every site would be my main concern. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is ivan, resident and Committee Organizers for the tenderloin neighborhood. Im just here to voice my support for supervisors kim and peskins inclusionary housing amendment. I do believe this is a good step in addressing our housing crisis. This is not the only step. We have a lot of people that need housing. I do believe we can be the San Francisco by the city that actually solve this problem because all other urban errors are going to the same issue as we are. Why cant we be the first window housing for everybody . Was in the homeless, middleclass, and folks making lots of money. I think this is a good step but i hope we continue finding more solutions in terms of having real inclusionary housing which includes everybody in San Francisco. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is juan carlos. Local developer could. , longtime san franciscan resident. I wanted to refer to something that one of the previous speaker said which is that you have a moral imperative to act in i would agree but i would add if a moral imperative to act cautiously and carefully when making a very big change to the rules that are in place for the city is all. You heard from many speakers and people care passionate about housing in this. I would include myself that were compassionate passionate about green market rate housing and affordable husband you cant double the performance for about many projects in the pipeline and may projects coming down the pipeline in later years. We are very afraid of for our cities that youre taking very drastic step that if not carefully considered going to find ourselves here are 510 years down the road with a worse problem with a worse crisis where more people will not have access to Affordable Housing boxes to any kind of housing. So, i urge you to carefully consider the key provisions being discussed to amend the Charter Amendment or at least discuss trailing ordinance is that can put in place adequate grandfathering for existing projects and feasibility. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is daniel my renter in there. Basically on for removing the percentage of bmr from the charter and doing a Feasibility Study. Would sound like everyone on the board was sort of on that page. I think we need to stop focusing on those maximizing percentage of Affordable Housing. In maximizing we do need to focus on the maximizing the amount of it which is subtly different but not exactly the same thing. Princes nephew of 40 in a building and make 50 of it then you wind up with six inclusionary units. View 100 unit building need to 12 you wind up with a 12 inclusionary units was actually twice the number helps bring up the price at the type of market pulse. I dont have a specific percentage want to recommend but i think we need to draw both about propositions and do a study, Feasibility Study to figure out what we can do to maximize the wrong number of inclusionary units we can build in the city. Some people also mentioned alternatives for way too fund the turn of husband product three. While we taxing insane runs . Why dont we tax that endusers pay for inclusionary housing. People that get Capital Gains from houses they bought a long time ago especially landlords to make a killing after they sell the building. Lets tax that. Last but not least maybe we could increase the property tax rate on houses are such that more than 1 million. I knows were not short on 1 million houses. Job the percentage on the charter and lets do a Feasibility Study and maximize the number of inclusionary units. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is moses see in this of the simple and quick. We need more Affordable Housing now. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I like to thank supervisors kim for this proposal and peskin my name is jesse john spent on longterm resident of the tenderloin. A maypole. Im the founder of tenderlointhe peoples congress. More poorly on one of the growing number of people eager to take back our lives. Please do this on about and we will win. The stronger proposal just give us an opportunity to do so. Thank you. Next speaker, please. This inclusionary Charter Amendment is a tool in the fight for Affordable Housing. Its not the cure but its a tool in the fight. It doesnt keep in mind the numbers that we keep talking about can keep this from seeing the human side of our situation. We are talking about numbers but were also talked about people. But keep that in mind. The many seniors that are priced out of the city. Felix the senior costofliving index a senior who runs a onebedroom apartment needs 1250 to pay the rent by the Senior Investment 2011. Those numbers were off the charts. Theyre much high. Many seniors have two choose between medicine and food. In the lowend of a my 50 , 67 is an attainable to many seem. We need to redefine what affordable is according to the reality of what were seen on the ground. Thats not studied this problem any further. Were out of balance in our housing goes. That is clear. Was doubled inclusionary requirements. Double is doable. I will repeat again, double is doable. 25 is modest. We need much more. Lets hold accountable to the developers. Thats what this is about. Withhold developers accountable. I appreciate the energy and passion that ive seen on the board about this issue. The backandforth, i mean the heat of it almost is the most like tarzan versus jane. I do appreciate it and thats make the right decision. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My Development Background in San Francisco includes one of development in [inaudible]. I agree the citys Affordable Housing policy is very important proof in terms of economic and human impact. Maybe San Francisco is a leader in this regard. The unjust Public Housing to inclusionary housing and publicprivate partnerships. However, once each of these tools reaches a saturation point we need to try other approaches. As a fix mandate schools can lead to negative unintended consequence. Recent efforts is baited the roundtable on income inequality. To the palace and could economic from stanford and uc berkeley they shared a number of key insights which is in or it could raise the cost of living driving out middleclass residents creating a bilevel Income Distribution and decreasing Affordable Housing production. Please speak directly into the microphone the board would [inaudible] given impressive mechanized prior to voting i encourage the board to do an indepth study. First, as to the s

© 2025 Vimarsana