100,000 more per unit because we cant access federal and state funds for those apartments, and so we have those cost constraints that really are important to consider. If were putting 100,000 extra to put an apartment that is affordable to somebody at 100 of a. M. I. Or 120 of a. M. I. Then that means less Affordable Housing to other groups of people who are desperately in need, like people experiencing homelessness. What we have by increasing the definition of middleIncome Housing, it does two things. It reaches more middleincome houses, and for a household of three, looking at for a twobedroom apartment on the market, if instead of paying the market rent, which is about 4600 a month if youre out there on your own, looking for an apartment, you would save 1,000 a month at that 40 a. M. I. Rent. 1,000 a month for a working family. That is significant. That makes a difference, and that could be the decisifactor family deciding to stay in San Francisco or not. This is simply an additive tool. It is not in any way diminishing of the other very important programs that mohcd is focused on. In fact, by bringing in another tool, more financial resources, it frees us up and provides it preserves resources we have to build the housing that cannot in any way benefit from a cross subsidy like housing for seniors and housing for extremely lowincome howusehols and housing for homeless. So those are our plans, to bring another tool into the toolkit, and to address the fact that we are not serving our middleincome households well. Obviously, teacher housing is so important to our city, and we are really, really excited about Francis Scott key. That as people have already noted, that Development Timeline is very long because of the need to rezone, and by the by the length of that timeline, the costs are going to go up, and that means more mohcd money needs to go into that development. Right now, weve reserved about 40 million for that development, so if we were to replicate Francis Scott key and theres nothing wrong with that. Its going to be a great project, its just putting another educator Housing Development in the cue, and having to make choices, should we build another educator housing projector should we build housing for lowincome working households or Senior Housing . Again, by using cross subsidies as is done very routinely across the country, across the world, we add a financing tool that will allow us to build more teacher housing faster, and thats its as simple as that, it just provides more resources to meet our goals. Supervisor peskin madam chair, if i can just in for just a second. Chair ronen absolutely. Supervisor peskin much is being made of and the word teacher is being bantied about, and the word educator housing is being bantied about. Was this discussed with uesf . We did meet with uesf, and we have benefited from the relationship of working closely with the city and uesf on Francis Scott key. Supervisor peskin im not talking about Francis Scott key. This is a piece of Global Policy that one particular development is being used to justify this definition of what constitutes educator housing and lock its in the charter. Locks it in the charter. How come the uesf does not support this plan . Their name is being used in the charter, and they do not support it. We have worked extensively with uesf at Francis Scott key. We know what it takes to build affordable teacher housing, and we know what the cost is, and we know what the other competing goals of Affordable Housing Development Goals are in this city, and they are many and theyre deep. Supervisor peskin and today i dont want to be argumentative, but in todays San Francisco examiner, the president of uesf actually authored a piece that supports the measure that supervisor fewer and two other former board of education president s and this supervisor introduced and does not support the Charter Amendment that being done in our name. And with all due respect to the president of the board, the Initiative Ordinance recommended by the afford and put forward by the board also will not help Francis Scott key accelerate its development, and so there has not been in my view a careful analysis of what we actually need to accelerate Affordable Housing. Supervisor peskin i am happy to have a hearing on Francis Scott key to determine what is true and not true, but i know there was an exchange earlier between yourself and staff to supervisor fewers office where there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether or not that project is an sb 35 project or not. We believe it is. It currently doesnt qualify for sb 35 because the project had to be rezoned, and the unit mix of the initiative proposed by the board would require redesign in order to take advantage of it at Francis Scott key. Supervisor fewer im so sorry, miss hartley, but what i just clarified with my question before, the boards initiative actually allows for the unit mix to be amended by the board. In fact, the board could introduce legislation now pending the passing of this initiative, so that would actually allow the the unit mix to be flexible on this. And actually, the board has it within its power to do that. So actually what youre saying is not actually necessarily 100 truthful because you can amend actually the unit mix if the boards initiative were to pass. It gives them the flexibility to do that. So really your statement isnt quite true, and it with all due respect because it is true that under sb 35, we would have to change the configuration of the units and have not so many threebedroom units. But however u the boa, the boa to do that with a board twothird vote. So thats not to say this is what would completely eliminate it for being eligible for sb 35. We could actually amend the board the board could amend it so that it would fit within the parameters of sb 35, isnt that correct . Well, in the veracity of my statement, the initiative can not include Francis Scott key. If the board chooses to amend that and bring Francis Scott key in, yes. But as originally drafted, it did not. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Chair ronen miss hartley, i just wanted to pick up on supervisor peskins point because for me something thats very much influencing my opinion on these pieces of legislation is the voice of teachers. This is being done in their name, and the voice of teachers and teachers themselves are saying they dont agree with the approach that the mayor has taken. And you havent answered supervisors peskins question, and thats an incredibly important part and piece of this puzzle that were all trying to work out together. So i actually want you to actually answer that question. Have you had conversations with a teacher, and why what is the divide there . Why are the very people that that thats name is being invoked not in support of it . I cant speak for them, but what i can tell you is this. The city has come in in partnership with uesf and sfusd to provide a huge amount of financing for educator housing. The School District has not stepped forward with the tens of millions of dollars to build educator housing, and so uesfs concern has not been on how do we how do we finance this . How do we make educator housing feasible . It just hasnt been part of their analysis because they havent had to take responsibility for actually paying for the housing, the city has and so just, if i could just finish. Chair ronen sure, sure. And so thats, i think, the disconnect here. As we approach this, weve been trying to figure out how could we build more Affordable Housing faster knowing what the cost needs are . And uesf and i respect every member of uesf. This is not in any way meant as a criticism, but that has not had to be their concern, and that is the disconnect. Chair ronen well, if thats how you perceive the disconnect, i would disagree because it was uesf that worked with this board of supervisors to ensure that some of the bond money, should the bond hopefully pass in november, be particularly reserved for those projects. And given whether theyll be 44 teacher housing, these projects that are built or 100 teacher housing is a big question. Im very much looking forward to hearing i see the teachers themselves in the audience. Im looking forward to hearing from them myself since you cant speak for them, obviously, but as the director of the Mayors Office of housing, it is a little disappointing not to hear from you that there was serious engagement and an effort to reach consensus with the teachers. If youre going to have ballot measures in their name, youd think that they would be supporting the ballot measure, and thats a real big problem here. Its glaringly a glaring problem in your proposal. Supervisor peskin if i can just jump in for a second, Charter Amendments are very different than Initiative Ordinances, policy declarations, ordinances that we pass here at the board of supervisors. The reason Charter Amendments have to sit in committee and have to sit at the full board is because it is our constitution. It is a sacrosanct document. And since 1932 or maybe charters before 1932, its really the province of the legislative branch of government to put them on the ballot. Theres of course another way to do it, which is you can go out and get tens of thousands of signatures which is rarely done and is very expensive and timeconsuming. The reason im saying that is because when you go to the ballot with the Charter Amendment, it requires broad consensus. So i want to take this out of the realm that this is board v. Mayor. The fact of getting consensus of the community whose name is invoked is a sign to this body that its not ready for prime time. Without splitting hairs over Francis Scott key and rezoning and ossifying parts of the charter. It doesnt pass the smell test when you need to have consensus, and that is what this represents. This is the peoples house, and when you havent gotten together with the united educators of San Francisco, that should be a very clear signal to this board that its not ready to mess with this sacrosanct thing that is our constitution. Just to reiterate, we did meet with uesf, and our goal is very simple. That is to provide more educator housing more quickly. If we replicate Francis Scott key, its just put transgendti the key at a 40 million cost and competing it with other pressing needs, like affordability housing, and bringing in a modest tool that is proven successful with cross subsidies, so thats its really been our simple goal to accelerate more Affordable Housing. Chair ronen thank you. Thank you. Chair ronen oh, im sorry. Supervisor walton has a question . Miss hartley . Thanks. Supervisor walton my apologies. I didnt know if you were done with your presentation. So the first thing i just want to say and then, i have two questions. But of course, we are responsible for stepping up to fund teacher housing. Its our job to do that as a city. Our teachers live here, they work here, so thats our job. So whether its educator housing, housing for city employees, housing for lowincome communities, of course its our job to fund that housing, and it should not be the burden of those people to provide those jobs. Its our job. I hope were not saying that because the educators or School District did not put up any money for housing, that its their fault, because its our job to put up money for housing. My first question and thank you, director hartley, for the presentation. Wheres the bulk of all housing being built in San Francisco. Well, the bulk of housing being built in San Francisco is d6 and d10. Since 2008, there was about 28,000 homes added, so thats about 2800 homes a year. The bulk of all housing is d6, d10. Supervisor walton my last question is just who holds up the rezoning timeline for Francis Scott key . Its who holds it up . Its the e. I. R. , its the environmental review. Supervisor walton thank you. Cha and in the interests of time, to let the public respond, ill be very, very brief. When we first introduced this Charter Amendment, we worked immediately with the School District, with uesf. We asked them to come meet, we asked them for comment. It was very challenging to work with them let me just qualify what i said. They came to the at the same, we worked together. They wanted us to work with the board of supervisors to come up with a deal. So that was the message, it was a fair message, we acknowledge that message. From that point forward, i tried to work with many members of this board and their staff, and there was not really a desire really, to be honest, to really engage on the contest. I was happy to try to strike a deal on the on the definition of teacher housing. We should. Theres no reason why we shouldnt. Our definitions are not that far apart, so i just think it was an unfortunate sort of conflict of events, but it was my desire to try to come up with a compromise, but with that said, i would just like to request a couple of amendments to our Charter Amendment for the amendment for the committee to consider. As it relates specifically to teacher housing, a lot of the conversation has been on teacher housing, and thats fair. So i would suggest in the amendment, we delete the definition of teacher housing. And the way that we can ensure that teacher housing can come back in, theres a provision late in the charter that allows for amendability for other type housing. I think supervisor ronen menti mentioned that in her opening remarks. So by having that provision in there, it would allow for the board at a later date to create a definition for future housing, so thats how we can solve for that. So in that handout that ive given you that reflected item number 1 and number 2, number 3 is just a basically sort of clarifying action to update the definition of 100 affordable to reflect the mayors version in the Initiative Ordinance which had the time to think through. Everyone agrees we want housing above and neighborhood serving uses on the ground floor, so we just wanted to make that clarification to the amendment. Supervisor peskin has raised this issue, and its a fair one. Were suggesting that projects that are frankly a small portion of the total volume of projects, projects that today fall under the purview of the Historic Preservation commission, were suggesting that those projects continue to fall under the jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation commission, so there would be an amend that strike does out that amendment that strikes out that provision, and then, the rest are conforming amendments. Thank you. Chair ronen thank you. Is there anymore comments from my colleagues . Supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer so mr. Powers, i just want to emphasize that the Charter Amendments reflect 140 of a. M. I. And high school also, in housiu exclude the ability for us to include marketrate housing on that. So you, again, another ability for marketrate housing by right. No. To be clear, its the opposite. So the amendment that im proposing would be housing types that are market rate housing to be amended in. [please stand by] o an i think we work. Krer responsibility of the legislative branch of the city and county of San Francisco. You trying to regulate human greed so that everybody has a chance here. So i just wanted to make sure and on comment that this is not personal, and i know that the mayor wants also to build more housing as we do, too. And as you know, the board is the one that actually put forth a steady funding stream for Affordable Housing because we so desperately need it. I wanted to emphasize, and i know you work for the mayor, i wanted to tell you and also miss hartly this is not personal, this is ideology, our responsibility as legislators and this is what this branch does. It actually has only within its power to legislate in order to regulate human greed and at this time i think what we are looking at is, although i appreciate the amendments coming forward, i just have to ask ourselves once again who are we leaving behind. Thank you, mr. Powers. I would go into public comment, i would say this is not about human greed, this is about all of these units with the amendments i just suggested are below market rate units, so this is not market rate units we are talking about. This is housing for people who live in San Francisco, staff, for nonprofit workers that make above the amount of that currently qualifies them, above the amount we are producing housing for. So, this is about real people in San Francisco who cant find housing, the market is not producing housing for. Mr. Powers, i would remind you real people in San Francisco cant find housing are also making 60,000 a year. When you, when you are asking that if the 140 of a. M. I. Without requiring any other building at lower levels, yes, this is about him and greed. This is about not mandating what actually lower income people also need to be able to live here. So, im so sorry that we have a disagreement about how this would manifest itself into an issue of greed. It is about money. Lets just face it. When developers are looking to develop a building, if they can develop everything at 140 of a. M. I. , this is what they build unless we mandate it. Anything we do for poor people in this country, frankly, must always be mandated because people dont willingly give up their profits for this. So, i just want to say that im sorry that we disagree on the view of this and how i understand that there are people trying to live here in San Francisco and we, and i get that. However, i just wanted to emphasize that if we redefine what Affordable Housing is, 140 of a. M. I. And they can build up to that and we dont require any averaging at all, which would allow also to build at 160 of a. M. I. , but an averaging that quite frankly i have to ask you and i have to ask everybody else who are we leaving behind and have we thought about who we are leaving behind. Im sorry that we have a difference of opinion in this. Again, this is not personal. Its completely ideology. I appreciate that and i agree with you, it is not personal and i would just say this is additive, not about leaving anybody behind, this is adding on top of the great work the city is already doing around Affordable Housing, thank you. Did you have i will comment later, ok. I did have one followup question and then we really will open this up to public comment. Given that, and this could be either for kate hartly, maybe the best person to answer this question. Given that is there any example anywhere in the United States of america of a private developer who has a choice of either, you know, building a market rate project where they could get wild profits or for being tapped out at 140, that they would choose the other . What we are getting in return isnt that much time, and the cost to go through discretionary review, and the examples we have had where there are Affordable Housing projects, we are talking about 100 days for something, the majority of the projects and there has not been that many of them. The few of them at least in my district, delay has been 100 days around there. Is 100 days really worth it to a private developer who has profit as their motive to choose this option as opposed to a market rate project . I think the question is really about certainty. When a developer goes to, into San Francisco, theres no certainty that after investing millions of dollars in the site acquisition and architectural work and soils testing and those sorts of things, that in fact that building will actually get built because the discretionary review process is so broad and the standard to bring d. R. Is so low. Do you have examples of anywhere else in the country where lets say buy right exists and they have chosen to build a project thats going to garner them less profits over one that would produce more . Do you have one example . I want to hear about one example. We do do things differently than other places in the country. So, for example, in new york city, 90 its not discretionary review so 90 of all buildings developed never see the inside of a Planning Commission hearing room. Its if you are code conforming you can build. Now, i mean, clearly a market rate developer will want to maximize their profits. But if the risk is low, and you are in a neighborhood where, you know, theres working class people you have, you know, you build in a way that you approximate the rents because theres going to be competition. So, what we have done is make buildings so risky and so, take so long that it costs more. Can i ask you about that that claim that its so risky . I mean, between 2014 and 2018, planning has approved 195 projects and has denied six. Is it really that risky . Well, what we have created is a system where developers go out to the community and theres Community Discussion and theres Community Agreements and theres a lot of back and forth, and that takes a long time and drives costs up. Now, like in many cases thats great, you know. I have devoted my career to an Affordable Housing development so the more Affordable Housing the better. We have also seen deals and in your District Supervisor recently after a very lengthy community iterative process and the expenditure of millions of dollars, two developments trying to go forward could not in fact. And so that is thats what sometimes happens when the risks are great, the costs are high, and we get these Great Community benefits that then tip those particular parcels and i think you know the two that im thinking of. I do know the two you are thinking of, and one has been purchased by the city and 100 Affordable Housing. I dont know if its the worst outcome from that project. I dont think we need to belabor this point, i dont think you can point to one example and thats what worries me, right . I mean aside from little excellent arguments made by my colleagues around, you know, sort of putting a definition of Affordable Housing that includes one individual who earns 128,000 a year, which is very problematic, i dont think it would work anyway because what developer who whats the 1956, you get like an additional few months, you know, extra and you earn profits at a much lower rate. It doesnt even make sense to me. Supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin i was going to add one thing. I think the whole d. R. Conversation is a red herring. But that process, im always fond of saying i would much rather have a fender bender than a headon collision, and that process actually allows people to be heard, when you bottle that up, the only place those people can be heard is in the court of last resort across the street. Superior court which does bring financing and a project to its knees. So, when people cant come in and make a project better and participate in that as members of the community which is why San Francisco actually is unique and is better, then they end up in the superior court because they have not been able to be heard at all. And that leads to real delay and real cost escalation, not 100 days as a matter of fact, if you think about the project in supervisor ronens district, the province sponsor said they appreciated the 90day delay and the Community Input and that was what they said in the San Francisco chronicle article, thats what meta said. So, whatever. Thats right. Im so sorry i missed supervisor waltons name. Supervisor walton. And also unique and better but also building, actually. Director hartly, a quick question, what happens in the rare occasion that developments dont go forward . Sometimes people go bankrupt, they lose a lot of money, we did have the benefit of, 1515 south van ness of being able to buy that for Affordable Housing. Sell the property, sell the land, somebody still makes money, correct . Usually somebody loses a lot of money and someone has a chance to make money, yes. Bigger pockets. Yes. Cycle continues, developers still make money. I guess i the cycle that we have created has also created a city with the most expensive rents in the country. We are building at levels higher than most municipalities in the state. I dont understand highest serious displacement project and no, no middle income production, and thats really thats really a a shame. It is building middle Income Housing and your statement just now is no middle Income Housing. No, if i could clarify. The most amount of production is in d6 and d10. Between 2014 and 2018, only 710 units of middle Income Housing produced. So, thats 20,000 units and 710, some of those units of the 20,000 are affordable, and we can build those by, with the benefit of what the city, the board and the mayor put forward in resources but also state and federal resources that we leverage, but no state and federal resources for middle Income Housing. I want to clarify there are resources in the ordinance my colleagues and i are putting forward to allow us to go up to 160 a. M. I. Addressed as well. Teacher housing definition of one fifth of units reserved up to 160, you really cant, and this is a little technical wonky, but you really cant finance that development in a way that wont require significant amounts of money and ill tell you why. Because between one if you are restricting teacher housing 100 of the units to teacher housing, and i understand the ideological desire to do that, but what you are saying is we are going to get additional financial benefit because we are going to go all the way up to 160 of a. M. I. For teachers at that higher income. But when you get when you so restrict the pool of potential applicants to only teachers and only teachers who make up to 160 a. M. I. Which is the purpose, which is the purpose, strictly for that population. Which is great, on its face. But when you try to go when you go to the bank and you say im going to finance this development with affordable teacher housing from 50 a. M. I. To 140 a. M. I. For 80 of the units and borrow money based upon 20 of the units of people paying, who can afford rents, because they are at 160. The bank is going to do, require whats called a demand study and look at that and go you know that pool of people is so low. Thats the pot of city dollars. Back to where we are at Francis Scott key model. I would like to clarify one thing, yes, that 140 a. M. I. For one person household is 120,700, and i think that the boards Initiative Ordinance has a good provision, and that is if you have a studio or one bedroom at that rent level, it should be occupied by two people, and that is that means that you are serving two people who earn 60,000 a year. For a twoperson household, its 137,900. So, really, at 140 of a. M. I. , with multiple people in the household, which is who we would serve in a Development Like this, you are serving people who earn between 60,000 a year and 70, 75,000 a year. Thats two teachers, thats those are most c. D. Loan administrators, those are administrative assistants. So, its that its that cohort of middle income households that are, they make too much to qualify for our low Income Housing but dont make enough to be able to rent or buy market rate housing. I would like to also say that you know, 140 of a. M. I. Would mean the cheapest units, studio, would be over 3,000 a month. And from what you just said is that two people should live in the studio, and then it would hit the lower levels. Ok. So also, i just want to say that the idea that you say well then two people should live in the studio. How sustainable is that . I i just think currently the idea really, when we are looking at the rental rates, you know, a studio would be the cheapest, and that would be at 3,000 a month rent. I i just dont understand sort of the reasoning, and then to say oh, thats really affordable because then two people can live in a studio for, you know, 3,000 a month. Anyway, i just wanted to make that point. I dont need a response. I just wanted to make that point. I would if i could, through the chair, i would like to respond because what i was trying to get at is that sort of housing that we are we are building, Affordable Housing, yes, there are some studios but mostly ones, most by two bedrooms and some three bedrooms and so when a household of three can save 1,000 a month, a household of three at 140 a. M. I. Can save 1,000 a month in their rent and they would at 140 a. M. I. Rent, that makes a difference. And developers dont build 100 studios, thats not marketable. What they build are mostly twos and ones, some threes and some studios, and so that i think its important to think more holistically, i agree the studio rent and the oneperson a. M. I. Is problematic and ways to address that. But in no way am i suggesting that this is great because two people can live in a studio and pay 3,000 a month. Im thinking about the three the couple and their kid who can save 1,000 a month. And stay in San Francisco. I want to say 140 of medium for a two bedroom is almost 3,900 a month. I just dont see that at affordable level. Its 3,900, almost 4,000 a month. I guess whats affordable to some is unaffordable to others. So anyway, i wanted to emphasize that. I, you know, i think we are building for all types of households here. We are building for people, single people, maybe are and we are building for people who have just a partner, we are building i just think when you say its all at 140 , this is what you allow that. This is what we are looking at. We are looking at one bedroom being almost 3,500 a month, two bedrooms almost 3900 a month. Thank you. Thank you so much. And i want to thank the public for your patience in waiting to speak. If theres no more comments from my colleagues, then i will now open this item up for public comment. If you could line up behind mr. Wright on this side well just take people in the order that they line up and each member of the public will have two minutes. Mr. Wright. First of all, im not surprised about her demonstration and everybody elses demonstration coming from the Mayors Office. Shes a biggot, pathological liar and corrupt and organized enterprise and pricefixing and gouging, listen to her, like americas dumbest criminal, justfies and tells on herself. And 15 of the Apartment Building complexes is supposed to be for very low and low income bracket people, stated in the charter section 410 pertaining to the rehabilitation act. Redevelopment act. Sf viewer, please. Now, you talk about ive shown you well over several times the cheapest rate for buying an Apartment Building complex, demonstrate the two towers you pay 56 million for 144 Apartment Unit complex is the best rate by a nonprofit developer that you can get. Stop dealing with profit developers. Thats why we keep having this problem. Ive said that over and over again and i think you are going to catch on this time. Now, sf viewer, please. Here is an 87 unit Apartment Building complex thats being built, ok, 64 million. What i demonstrated before you in the past, but this developer here is 100 nonprofit, low income Housing Development. Thats the kind of people you need to build Apartment Building complex in the city and county of San Francisco, is that clear . God damn a. M. I. , 140 of a. M. I. Is for Affordable Housing, thats 120,700 an year. Then you go to 80 , thats 68,950 a year. Thats not Affordable Housing. You are not including income thats very low and low income brackets, so every income below that point is a plaintiff in a class action. Speaker time has elapsed. Thank you, mr. Wright. Next speaker, please. Next speaker, please. Next speaker, please. Hello, supervisors. My name is rosa maria covala. Many of you know me as my work as a housing rights advocate as tenderloin housing clinic. Im here on my nonwork lunchtime, very important to state that, to speak in favor of the boards Affordable Homes for educators and families now Initiative Ordinance. Thank you very much for this Initiative Ordinance. As a resident of district 5 now, myself, a low income tenants rights advocate and having been low income myself for most of my life, i have seen individuals attempt to corrupt the definition of Affordable Housing for low income individuals. I am pleased the boards initiative was initiated in collaborators with educators, a. F. T. And others in San Francisco and does not attempt to corrupt Affordable Housing to increase income levels. Thank you very much, supervisors. Good morning, supervisors, james tracy, adjunct instructor at city college of San Francisco and also serve as a political director for a. F. T. 2121. Thank you both the supervisors and the mayor for pushing forward this vital issue around housing. Not just for teachers because we really believe that every single last person who works in Public Schools, whether they be janitors, para professionals, adjuncts, can also double as lyft drivers and uber drivers, we are all educators and we want to make sure that whatever policies are put forward, take that into consideration and build housing for school staff. We have not had a chance to take a position on either one of the of those, of the proposals yet. Painly because our code has not met this summer but do embrace the idea of income averaging. Embrace the idea of Affordable Housing in all neighborhoods, including especially those that have been resistant towards Affordable Housing in the past and we think there is definitely room for dialogue around streamlining because we do know we are in middle of one of the worst crisises in housing the city has ever seen. Thank you very much for your work on this. And see how it works out. Hello, supervisors. My name is bot akafariman. Grow the richmond, 300 odd neighbors and businesses advocating for more housing, better transit and helping homelessness, among other things. Im here because im very frustrated in part with some of the statements i heard today, i am not going to nitpick them all today, time for that later on twitter. Frankly, frankly, who we are leaving behind are the 10,000 people who were stuck on the wait list every time some 80 or 60 units get built. Income restricted, the city puts up money for it. Frankly, we all know no matter what the definition is, the Charter Amendment tries to put forward, most of these proposals need federal money and that money is restricted at 60 or less. So, its a little disingenuous. A year and a half ago in january of 2018, there was communities, and supervisor fewers office was there, a lot of folks were in a Community Meeting about housing and the future housing in the richmond district. In that meeting people dont quibble about the things you are all quibbling about today. They are not quibbling about the percentages, the incomes, they know when they go to the system and apply they see 0 results, they see delays, years and years of delays. My question is who are you trying to protect with keeping discretionary review in the charter. Who are you trying to protect, when they are trying to appeal below market rate, subsidized housing, financed by the city, the state and the feds. Who are you trying to protect . Because its not the people who need it the most. Thank you. Hello, claudia terato, teacher, third grade teacher. Im here because i rise, i have been rising and fighting for my stay here in San Francisco for years and ive taught 19 years in the unified School District. Ive seen many of my children, my students graduate, go to college, come and talk to me and say hi to me and my own son. Finally, i have my own baby. And i want to raise him in my school, raise him in my city, raise him in my School District, and i get an eviction notice while im breastfeeding him. Two years i waited and then im like ok, we are learning to walk, guess what, well walk the streets and we are going to protest because this is wrong. Its wrong for teachers to be taken advantage because they are busy teaching. That is wrong for the city to not include us in the discussion of what to do with this free property, public money, public land that was given to developers not for them to like just starve us out and not include all of the teachers, all the educators, in the School District. Im talking from the para professional who has, like the most difficult students sidebyside telling them they can love them and they can do the work, from all the teachers that spent hours there, from 7 to 5 30 at night and come to find out that this is happening behind our backs, that we are not even included in the discussion and then you want 10 million more . You already have the land, like how much money do you want . This is public, public, this is our public forum, public tax money, Public Schools, Public School teachers. We should be not working with the greedy developers, we need our own developers, we need to groom our own developers so we can have Affordable Housing for everyone here. Hello, im here in support of the Affordable Homes for educators and families now initiative. Im katy waller oconnor, born and raised in San Francisco. Im a counselor at Hoover Middle School in the sunset district. One day in hoover one student was sent to my office she was crying in class. She shared with me about how her favorite brother was just murdered that past weekend in mexico. She describes in detail how the gangsters had slashed his face to the point he was unrecognize ablg. After lunch the fire alarm was set off, didnt know why, we ran into the halls to see our assistant principal covered in fire extinguisher white powder after one of the students ripped it out of the wall and continued to spray him down. Needless to say, it was a challenging day at work. That day i came home to an eviction notice on my front door of my rent controlled apartment in the Marina District in San Francisco. Im not sure that day could have been any more overwhelming. However, the next day i received an email that i had won a lottery for affordable studio condo in the shipyard, hunters point, true story. The next year i moved into the condo, got engaged, ecstatic. The next year i got married, wonderful. The next year i had a baby, magical. That brings us to this year. The three of us crammed into a 500 square foot studio. Not feeling so ecstatic, wonderful and or magical. We need a bigger space. When i inquired with the city to qualify for a larger unit i was told i would have to sell the condo, a process that takes about a year, move out, and then rent another place for three years, and then reapply for a larger unit. Fouryear process, no thank you. This is who you are leaving behind. I am a graduate from u. C. Berkeley thank you so much, appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you so much, we hear you. Thank you so much. I would like to note the speaker time has lapsed and the microphones are off. Before you begin, i would like to note that supervisor haney has joined us and now a special meeting of the board of supervisors. Address your comments to the members of the committee and not to the audience. Thank you. Hi, my name is jenny, and im here supporting the ordinance. Within the past few years, two family members who have worked for the San Francisco unified School District had to quit and move, and my boyfriend is a special ed teacher, pays 1,000 a month to rent a room with no proper kitchen. Our School District is losing teachers who want to help our kids. I hope this program is considered. Good morning. My name is annabelle, representing over 200 over 6200 para educators and teachers that are very difficult to work with because what we want is to ensure that the city implements a policy that not only includes middle income families but it also includes low income members of this community. United educators of San Francisco is uniquely positioned because our members are directly impacted as are the families of the students we serve as a result of the housing crisis in San Francisco. When there was a survey of educator sz we were stunned to find spending roughly 64 of their salary on housing. For those creative educators who choose to live in San Francisco because they share the values of our city, it is hard to choose another district because the cost of because the housing costs are excessive. Educators are supporting the Affordable Homes for educators and families now initiative. We were provided an opportunity to share the development of this initiative, to ensure that no educator would be left behind because of the makeup of their families. Affordable homes for educators now and Families Initiative as a critical aspect to ensure that our educators and working families are thrown a lifeline as they do what they love, educating students of San Francisco. We see this process as a model for the ways in which government entities, Public Service entities like the School District, uasf, Community Based organizations to Work Together towards solutions that can help field healthy communities. We are glad that through this initiative we can increase Affordable Housing and remove the barriers, but also flexible to make adjustments as we evaluate the process. I hope the board continues to support this initiative [microphone off] hi. Im wind kaufman from aft2121. Teacher at the college of San Francisco and Vice President of the faculty union. As my colleague james tracey previously said, our union has not officially come to positions on either the Charter Amendment or the initiatives because we are in summer mode and its hard to get our members together to come to consensus. However, we have agreed upon basic principles and i can speak to those. One is that we have passed a resolution that says public land should be kept in public hands for the public good. And i find it very concerning that the Charter Amendment institutional izes not necessarily affordable and built on public land and built by private developers and as supervisor ronen observed, they are driven by profit. So, thats very concerning. The idea of making the definitions so we really dont leave people behind is something that of course aft2121 is behind and can support. Given that, i think any development by a private developer should be seriously, you know, seen with concern. 30 more seconds. So, i guess i ask you to think out of the box and not go to private developers to develop these projects because you know, when you have Something Like thats going on in the balboa reservoir, a private developer whose c. E. O. Makes 7 million a year, its just motivation is not going to be for the people who cant