Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Budget And Finance Appropriations Committees 20240712

For broadcasting this meeting. Madame clerk, any announcements . Clerk yes, madame chair. Due to the covid19 Health Emergency and to protect board members, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and Committee Room are closed, however members will be participating in the meeting remotely. This precaution is taken pursuant to the various local, state orders. Committee members will attend the meeting through video conference. Public comment will be available on each item on this agenda, both channel 26 and sfgovtv are streaming the number across the screen. Each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. You can call 14156550001, meeting i. D. , 146 812 0226. Again, 146 812 0226 then press pound twice. When connected, youll hear the meeting discussion, but you will be muted and in listening mode only. When the item of interest comes up, dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. Best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. You can submit Public Comment in any of the following ways. Extre email myself, the committee clerk. It will be forwarded to the supervisors and included as part of the official file. Finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda on august 11, unless otherwise stated. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Madame clerk, can you call item number 1. Item 1, resolution approving and authorizing the director of the Mayors Office of housing to execute documents relating to loans for the acquisition, rehabilitation or permanent financing of 270 turk street pursuant to the Small Site Program, preservation and seismic safety, the Downtown Neighborhood Preservation Fund and the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund not to exceed 31. 7 million. Members of the public who wish to provide Public Comment on this item should call 14156550001, 146 812 0226, and then press pound twice. If you have not done so, press star 3 to line up to speak. Please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Today we have with us m. O. C. D. And amy chan is here available for questions. Caroline, the floor is yours. Great. Good morning, chair fewer and supervisors. Im from the Mayors Office of Housing Community development and i work specifically on our acquisition and preservation team. Before you is a request to authorize m. O. C. D. To provide up to 31. 8 million in permanent financing for 270 turk street. The project involved preservation of an 86unit building in the tenderloin that houses primarily lowincome individuals. 276 turk street comes to us through the Housing Accelerator Fund which provided the bridge financing required to take the building off the market quickly and prevent the displacement of the lowincome residents. The building was previously owned and operated by veritas and we consider a significant win that the project will now be permanent Affordable Housing, given that the majority of residents are folks who work in the Service Industry downtown, who are feeling the negative impacts of covid, which is even more important now than ever that this building be stabilized. Mocd financing will pay off the acquisition and rehabilitation loan provided by the fund and cover other permanent financing costs. As described in detail in the b. L. A. Report, were requesting amounts that allow the project to close financing under two possible scenarios. The scenario described as scenario a in the b. L. A. Report assumes to the project centers into enters into a 20year contract so fund 24 stepup housing units. Stepup housing is for folks transitioning from a permanent housing scenario to more independent living. And then the remaining units in the building, so the remaining units other than those 24 units, will be leased. In that scenario, the building wide average is 53 ami. In scenario a, the per unit subsidy is 196,000, which is well below our average acquisition and preservation project. Scenario b under this all units will be leased up through dahlia, similar to our standard acquisition and preservation execution small sites. And in this scenario, the project achieves a building wide average of approximately 65 ami. The city subsidy in this scenario is 231,000 per unit which is also below our average for acquisition and preservation projects and below term sheet. We are working toward the preservation of the project as described in scenario a, so assuming 24 units in contract with h. S. H. , but weve included scenario b in the unlikely scenario that the h. S. H. Contract will not be executed. It has not been executed yet. It really is a timing issue, because the existing bridge financing carries significant interest, we want to make sure that we can convert this project into permanent financing as quickly as possible. And right now the schedule for the anticipated closing is early october of this year. We are requesting two changes to the resolution before you. First, mocd is in support of the b. L. A. Recommendation to correct the upto amount from 3. 31. 78 million to 31. 87 million, which was an unfortunate error in the resolution. The project financing and loan documents are reflective of that 3. 87 million amount. Second, we are requesting clarifying language on the sources of funding where the resolution refers to Small Site Program funding, we request replacing with acquisition Preservation Funding. Since this funding is not a traditional small site, its 86 units, its a big site, were not going to be utilizing fiscal year 1819 eraf funding that the supervisor advocated for. We wanted to clarify that turk is using acquisition and Preservation Funding that is not restricted to small sites only and we appreciate supervisor fewer requesting this distinction. Lastly, we are in support of the recommendation from the b. L. A. That mocd enter into an option to purchase for this project. It is a significant investment in city financing and we agree with their assessment that we should execute loan documents that provide an option for the city to purchase should the building be sold in the future. We have shared a red line of the amendments with the city and clerk and im happy to answer any questions about the project. So are the tenderloin development corporation, the project sponsors. Thank you. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Could we have the b. L. A. Report, please. Good morning, chair fewer, members of the committee, Severin Campbell from the b. L. A. Repeat of what the presentation said, this resolution approves the loan of 31. 9 million to the 270 turk llc which is affiliate of the tenderloin development corporation. It would be used to repay a loan from the Housing Accelerator Fund and other project costs. Page 5 of our report summarizes the loan sources. That 12 million would come from the preservation safety fund. With a balance of 20 million that comes from either the acquisition and Preservation Fund or the Downtown Neighborhood Preservation Fund. Page 6 of our report, sort of again gives a little more detail of the two different options for the loan. Approximately 29 million, depending on whether subsidy is available for from the department of homelessness and Supportive Housing. We consider approval of the proposed resolution to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors because the use of the acquisition and preservation or Neighborhood Preservation Program fund have not been determined and because the subsidy from the department of homelessness and Supportive Housing are not yet finalized. Our recommendation is to state the correct amount of the loan, 31. 87 million and to amend the resolution to request the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development executive director to provide for the action of the city to purchase 270 turk street at a future date. We consider approval to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors and im available for questions. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Any comments or questions from my colleagues . Seeing none, madame clerk oh, supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman i want to understand a little bit better the change that has been made around using eraf small sites to the acquisition and Preservation Fund. What is the acquisition and Preservation Fund that is not small site . It encompasses our anything that doesnt fit that 25 25 and below unit count. So it mirrors the same Program Guidelines as the small sites, but we were making the distinction and changing because we want it clear that the funding for 270 turk is not examining from a pot of coming from a pot of funds that is specific to small site. 1819 eraf fund which were intended for sort of the more traditional small sites which are 5 to 25 units. Supervisor mandelman are we establishing a distinction that not exist before . Supervisor fewer if i may step in. In the resolution, we do call out for specific sources that are would be used for acquisition preservation. And that is pass program, the downtown Preservation Fund and eraf fund. What caroline wants to make a distinction of today is that eraf, 1819 funds were specifically intended for the small sites in a traditional sense. That was with advocacy from supervisor fewer, so we want to make sure if were talking about eraf, were talking about fiscal year 1920. And when were talking about this project, its acquisition preservation and these sources would be three sources called out in the resolution. Hopefully that answers your question. Supervisor mandelman this is an 86unit. I appreciate i appreciate making that distinction. I think there are a lot of there are several districts, supervisor fewers is certainly one, a little bit my district as well, where opportunities for doing Affordable Housing are very limited and so we have been hoping that more focus on some of the smaller buildings might be one path to creating more Affordable Housing or preserving more housing that has functioned as Affordable Housing but hasnt been regulated. And so im grateful for that. I also think that there is tremendous need for funding to acquire larger buildings that are at risk, you know, not at risk, but are on the private market and could be brought into public or nonprofit ownership and so i think we i guess not at this moment, given where we are with the budget, but we need more of both. So anyway, i do want to thank supervisor fewer or chair fewer for ensuring that this pot of money, that i think we all intended to be used for these smaller projects remains. And i think we need to rededicate ourselves to ensuring that we have funding for larger projects that might be in the 50 building that probably on a perdoor basis actually make more sense financially, but dont necessarily achieve our equity goals. Okay. Thanks, everybody. Ill get of the way. Supervisor fewer thank you, supervisor mandelman. I had the same questions when i first saw in the legislation that one of the sources was the small site funding. But also with the preservation and acquisition fund, we could use that money to purchase traditional small sites also. So it doesnt prohibit us from small sites, however, the original intent of that pot of money in the 201819 eraf money was actually specifically for the traditional small site. So i think i think its brought up a lot of questions around how did this project which is 86 units get in on the small sites list. You know, we were provided a list of projects in the queue for small site funding and this project was in the queue for small site funding. And so and really small sites is defined between 5 and 25 units and im just wondering, how are the funds delineated within mohcd . I mean, i wouldnt think that there would be a huge pot of money, all the money is just mixed up together and we say im assuming that there are specific pots of money for specific projects. And so maybe amy chang can answer that and how are funds delineated with mohcd . Sure. And so i think maybe to the heart of the question, in terms of the two fiscal year eraf funding, 1819 which has called for traditional small sites. And then 1920 which came through, where you helped to create the Preservation Fund for future eraf. And that can go more broadly toward preservation. We do account for those funds separately. And so they sit in separate funds and theyre tracked separately and we Program Projects with specific sources of funds based on the restrictions of those funds. So we are tracking them that way. Supervisor fewer then why was i given a list of projects in the queue for smallsite funding and this was in the list with 86unit project was listed . So its confusing as you can see. They said these are the ones in the queue and then one of them was an 86unit building. How do we know the other ones in the queue arent 86unit buildings . I would say two things. One, i think as sort of offhand because small sites has been so popular, we talk about preservation work offhand, shorthand, small sites. Just any kind of preservation. So i think that was a delineation we needed now were clear we need to make that kind of distinction, whereas i think before, any kind of rentcontrolled site, regardless of the size of the project and typically weve been doing within the 5 to 25 units type of acquisition. Weve been calling it small site. We have a Small Site Program with small site guidelines. So i think that would probably just a matter of habit. Your statement about this being the only project on that list and all of the other projects. Continue to be in line with the Small Sites Program of 525 units. So that continues to be our focus and priority. Supervisor fewer great. Thanks. You know and going back to what supervisor mandelman said, i understand that when these opportunities come up, this is a great opportunity for us to purchase this building. I completely get it. However, we also just think in this economic downturn there is going to be great opportunities to purchase a lot of small sites, too. Just because, you know, renters and vacancies and people just kind of done with it. So ill okay. So lets open up for seeing no one else in the queue, lets open up for Public Comment. Madame clerk . Clerk operations is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. Operations, please let us know if there are callers ready. If you have not already done so, press star 3 to be added to the queue. For those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. Are there any callers who wish to comment on item number 1 . Yes, i have one caller in the queue. Hello, actually im calling around the balboa project, so im not sure this is item number 1. Im sorry. Supervisor fewer that is item number 4 and 5. So wed love to hear from you later. Okay, i can come back. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. I will come back. Thank you. Supervisor fewer okay. Any other Public Comment . That completes the queue. Supervisor fewer okay. Thank you very much. Public comment is now closed. So, caroline, would you mind resending me the list of the number of units indicated the list resend the list to me of all the small sites in the queue and with the number of units indicated next to each project . Thank you very much. Yeah, will do. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. So before us, we have b. L. A. Recommendations that i would like to adopt. And so i think that and you have amendments also, is that correct, in the legislation that so are these b. L. A. Recommendations all in your amendments . Or are they the only the correction to the loan amount is in the amendments that we shared with the committee and the clerk today. The amendment to pursue an option to purchase is not. But we do have some recommended language from the City Attorney that we can read into the record. Supervisor fewer lets do this first. I think i would like to formally take a vote to adopt the recommendations from the b. L. A. Supervisor mandelman can staff just talk a little bit about how the option would work . Is the regulatory agreement like a 55year how long is the regulatory agreement . Its 75 years or the life of the project, is our standard acquisition and preservation restriction. Supervisor mandelman and then the option that entire time . It does. Essentially, another loan document that we enter into, if the owner were to sell in the future, we would have that first right to purchase. Supervisor mandelman and the price is fair market value . Exactly, yes. Supervisor fewer okay. Supervisor mandelman yep. Supervisor fewer okay. So the amendments that staff has brought forward will need to be continued, i think theyre substantive and well have to continue it until the september 2nd Committee Meeting. So first, madame clerk, should we adopt the recommendations from the b. L. A. And then approve the amendments . Clerk yes, madame chair. Supervisor fewer id like to make a motion to adopt the recommendations from the b. L. A. Could i have a roll call vote, please . On the motion, supervisor walton. Walton aye. Mandelman aye. Chair fewer aye. Your ayes are three ayes. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Id like to adopt the approve the amendments made by staff. Could we have a roll call vote . Yes, on the motion, supervisor walton aye. Mandelman aye. Chair fewer aye. Your ayes are three ayes. Supervisor fewer thae very much. Id like to make a motion to continue this item to the Committee Meeting of september 2nd as amended. Clerk on the motion, supervisor walton . Walton aye. Mandelman aye. Chair fewer aye. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Madame clerk, can you call item number 2. Yes, item number 2 resolution approving a Maintenance Agreement between the city and the California Department of transportation caltrans for the citys maintenance of artwork on the rightofway within caltrans jurisdiction located at the north and south boarding platforms of the van ness and geary station, between geary and ofarrell street. Members of the public who wish to provide Public Comment on this item should call 14156550001, meeting i. D. , 146 812 0226. Then press pound twice. If you have not already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. The system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. Wait until the system says youve been unmuted. Supervisor fewer today we have with us susan from the Arts Commission. Welcome, the floor is yours. Thank you, supervisor. We are here today to request the approval of the Arts Commission city agreement with caltrans authority for the maintenance of the artwork by jorge pardo which will be placed on the geary street stations of the van ness b. R. T. This artwork was commissioned as part of the richmond ordinance, administrative code, 3. 19, which sets aside up to 2 of the Construction Costs for art in richmond. The property, van ness avenue, because it is a state highway, does fall under the jurisdiction of state agency caltrans. And so the city must enter into an agreement with caltrans as per their requirements for any artwork on their property. This has been a long and complex agreement and we are at the last stages, which is the final agreement to maintain the artwork. The Arts Commission as per the city charter is already charged with maintaining all of the artwork in the citys collection. And in that regard, the maintenance of this particular artwork is no different than any other. So that this agreement is costneutral to the city and we urge your adoption. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Colleagues, any comments or questions . There is no b. L. A. Report on this. Seeing no one in the queue, lets open up for Public Comment. Clerk operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. If you have not done so, please press star 3 to be entered into the queue. Let us know if there are any callers who wish to comment on item number 2. Yes, i have one caller in the queue. Welcome, caller. Hi. My name is im a renter in district one and i want to say i support this idea. I hope you pass it. Thank you. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Any other callers in the queue . Madame chair, that completes the queue. Supervisor fewer thank you. Public comment on item number 2 is closed. There is no b. L. A. Report on this. I see no one in the queue, so i would like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. Could we have a roll call vote, please . On the motion, supervisor walton . Walton aye. Mandelman aye. Chair fewer aye. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Can you please call item number 3. Item number 3, resolution supporting housing stability by allocating revenue generated by november 2020 transfer tax ballot measure in two equal halves to a covid19 rent resolution and relief fund and a social Housing Program fund. Members of the public who wish to provide Public Comment on this item should call 14156550001, meeting i. D. , 146 812 0226. Then press pound twice. If you have not already done so, dial star 3 to speak. A system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. Wait until the system states youve been unmuted and you may begin your comments. Supervisor fewer i welcome dean preston to our committee today and hes our speaker on item number 3. Welcome, supervisor. Supervisor preston thank you, chair fewer, and thank you supervisors walton and mandelman. Chair fewer, as i was waiting to speak, wonderful to hear your comments on the Small Site Program. Im hopeful our efforts on the transfer tax and this resolution will result in increased funding to do work on that. The resolution before you sets forth the intended use of funds from the transfer tax increase on the highest value real estate transactions. Those valued at 10 million or more. The premise of the the overall effort is simple, as we reel from the worst recession in recent history, we need to demand more from the wealthiest investors and institutions and we should express our use of the generated tax to make sure san franciscans can get back on their feet without keeping a roof over their heads. I have spoken at length about the transfer tax and the package to the full board, in committees. So i will try not to repeat here. I know you have a packed and long agenda today. The purpose of this resolution is address the intent of the revenue if the measure passes. It expresses our intent to fund a covid19 rent Resolution Program as well as investing in longterm affordable social housing. And i want to be clear that this is a resolution of our intent as a board and as we have with previous statements of intent that is related to ballot measures, the board of supervisors here is stating our intent to resolution not creating a dedicated fund or legally binding future budget appropriations and i think its important to clarify that. We have distributed amendments that i hope you all have received, that the City Attorney has confirmed to our office are nonsubstantive, that clarify that the resolution is, as i mentioned, a statement of intent, not a legal dedication of funds. And other edits suggested by the City Attorney. I would be happy to read those line by line into the record if thats the committees preference, but with that, chair fewer, happy to yield the floor and look forward to Public Comment or answering any questions and please let me know if its your preference i read amendments into the record. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. I think you have actually shared all the amendments with us. Youve cleared it with the City Attorney. I think thats fine. I see no speakers in the queue. And so lets open there is no b. L. A. Report on this. Lets open this up for Public Comment. Clerk yes, madame chair. Operation is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. Operation, please let us know if there are callers ready. If you have not already done so, press star 3 to be added to the queue. For those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates youve been unmuted. Please let us know if there are callers who wish to comment on item number 3. Madame chair, there are no callers in the queue. Supervisor fewer okay. Public comment for item number 3 is closed. And thank you, supervisor, for clarifying the intent of the board and actually memorializing it with this legislation. Id like oh, supervisor mandelman . Supervisor mandelman i just wanted to thank supervisor preston for the underlying ballot measure and for this proposal as well. I think we all saw over the last, you know, ten years, this extraordinary growth of private wealth through real estate in San Francisco and beyond. And i think we all knew even before covid that the central challenge for the city was the fact that wealth had not been broadly shared. There were so many people priced out of the city and the folks who really do the work of powering our economy were unable to afford to live in San Francisco. So i think, you know, this measure, which seeks to ensure that to the extent there is ongoing continued massive wealth generation through real estate, that that gets shared a little more broadly and the city is able to pursue some more of our goals in terms of housing for the people who actually do the work of powering our economy at the ground. And the folks who are being left behind by our economy. You know, so anyway, thanks, supervisor preston. Supervisor fewer huge wealth gap that we have here in San Francisco, perpetuating a lot of problems. I would like to make a motion to move this to the board with a oh. Hold on. Supervisor walton i just want to say i would love to be added as a sponsor to the resolution as i am to the legislation. Supervisor fewer thank you. Seeing no more comments, id like to make a motion to move to the board with a positive recommendation. Could i have a roll call vote, please . Clerk would you like to adopt the amendments before . Supervisor fewer yes, adopt the amendments. Motion to amend, supervisor walton . Walton aye. Mandelman aye. Chair fewer aye. You have three ayes. Supervisor fewer yes. Now i make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation as amended. Clerk on the motion, supervisor walton aye. Mandelman aye. Chair fewer aye. You have three ayes. Supervisor fewer thank you, supervisor preston. Supervisor preston thank you for your time and support. I appreciate it. Supervisor fewer thank you. So madame clerk, can you call item 4 and 5 together . Yes, item 4, Resolution Approving Development Agreement between the city and Reservoir Community partners for the balboa reservoir project with Public Benefits including 50 of Affordable Housing and four acres of publicly accessible parks and open space and making various findings. Item 5, resolution approving and thordzing the execution of an agreement for sale of real estate for the conveyance by the city acting through the San Francisco Public Utilities commission to reservoir xhubt partners of approximately 16. 4 acres of Real Property in assessors parcel block number 3180, lot number 190 for 11. 4 million and adopting findings. Members of the public who wish to provide comment on these items, should call 14156550001, meeting i. D. , 146 812 0226. Then press pound twice. If you have not already done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. A system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. Please stay until the system says youve been unmuted and you may begin your comments. Supervisor fewer thank you. Today, we have with us president norman yee, and welcome, president yee and also happy birthday, president. What a wonderful way to be spending your birthday today with us. Thank you for joining us. President yee joining us today. The office of economic and Workforce Development. The sfpuc is also here presenting and there are many other staff that are available for questions. And, president yee, the floor is yours. President yee thank you, chair fewer, and thank you supervisor walton and mandelman for joining me for my celebration of my 50th birthday. Supervisor fewer [laughter]. President yee there is a number of pieces of in consideration for the balboa reservoir project. On monday, the land use and Transportation Committee heard the general planned amendments and the ordinance to establish a special use district. Today this committee will be considering the Development Agreement and also vote on the Public Utilities commissions purchase Sale Agreement. For background, the balboa reservoir project is located on 17 acres of puc land, adjacent to the city college of San Francisco. And in 2015, was proposal of site for housing on public land as part of the prop k program. The site was actually contemplated for housing a few times before, even when the numbers at city college. I deeply i became deeply involved with after seeing the need for a more Robust Community engagement process. I worked to create the Advisory Committee with appointed representatives from Westwood Park, sunnyside, city college trustee, Business Owner along ocean avenue, a member of the former balboa park station area plan committee, a representative from the puc community Advisory Committee and representative from one of the institutions in the neighborhood. They spent two years gathering input to create principles and parameters that form the developers Selection Process and the project that is before you today. The project proposes one 1100unit Housing Project that includes 50 affordability with 33 being provided by the developer and the remaining 17 by the city. This was hardfought win by the community. Nearly 40 nearly 4 acres of publicly accessible space, including a public park and a Child Care Center. This is all part of the package. Overall, i believe this project is lawful and includes many of wanted to see. 50 range. With the first preference for city College Faculty and staff. A twoacre public park that will be central to the project. A Child Care Center to serve 100 families and local construction, local Business Enterprise and prevailing wage. What i am most proud of is that this will also be a child friendly Housing Project. Because some of the tac it was something that the t. A. C. Pushed for. And that was incorporated into the codes in terms of defining family child friendly housing on monday. If San Francisco is to become a true child friendly city, we must place children at the center of the decisionmaking, including designing Housing Projects for families with children. So what we have here is a 40 of the units will have two and three bedrooms with 10 minimum for threebedroom units. But also include other elements such as shared community space, play activation in the open spaces, and child Center Design inside and outside the units. As you can see, we have many of these Community Benefits are reflected in the Development Agreement. That being said, its still an evolving document and with every conversation, we are making improvements. I know there was a call for to make this project 100 affordable and keep the public land. We would have we would have to had to deplete the entire 600 million housing bond and await further research. While i shared the ideology, it is not practicable and feasible. Ill leave to the circumstances with the puc to present, but this project gives us 550 much needed affordable units and still allows the city the ability to create more units with other project citywide. Today i want to provide a summary of the amendments we have on working to strengthen the Development Agreement and to incorporate feedback. We have been hearing from community stakeholders, advocates and board of supervisors. Many of these amendments have final language to include and others are still in the drafting process. For members of the public, you can find the summary online at the board of supervisors website. Go to todays budget and finance committee agenda. Click on the link to item 4 and look for the document link title summary of amendments. So, for the first set of amendments that are about really about affordable units. While the Development Agreement includes affordability restrictions, the terms were capped at 57 years. It has always been the intent of the Affordable Housing to be permanently affordable. I also recognize the importance of keeping the land underneath the Affordable Housing part of the city, citys portfolio, especially if we are providing funding for them. So those are two elements that were seeking amendments on. Therefore, we are making changes to require that the development dedicate three affordable parcels back to the city by deeding it back to the city. The parcels will then be released back to the developer to operate similar to other Mayors Office of Housing Projects with permanent affordability outcomes or restrictions. When it comes to educator Housing Affordability restrictions, we will be we want to make sure that this piece, which is a little bit different from the other parcels, that would like to amend it so that it reflects that the affordability of the educator housing would be extended out for other restrictions to 99 years of or the life of the project. So in other words, right now, that is sort of silence. We want to make sure that language is included. I want to note that once the project is completed, over 50 of the project site will be under public control access. When it comes to the developers commitment to build, we will also include a clause in there. Use it or lose it provision to address the concern that the developer may have unjustifiable delays in delivering the project. Particularly the affordable units. The development will include a schedule with milestones that have to be met by dates certain. I want to thank supervisor peskin for working with us on this particular amendment. The Development Amendment will also include a provision to further clarify the commitment to deliver 33 affordability of the project and to make sure that 33 is never altered. Never come back to us and say, hey, by the way, we cant do that. Were going to put a clause in that that does not allow that. They are obligated to do this. Period. In order to serve more households and diverse range of residents, we are working to refine the income eligibility levels. The developer will ensure that 50 of their affordable units will serve lowincome households and also better define the a. M. I. Range so we provide opportunities to a diverse range of households. So were working on that. And going back and forth, but we will make sure that these amendments get in by the time we hear it in next month at the full board. Supervisor safai, whose district is right next to city college, or a few blocks away, and to assure that we have a range of people that would include some of the 11 were going to make a commitment or ask to amend that the neighborhood preference be grown to a radius of 1. 15 miles to cover more of ingleside. The child care piece, i love to talk about child care as you all know. The next piece is important to our early care educator community. The rent of the Child Care Center will be set at 1 annually. Okay . This is 10,000 square feet that we have been able to negotiate with that the developer. And this supports a nonprofit provider who will operate in that space. We know child care providers were struggling even before the pandemic. Every bit counts and its critical for our society to prioritize the needs of our youngest residents and the families. Existing Development Agreement already includes the child care operator. Will dedicate half their slots at least half the slots to lowincome families. And when it comes to the open space management, there is open space. So we wanted to include some wording in there in how its going to be managed. The project will rededicate the park and open space to the public, but i understand concerns about how we will ensure that everyone feels welcome and that the Community Members outside of this project will be welcome also. So one of these that ive committed to do is make sure that in regards to the existing open spaces that we include members from Community Members that are outside the project boundaries so it doesnt become exclusive to just the People Living around there. The board extended the life of the balboa Reservoir Community Advisory Committee to next year so they can continue serving. If this project moves forward, the committee would help with engaging the public on the projects construction schedule, outreach, mitigation efforts and help troubleshoot any arising issues with the developer. We will include language in the Development Agreement to acknowledge the developers commitment to ongoing Community Engagement through the t. A. C. And other neighborhoods during the construction and even afterwards. So in other words, you know, i know just because theyre going to move forward with the project, i dont want them to lose site. They must continue working with the community at large. Lastly, we were including more information in the Development Agreement on the m. T. A. s commitment to improving transportation, traffic conditions and pedestrianbike safety in the neighborhood. The developer is committing to improvements around the site, but as you know, its Rachel Notley just the responsibility of the developer. Its not just the responsibility of the developer. It needs to be dealt with as a systemwide approach, including m. T. A. , that have promised to make improvements for many, many years. We have not seen much improvement at all around the ocean avenue and frida kahlo way. I want to clarify some land use issues. The project does not have any proposed retail. Studied it in the Environmental Impact report. We want to reflect the developers intent to not include store front retail space and the communitys desire to limit this, because they want to support the ocean avenue corridors businesses and not have have a competing set of businesses. So we would try to do that. Before i hand this back to chair fewer and the staff presentation, i also want to acknowledge that the developer is also working directly with city college of San Francisco on a memorandum of understanding between the two entities. City college will be planning construction for their Performing Arts Center and s. T. E. M. Building. And well clarify agreements on infrastructure, coordinate construction schedules and mitigate impacts. It is also it will also serve to reiterate some of the commitments made to benefit the greater city college community. There is a lot happening in this neighborhood and from the very beginning we knew that it had to be a collaboration. The board of trustees will be discussing the m. O. U. Tomorrow and will be working toward a final version in the coming weeks. I want to acknowledge that some of the Community Benefits for city college are also part of the Development Agreement. We are monitoring the city College Process closely. I want to extend my gratitude to the hundreds of hours that Community Members have spent to design this project and the staff at the office of economic workforce and Development Planning and also the Planning Department and the City Attorneys team for all the work they have put into this. I also want to acknowledge that the Development Team has been very responsive and receptive to all the feedback. We really appreciate their willingness to make all these changes. With that, colleagues, i hope to count on you, your support and will hand it off to the chair to call presenters. I want to know, also, before we do that, that the committee cannot vote with recommendation because of the ceqa appeal well be hearing in august. And i guess i have more, but i know ive been taking up a lot of time. So why dont we turn it over to the chair. Supervisor fewer thank you, president yee. I want to appreciate all the work that youve done. It seems as though youve really looked into the community and many of these new additions to the Development Agreement, i think, answers a lot of those questions and comments. So right now, i think that what wed like to do is go to our first speaker. And lets see, on item number 4 and 5, our first speaker is office of economic and Workforce Development. Hello. Thank you, chair fewer and president yee. Good morning, supervisor mandelman and walton. Im going to share my screen to present some slides. Supervisor fewer excuse me first, supervisor walton had a question or comment. Supervisor walton thank you, chair fewer. I will wait. I jumped the gun. Ill wait until presentations and everything are over. Supervisor fewer okay. I will remember to call on you. Please continue. Great. Im with the office of economic and Workforce Development. Im joined today by the sfpuc, we have the Mayors Office of housing, Planning Department and sfmta. The bridge team is also present to answer questions. In todays committee, well be hearing two items from the balboa package. The Development Agreement ordinance and the sfpuc purchase agreement. Two associated items were heard at land use committee. The general plan amendment and the planning code and map coordinates. The project before you today is the proposed development of balboa reservoir. The site is owned by the city through the sfpuc and is located just north of ocean avenue at the intersection of a number of residential neighborhoods including sunnyside, ingleside and Westwood Park. City college, main campus, is directly to the east and the balboa park station is about a half mile walk. There are a number of muni bus lines and the light rail line running nearby. The balboa reservoir site was among the first identified through the citys public land for Housing Program which speaks to implement the seeks the implement the policy of the voter passed proposition k and the surplus property. The city working with the puc put forward to convey and redevelop an underused site. It will bring new housing to the site and provide all families of all incomes the opportunity to live in this transit and amenityrich neighborhood. The reservoir is currently 1,000 spaces of surface parking. A portion of which is leased to city college as overflow space. The project implements key aspects of the citywide equity approach. The site is on the west side of the city in a transitrich area among longstanding neighborhoods with Great Schools and a thriving business corridor. It rents an opportunity to equitably distribute throughout the city and on a site with no displacement of housing and businesses and enable the provision of a high level of Affordable Housing for a wide range of households. This project is unique in the Community Benefits, mainly the 50 Affordable Housing, originated with the community process. In 2015, supervisor yee established the balboa reservoir Advisory Committee that has held over 50 meetings and been the key forum for feedback and has continued to be active during covid. The c. A. C. In 2017 created and approved a development, principles and parameters document that was attached to the citys developer r. F. P. The parameters outlined the Key Community priorities for the site. That it be 50 affordable. That the new housing was geared to families as a range of incomes and the site was planned lawfully in order to create a new neighborhood, among other topics. The city selected the Developer Team, Reservoir Community partners, a joint venture of Bridge Housing and avalon bay communities. They have worked in concert with the c. A. C. Over the last three years to shape the communitys priorities into a successful project. The proposed project builds 1100 new homes, both for renters and homeowners. 550 units or 50 will be affordable as a range of income. This approach creates broad opportunity for a diversity of new residents. The new neighborhood fits thoughtfully into the surrounding community and supports family with safe streets, large open spaces, play areas, a Child Care Center, a Public Community room, and new connections to city college and ocean avenue. The developer will participate in robust Workforce Development programs during construction and will continue to will contribute to nearby transit improvements. The projects key benefit is 550 units of Affordable Housing on site. The housing will be available for households earning between 30 and 120 of ami, meaning for households who work in health care, the Service Industry, education, public safety, and all of the people that complete a neighborhood. The units are familysized. 150 of the units will be designated for affordable educator housing among the first in the city. The developer is obligated to contribute gap funding for 33 Affordable Housing in the project. The city will contribute gap funding for an additional 17 to reach 50 affordability. It is expected that the city funding will be allocated to affordable buildings e, a and b, for lowincome households. And per city practice, sources of gap funding will be identified and appropriated closer to construction start of affordable units by the city. This combination of developer funding from the market rate housing and the city funding in addition to the typical subsidy sources for Affordable Housing creates a feasible project 550 Affordable Housing units so we can continue to fund an equitable range of projects. As you can see, the balboa reservoir parcel is directly to the west of city colleges main campus. We have heard from College Trustees and stakeholders that the project must support the longterm health of the college. The Development Team has proposed to do so with the inclusion of affordable educator housing which will have a first preference for city college and allow the college to attract and retain diverse faculty and staff. We have heard the project must maintain students access to education. We have worked closely with the college and sfmta to prioritize investment. In addition, they require that the developer construct up to 450 Public Parking spaces that will support college drivers. The a. D. Codified each of those benefits so the city can ensure they are delivered as the project is built out. Transportation has been a robust topic of discussion throughout the Community Planning process with concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety. The Community Forum has spurred a number of collaborative efforts to improve transit and safety in this area. City college completed a parking analysis. The pedestrian realm will receive safety improvements from sfmtas frida kahloocean Improvement Project and expanded project along the frontage. In addition to the onsite improvements that the balboa Reservoir Team will be constructing, the developer will pay citywide t. S. F. Fees, fund measure to reduce delays on ocean avenue. Ill now turn it to michael carlijn from sfmta to continue the presentation. Good morning, chair fewer, supervisors mandelman, walton and president yee. Im the deputy manage for the sfpuc. Weve been engaged in the project for the last five years through the city public land for Housing Program. Were pleased to be with the board of supervisors for the resolution and Sale Agreement for the balboa reservoir site. The p. S. A. Provides for the sale of 16 acres to the partners for 11. 4 million to develop the project. The project will provide 50 Affordable Housing, Infrastructure Improvements and several other benefits that much needed in our city. The project represents collaboration between city departments and the developer and the community. The puc released a request for equal if i indications in 20 qualifications in 2016 to solicit Development Teams interested in purchasing and developing the site for housing. In 2017, the puc Commission Approved an agreement allowing the puc and the developer to pursue a purchase and Sale Transaction for the property. The p. S. A. Said they will purchase the parcel for 11. 4 million by december 2022. The purchase and Sale Agreement includes a close of escrow by december 2022 with initial depopts prior to closing. At the close of escrow, the developer may elect to have the city carryback financing at a 3 interest rate. Portions of the site are subject to the 2012 access easement agreements between the puc and city college. To develop the project, the original access easement agreements will be amended to allow the widening and new right of way. The sfpuc will maintain a parcel with certain surface and subsurface water transmission lines that belong to the puc. The puc is creating a 20year open space license to the developer for the benefit of the general public as showed in the general master plan. To the next slide, please. The puc is obligated to obtain fair market value for the sale of the property and relies on certified appraisers for the fair market value. Its supported by a appraisal from june 2020 which finds that the fair market value to be 11. 4 million. It was created on a Development Approach using 33 Affordable Housing threshold in the project, which is the developers gap funding obligation. It is supported by the city Advisory Committee Development Principles and parameters and by voter approved proposition k in 2015. In addition to the independent market research, the appraiser considered the following factors in determining a fair market value. The complexity of the project, which requires significant horizontal Infrastructure Improvements in a variety of uses of the site, apartment, Affordable Housing, town holmes. The Affordable Housing component. The cost of construction entitlement as reflected in the model in the appraisers independent research. In addition to the appraisal, the feasibility examined project costs and revenues which support the 11. 4 million land value. The analysis of those costs and projections was reviewed and confirmed by two separate consultants, century urban, and sigh feld. Clifford and associates confirmed the evaluation. We did not believe that an praisal review would be appraisal review would be necessary. This is a great project with significant Public Benefits. Thank you, and ill turn it back over to lee. Thank you, michael. Before turning to the discussion, i want to highlight the d. A. Amendments that supervisor yee has submitted on Affordable Housing. Changes will focus on permanent affordability. Refining a. M. I. Distributions and broadening neighborhood preference. The Child Care Center will have a guarantee of a nominal 1 rent to support a nonprofit operator. The open space plan will include Public Engagement and the d. A. Will include new provisions for the rapid production of Affordable Housing. To close, i wanted to share the construction saving and schedule which projects phase one, beginning in 2022 and phase 2 in 2025. Ill conclude here. City staff and the Developer Team are available for questions. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Supervisor walton . Supervisor walton thank you so much, chair fewer. There we go. Thank you so much. Just one question and, again, i want to echo chair fewers comments about all of the work youve done with community, president yee. I know how a Big Development project can be. And so just thank you so much for listening to community and doing all the work that got you to this point. Appreciate it. The one question i do have just get a chance to ask. I know some of this is addressed in the Development Agreement, but just want to know where the developer and city college are in terms of finalizing m. O. U. In certain areas that have been identified as issues with the college . President yee so the m. O. U. Is between the development the developers and city college. And so i dont know if the developers are there to answer that question. I actually facilitated a meeting recently in my office to get them to Start Talking about it. And after that, i left it for them to move on to having that discussion. Can you make any comments . Sure. Can you hear me . Supervisor fewer yes. Identify yourself. Sure, im with avalon bay, part of the Development Team. So, yes, one of the first things our team did when selected to be the developers of this project back in, i think it was 2016, was to reach out to the college and reach out to Community Members to the administration. We worked with the administration. There was a 2016 resolution before we were selected where the board of trustees laid out their goals. We went back, i believe, twice to the board of trustees, with updates along with oewd to talk about what wed been working on and what we intended to do. We were following that path toward an m. O. U. That administration has since left the college and a lot of that effort was stalled, you know, mid to late 2019. But we learned recently the board of trustees recently picked up i believe it was earlier this month met again and picked up an old draft of the m. O. U. That the administration has left and said, lets get this done. Lets make sure we have something codified. In the meantime, the key commitment that weve made to the college regarding faculty housing, replacement parking are all embedded in the d. A. Those are our obligations to the city to make those things happen, but were still hopeful we have an agreement directly with the college to codify things with them. You know, were excited to hear the trustees picked this up and theyve exprosecutorsed a goal to expressed a goal to do an m. O. U. With you between our meeting in early july and final approval by the board. We understand theyre meeting tomorrow night. We havent seen the draft they want to propose. Were eager to see that and get it hammered out and get it done. That is the schedule. Weve got a couple of weeks before now and the full Board Hearing and thats our intention. Supervisor walton through the chair, so just for my clarity, you are hoping to have m. O. U. In place before all the approval . Yes. That was a question to me . Supervisor walton yes. Yeah, thats our hope and our intention. And you know, because were not sure what the process will be on the college side, weve made the key commitments to the city so there is no question. But were going to continue working as much as we can with the college and try to get something done. Supervisor walton thank you. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. I think supervisor mandelman may be able to shed a little light on this. I think you were on the board at that time. Supervisor mandelman . Supervisor mandelman yeah, i dont know if im going to shed light on where city college is right now in terms of the negotiation of the m. O. U. , but its a fair question and one ill be definitely interested in hearing more of before we vote these items up or down in the full board. Ill have some i think ill have more things to say about this after the public. One question i want to ask from the getgo. I want to ask city staff why this is not structured as a ground lease project . Supervisor fewer is staff here to answer the question . This is the puc. I think i can answer that question. We didnt structure it as ground lease because we didnt think it would be feasible to get the high numbers for Affordable Housing. So that was not our intention originally. So. Supervisor mandelman because you did not believe that there were developers who would be interested in doing a 99year rental project . That was our belief. And were going to do infrastructure financing tools with this site. Supervisor mandelman i would say that every port project is a ground lease project. City college is 33 project. City of oakland has a policy of doing ground leases. So anyway, we can talk about this after Public Comment. But thank you. Supervisor fewer okay. Thank you very much. Could we hear from the b. L. A. , please . Yes, their fewer. Members of the committee, im going to start with item number 5, which is the sale of the balboa reservoir to Reservoir Community partners. The sale price is 11. 4 million and this was based on appraisal by a third party appraiser, however, the Development Agreement would waive the appraisal review which is a requirement of the administrative code. Also, yes, the proposed agreement would provide for the seller to carry back financing on the sale, page 24, shows the schedule of those payments. We consider improvement of the resolution approvement to be for the board. Item number 4 is the Development Agreement between the city and balboa resu balboa Reservoir Community partners. It was summarized in the report. We do want to point out on page 17 of our page 15 of the report, is the relative schedule of the development of the market rate housing and Affordable Housing in other Community Benefits over to phases of the project. The citys actual obligation under this project is to provide Gap Financing for 183 Affordable Housing units. The cost would be 43. 8 million based on 2019 dollars. We do have a recommendation to amend the proposed ordinance to request that executive director to include an option for the city to purchase the Affordable Housing properties on the balboa reservoir site and the future financing of the Affordable Housing Development Set out in the agreement. We consider approval of the item number 4 to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. Im available for any questions. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Any more questions or comments . If not, lets open it up for Public Comment. Madame clerk, how many people are in the queue . Madame chair, currently there are 31 callers listening and 16 callers in the queue. Supervisor fewer okay. Lets start Public Comment. Everyone has two minutes. Thank you. Yes, callers, if you have not done so, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. For those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates youve been unmuted. Please queue the first caller for item 4 and 5. Hello. My name is christopher. I am a district 7 resident and the balboa reservoir site. I strongly support the proposed housing. Its an excellent location for mixed income. It will be a significant step in the direction the city owes Affordable Housing crisis and provides many other important Public Benefits. The market rate component of the project is controversial, but it pays for much of the Affordable Housing and the other benefits. It would require much larger public subsidies but could fund Affordable Housing elsewhere. The proponents of 100 Affordable Housing appear to argue that the project should be limited to 550 units. Half the size of the proposed project. That would then mean the 550 households that could have lived in the market rate component would instead bid up the cost of housing in other neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that may be more susceptible to gentrification and displacement than Westwood Park. Reject any demands for increased Public Parking. Providing more subsidized parking will promote more driving in defiance of the transit requirements and the citys efforts to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good morning, supervisors, happy 50th, president yee. Thank you for taking the time. I am calling in strong support of this project. I am steeven. I live on ocean avenue, a mere 300 feet from the balboa reservoir. I could not be more excited for this project. When i walk down ocean avenue, i see the many Small Businesses scattered. Many of those businesses were struggling even prior to the pandemic. A few months ago, not long after the initial lockdown, my favorite spot, a bakery, closed its doors. My girlfriend and i were crushed. If only wed done something to keep them open longer. To our great relief, they reopened a few weeks later. We make a point to eat there every weekend regardless whether were hungry for it or not. We need to do everything we can to preserve the Small Businesses. The density of the project would create many opportunities for more. With a fusion of new residents within walking distance, Small Businesses would thrive and provide much needed community. The 550 affordable units provide much needed housing for the workers of these Small Businesses who must commute tremendous distances to get to work. This is the goldilocks zone for housing. Its close to mass transit, shopping and dining. Lets not delay any longer and create opportunities for the Small Businesses of ocean avenue and build this project. Thank you for your time. Clerk thank you for your comment. Next speaker, please. Hi. I rent in district 1. I was born in San Francisco. Hope to live here for a long time and we really need a lot of housing so this is a wonderful well thoughtout Housing Project for all the reasons that the supervisors have mentioned in the input. I think specifically the neighborhood legislation is really important in ascertaining that people who are struggling with housing, have a level of security to build families to stay in San Francisco and i think its great and support this project. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comment. Next speaker, please. Good morning, supervisors and very happy birthday to board president yee. My name is sara. Im a resident in district 9. Im here in strong support for this project. Were in the midst of a pandemic compounded by a severe housing crisis. At 1100 units of housing here, will bring much needed housing and jobs. We need to be approving these projects now to help push us through the economic Recovery Period while keeping a keen eye on the bigger vision for the future of San Francisco. I want to take this opportunity to commend the neighborhood preference radius which was increased to include parks in conjunction with both supervisors asking for that to happen. With neighborhood preference legislation for this project, we know that a portion of Affordable Housing will be set aside for residents currently living in the neighborhood. With the lack of housing certainty in this chaotic time, that security will be a huge benefit to families. Im very excited about this project. I think its been a Long Time Coming and i urge you to support and approve and move this project forward as soon as possible. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comment. Next speaker, please. Good morning, supervisors. My name is stuart. Im the attorney representing the eir appeal, however, im not talking about the appeal. I want to talk about the project itself and particularly the financial aspects. And i sent a letter to you yesterday about that and im not going to repeat what is in that letter. I hope youll read through it carefully. I do have a couple of concerns, though, i want to raise. The first i appreciate supervisor yees new amendments to the Development Agreement, but im concerned that those amendments are being offered at almost literally the 11th hour. And they are very substantial amendments to the agreement. I think the supervisors and the public deserve time to review those and comment on those. This right now is essentially the last public hearing on this project unless you allow us some additional time for Public Comment. And obviously, with these amendments being offered just this morning, there is no time for the public to review and comment on them. We need that time. The other comment and this relates to supervisor waltons question having do with the m. O. U. With city college. We have two processes going on. The citys process involving the Development Agreement and city colleges agreement involving the m. O. U. Those processes should not be separated. The Development Agreement should not go to the board of supervisors until the m. O. U. Can be linked to it and incorporated into it so that you have one agreement that is binding on all of the parties. Having two separate agreements just doesnt work well. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Hi. Thank you, linda. Supervisor mandelman, id like to thank you for bringing up why not a ground lease . Anyway, in 2018, the b. L. A. Did a report that clearly called for application of the administrative code requirement for independent appraisal review. It also specified for a rigorous independent analysis to ensure that the land price paid to sfpuc is maximized. The p. S. A. Fulfills neither of these recommendations. [please stand by] its a policy matter for the board. If you read between the lines. Bla does not approve the city financing but without saying so out front sends back to you as a policy matter. The requirements are independent. The a raisal review wa appraisat for the public. Thank you for your comment. Next speaker, please. Superiors, ive spoken before about this project. No developer, no developer should own the land. I have deliberated in over 50 disposition and Development Agreements. This is illegal. Who the hell do you think you are making some amendments and we have these retro meeting andi dont want to use the word, two minutes and we cant even deliberate. Who the hell do you think we are in San Francisco. This matter will go to the fbi. Be very careful what you say. Each and every world will be evaluated by the federal investigation. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, superiors. Im speaking on behalf of the members of youth and families many of whom reside adjacent it the reservoir. We urge you to reject the proposal and come back to the site that keeps it publicly owned and allows affordable affe housing. Found in the publicly owned sites, it should never happen especially next to our city college one of the major institutions to support equity. They sho should not sell publicy owned landthere are many instances of publicly owned land to develop Affordable Housing. Theres a current fiscal crisis. The commission of the Enterprise Agency with a enterprise source for the housing and Community Development facing budget short falls. That way the city would save money and they would be able to leverage this important Land Resource to more deeply address Affordable Housing and city college infrastructure. Thank you supervis supervisors g what is right for the public and city. Thank you for not selling out. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im calling in strong sup or osupportof the project. Im excited about the prospect of a new park and the addition of child care in our neighborhood. And the Affordable Housing. Im happy that there will be additional residents to support the businesses. On a larger scale im excited about the prospect of additional housing. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello caller . Oh, hello. Good afternoon, everyone. Im an employment and training specialist at college of San Francisco. Child development, architecture students and theres more. I believe with more residents in the area, we can increase enrollment. Its a dual purpose. We develop opportunities of internship and Career Pathways for our students. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Next speaker, please. Can you hear me . Yes, we can. Im advocating for the reservoir to be in the hands of our community for 100 affordablaffordableafforafforda. Along with our most vulnerable. A[indiscernible]. The mou in place to guarantee process and social equity. Our most vulnerable can secure what they need. A much needed ten thousand units of Affordable Housing. Im hoping the purpose behind this measure can be seen which is public land for Community Need ses. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, chairhi sm can you hea. Can you hear me . Im a district one resident and mebl of thriving. The proposal perfect you today keep the site publicly owned. They do not disclose that this tax payer disclosed site is 100 fordable mplet its mosfordaffa. Supervisors simile have to pass a reses illusion t resolution sy have to sell it for market. This should pe model used for palpoa residents. Infrastructure is already in the budgetreject this deal and dont throw away this deal for Affordable Housing for generations to come. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors. A lot has been introduced today. Its a unique public ass set ast should provide a unique Public Benefit. We build one hundred and 40 of the market rate goals. The original support for the housing balance was to stop the development of market rate housing and tha the aits reala concept of equity. Enforcing people of color and low income families out of the city. We could be building a forrable housing. We need to develop every site for a forrable housing. Especially such a large site as the balboa reservoir. We cannot be selling off our Public Resources sm thsources. The very resources that we need to make housing affordable. To build and sustain a livelihood in this city. We have to ask who are we building for and what are we billing. Thank you for your call. Next speaker, please. There was no clear understanding of the basis for the land use agreements. Today you heard president yee speak about many unre unresolved issues. Why is this being sold to a developer. Theres a shortage of land in San Francisco. Why is a for profit developer being able to buy this land for 5 of its market value. What portion of the Affordable Housing is the developer paying for . Why didnt the Environmental Impact report consider 100 Affordable Housing project . Why arent all the decisions for this project being tabled until an mou between city college and developers has been agreed to. It will protect the interest of city college and is so vulnerable should it good fore ases kurnly planned. Please postpone any decisions on this until any and all questions can be answe answered. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for you your comme. Next speaker, please. District seven. I had a prepared thing and all this stuff happens and now everything is up in the air. In general, i respect any request that you request further work for all the reasons people have been bringing up regarding city college. When the project first happened, there was scabbingly a kration project happened. Citsitcity college was not in te picture for quite a while. Things like parking are not sufficient. Stake holders have taked about in the meetings. Thats the point i have with the Development Agreement. I urge you to ejek the purchase a dpree m. These amen ms vn had time for r. My biggest thing about this whole project is the land should stay public. San francisco in San Francisco proper has so little public land that it owns. Generations have passed this down for San Francisco to have and control. For us to privatize this doesnt make any sense to me. There has to be some way that a lease can be dn if theres a mark he and made. Thank you f. Next speaker, please. C hello . C hi s hello . Hi. We have been participating in the development and im calling in support. Given the housing crisis and lack of Affordable Housing. Especially when built with Good Transportation access. The child care access and surrounding neighborhoods. Half of the Child Care Spaces will be subsidized for low income families. The park will offer two acres of Program Areas with active play ground areas for child play areas. There are no immediate parks in the area sm reservoi. Weve needed community i improvements for so long. I would like to thank president yee for forming the association for more Community Input. We are especially supportive of the education housing for c c sf. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please e. I really appreciate all work that has been put in to this proposal. You have power and authority to keep the reservoir land public. You can to this pause we have the california Municipal Bank as an option sm the analysis report cheerly tate that a eucheerly s Affordable Housing. Other benefits id fied by the bi thby the committee. Why maintain public land . Open airspaces are needed for good health. Especially for the under serves working families and the poor. The city have provided pi open space. To you know hodo you know how to these spaces . This cant be happening. We want to have a public space that will provide in kind of access accessible s accessible. I do appreciate comments that were put forward today. They do need to be reviewed to address all of the concerns that we have. The developer agreement still only requires up to 450 Parking Spaces. They will probably just provide 220. Until you offer these students with educational opportunities. Regarding the affordable. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Hi. This is john. Im the chair of the c a c. Weve had about fifty or sixty meetings, ive lost count for principles and parameters to develop this property. What were coming up with is 11031100 units of housing. I prefer to call them homes. 50 of that is accordable. Different groups of affordable cohorts. In addition to eleven hundred homes were talking about eleven hundred homes for families. That means we have child care, a park, common spaces, this is an actualits more than homes, its more than family homes. Its a neighborhood. Were talking about a real legacy for future generations. A real birthday president for president yee. Theyll be pointing out to their children thats the neighborhood i grew up. Its a real opportunity to provide equal housing opportunity for San Francisco. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. Development prpdevelopment parag started in 2016. Development of 100 Affordable Housing. We work with the community Advisory Committee to pass Affordable Housing. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Hello. Im a renter in district eight. I wanted to focus on the answer thatthe question you posed, why not the land lease. The answer from staff was we got more Affordable Housing this way. If it was still under city control we would get less Affordable Housing sm its not i think is a smart pragmatic way to get more Affordable Housing on this site. Its been decades in the making. Were finally doing something great getting over the hump. Building homes here will be really great for the city. Close to transit, we can take advantage of what the city is doing with bus only lanes and bike lanes. This is a great shift towards environmental su sustainability. Im in great support of this. This has been dead in the water for 20 years. Hopefully 20 years from now there are thousand ses of people whs of peoplewho can say this wy great place for me. The supervisors can be really proud of bringing this a accomplishment to the city. Focus on numbers. People like 100 affordable. If we have one hundred units here thank you for your comments. Can we go back to the previous speaker. I believe he was cut off. Our apologies. Thank you. I was cut off. Ill start from the beginning. The urge that the reservoir be utilize for maximum public good, wre work witwe work supporting e housing and developed a proposal for development to reach 100 affordability. Our working class communities were asserting that housing was out of reach who today are suffering from hives highest raf unemployment. Taiin this critical final stret, this committee has the responsibility to act on the Planning Commissions resolution for publicly owned land to respond to the Housing Community needs. I urge you to reject the proposal that is before you today and demand that city departments come back that keeps this publicly owned site. Thank you for bringing me back on line and doing what is right for the workers and Community College and not selling out to public interest. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Im a renter in district five. I want to speak in support of this project. Ive been living here and would love to live here the rest of my live and that include includes a family. I live in a studio which is all i can afford. These types of projects are the opportunity for people to be able to raise families in the city. To not have to choose living in the city they love and not having a family. Market rate units, this will help those families. Going back to this whole thing about this being public land and developer interest and all of that. It loses sight of why and who were building this housing for. Were building the housing for the people who are going to live there. The number one concern is how can we get as many people to live on the site as possible. Think about the five hundred and fifty families who will soon have a place to live because of these below market rate units. They arent going to care who owns the land or if it was sold for what amount. What percentagethey are going to care that they got housing where they can raise their kids near a dprai great university. Think about those low income families because of the work you are doing. This is a great birthday president for the chair. Thank you for occu your comm. Next speaker, please. I live in district five. We hear a lot of talk about howing needs. Theres a grit need for housing, a forrable howing sm in the laugh fif yers san francisc Affordable Housing. We have a budget deficit of nearly 2 million. By the time we actually build it thousands of people who would like to live in this home, would likely need the space. Theres no alternative to fall back on. If we dont build this, it will remain a parking lot. Were choosing between 100 affordable and not 100 affordable project. Theres no second choice here. I urge you to build this project and keep people from being displaced. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. I welcome more of our neighborhood being considered in the extended buffer zone. Id like to consider or at least understand better the implications as this is new information. I welcome the new addendum exhibit that were told will be in the Development Agreement that is not yet available. This exhibit will address our many requests to substitute electric back up batteries that was part of the original plan. The oniet an onsite and off sith impacts. We need more time to read the wording and digest this information in order to comment on it. Other significant adverse impa impacts for envairnmental impact rfer to botenvironment willcread parking nightmare. The timing is a concern because the concurrent construction period is expected to be from 2021 to 2024. Parking spaces on both city college land and the balboa reservoir will be backed up. This will be happening post pandemic where retraining is needed. Id like to include that because its on a tight schedule and very inflexible schedule sm i request priority be given to construction of the threeter to be reflected into Environmental Impact report. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Can we take the next speaker. There are currently 27 callers listening and 13 in the queue. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors. I wan to thank supervisor yee for making this all happen. I support this proposal very much sm i live i . I live in district seven. I moved in the maybe hood about five years ago. It was majority black neighborhood. It resulted in the peek populatiopeakpopulation of blac. Back then our neighbors recommended housing here. Thank you for quu your comme. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors. Im a lifelong resident. Like everyone on the call i see an issue with human rights. Our city is not suffering from a lack of housing in general but lack of Affordable Housing. I cannot help but see that 50 Affordable Housing is not a solution but a trojan horse. I feel like its negotiating the facnegating thefact that its bd by private developer. I think the public land should stay in the publics hands. Understanding that anything public land is so short in San Francisco. It really needs to be built, any housing really needs to be built with city college an teachers in mind s. I can tell you wrying no right t will not serve at majority of students and teachers that need it right now. The alternate proposals will receive this knee. I really urge our supervisors to not green light this progeny further. Consider the legacy that will be left if public land is transferred over to private Developers Like avalon bay. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Im calling to strongly urge you to reject the project. The proposal to sell the public property to developerslook at housing a basic human need that should be considered feasible would be to turn your back on the people of San Francisco. The existence of any market rate housing submitting to the need for somebody to profit from. Other callers are pointing out that the selling of public land is not the only interpretive. Develop housing at this site does notwe can keep the property in the Public Domain by a simple act of public purchase and dont need to compel it to auction by the highest bidder. 100 affordable if possible. We are in a moment where people recognize if we want to change things, we cant conduct business as usual sm we hav. We have to make bold moves. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. good afternoon commissioners. My main point here considering the unmanageable crisis were in wrying now, health crisis, covid crisis are mostly addressing systemic racism and black lives matter. Shortly after the murder of george floyd the Planning Commission director discussed how Going Forward with any project would require a social equity Racial Equity analysis. All of these forking forwardthese things have to happen now. We are all in a state of shock sm its not okay that the black population has decreased 43 percent in San Francisco. All of the displaced students are replaced by luxury housing. I want it know transit is beautiful. Transit for whom . Not for the displaced students which the luxury apartments can see from very far from location. They are glowering down over city college. It allows us to have essential workers be trained to do Front Line Work necessary today in this unimaginable time of we simply need to pause for a sec an considering all o of the comments in addressing that. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Hello. Im resident of the 611. Im in full support of this project. More Community Benefits would be a huge benefit to our city an to the budget. I bike next to the college and it takes a certain amount of wrecklessness to bike there. When school is in session its still a problem. We use number of Parking Spaces and make transportation less reliable for students and neighbors who need it the most. I appreciate working together to improve the streets and eb enabe more students to take public transit. This project provides needed homes to the neighborhood. Thank you for kru your comme. Next speaker, please. Im a doctor that takes care of people in need of housing everyday. If i had a choice of prescribing medicine or a home. I would prescribe a home. I cant prescribe homes but you all can and i strongly hope you support this project. Five hundred fifty Affordable Homes is great. Im really excited and thank you very much. Thank you for kru your comme. Next speaker, please. good afternoon board of supervisors. Happy birthday to supervisor yee. Im a retired rn with the city and county of San Francisco. Im african american. Ive lived in the omi district 11 for seventy years. Ive noticed the changes in this neighborhood. Were down to three to 5 of african americans. Im within a group thats been able to hang on. Im concerned because many many times of thoase those african an communities have been disenfranchised. Why not have 100 Affordable Housing. The physician noted that people are suffering, why not make sure that we have a plan in place that can address some of the iinacceptive. We need to maintain this property as 100 affordable and make sure that allmany people that have been forced out by deceptive practices and have not been able to return to San Francisco, perhaps those members can be addressed. From five hundred fifty to eleven hundred fully Affordable Housing. There are plans that would allow that to occur that do not involve the use of this land as the privately owned and operated. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Hello supervisors. Good morning. My name is michael aarons. Im president of the West Wood Park association. It was formed to represent people. Evaluation, as my written commentshow is it possible that the fair market value is only eleven point four Million Dollars. A companiy is not provide. We can only reverse engineer how they intend to disvalue. It says that pages 23 and 24 the appraised value are based on the expected revenue minus the cost of development. They took away from the valuation of the property the anticipated contributions to be Affordable Housing. In fact, as we say in our letter, the developer is not relying on its own monies. It is not. As we say in our letter, its seeking public money, not its own money for the units its responsible for building. Public money for the infrastructure and also for the park. The public money and subsid subsidiesthe value of this property is one hundred to one hundred fifty Million Dollars. As we say in our letter, this should be reanalyzed. We havent seen a copy of the appraisal. It should be produced to the public. Thank you for clu comments. Before we take the next speaker. I wanted to note there are 17 callers listening and 14 in the queue. Next speaker, please. Hello. A lot of the callers seem to be focusing on housing. Of course San Francisco needs housing, this is not an argument. The issue is how its being sold. It should be 100 low income housing. That is not a affordable. Its not bold or idealistic to think of this way. If you want to be bold donate it back to the native americans or indirchg nowindigenous people. The fact that you are privatizing public land is ridiculous. You are representing us sm pleasus. Please please please be. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Hello. Am i on . Yes. Please proceed. Ive been a faculty member of city college for many decades. Ive tried to prevent how the project will harm the college. My concerns were not considered because as ive been told, the train has left the station and College Officials are sesi sine early request that you all give what many call a beloved institution a chance to work with you. It gives us time to step back and do what is right. Next speaker, please. Yes, hello. Speaking for equity for older students sm wstudents. We can be reached at equity forr older students dot org. The issue is public land being sold privately forever. City college is in very dire straights. The board of trustees and administration have made massive class cuts including the almost complete disruption of the older adults program. Three hundred classes cut last fall. Five hundred in the year before. This year, huge cuts in the esl program. Campuses are closing. Now theres to be another cut to existing use and potential growth including Affordable Housing and other uses by city college. We urge you to consider that many of the staff and teachers of city college are opposed to this as well. I would lake to bring your attention to two letters that were recently sent to the committee. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Im in support of the reservoir project. I hope you move this project forward. Its exactly what we need into san given our housing and climate crisis. Its a transit thought oriented development. Its close to a bart station. It supports five hundred fifty affordable units. The large number is because of the private partnership. This is the kind of project that we need. Its also family oriented. Its not just the stu studio ore bedroom apartments. It includes the connections for transit for other users of the bart station and transit in the area. The College Students et cetera. Public spaces. Its exactly the type of project we need. You urge you to approve this project. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. This neighborhood desperately needs more housing. What do you think the rent of my old unit will do when theres new units miles away. It will be lowered. I think the value and not the title. We can let private individual dollars havshave the shell if wi wish that the city would have taken more of the risk and rewards of Brand Development for themselves. It wish it wore developed as a Long Term Land use. I hope we can repeal proposition 13. However, i disagree with anybody that said we should make city owned 100 affordable. Please keep all units both market rate and Affordable Housing. Please approve the Development Agreement at the fair market value. Thank you for your comments. Before we take the next speaker. There are approximately 33 callers listening and eight in the queue. Next speaker, please. Im opposite to the parking lot of city college. It has 1400 spaces. They are comeetl are completelyh time there is a school day. Public land needs to remain public. And have the greatest amount of users. If you consider that eleven hundred units may be used by ultimately three thousand people but if i have a city College Buddy students of thirty thousand and they graduate every two years, you end up in thirty years with six hundred thousand students who have benefited from the public land. Dont underestimate it. Because the people who will occupy the apartments, they just across ocean avenue and San Francisco has not solved the housing problem. The housing problem for low income people work withing the Hospitality Industry is preferred. You ca cannot guarantee this to. We have lost our public property for very low price. Please consider that six hundred thousand students benefit in thirty years if you keep this. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker please. I urge your support for the Land Development deal and project. I have to say as someone whose family has called this home for thirty years. Im the only one left in my Family Living in the city because of disgusting attitudes like that. That land hases bee land has bet for fifty years. This is best use of the land for this deal at this time. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Im a long time member of San Francisco. Long time resident of San Francisco and a member of uni action. Im calling today to submit my strong and complete support of this project. Theres not enough housing, i wish there was more. Frankly, ill take what i can get. Im really excited about the five hundred plus units of Affordable Housing and the one thousand plus units of housing. Theres so many who need it. Many who are looking to move to San Francisco especially given this time rz ss are tough now. On a personal note, i really think we should get this done down. Were in such a housing crisis. Were lacking so many homes in San Francisco. This should be a slam dunk. Lets get this one done. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Hi. Im calling in full support of this project. Id like to say happy birthday to president yee. I know many families who live in the five hundred fifty affordable units in the reservoir are going to thank you for years to come. Incredible access to transit. Im disappointed to the Home Owners Association calling in in opposition to this. Especially when were in a housing crisis. Were talking about five hundred unit thats are being built in a part of the city that really does have access. This was disie decided upon thet that was commissioned to see how much money the city needed each year to reach the Affordable Housing goals. The callers asking for 100 Affordable Housing, i understand that. We need affordable units rk not a parkinunits, not a parking lot. This is only good for the environment and good for city college oa enrollment. I hope that you approve this. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors. Im a San Francisco resident and action member calling in support of the reservoir project. Im going to read a few comments in support of this project. I support housing because families deserve to live in San Francisco. We want to continue to live in a real city not a wealthy owned place. This plan looks great. I support this Housing Project because it will bring more Affordable Housing to San Francisco. Speaking for myself, i strongly support this project given the city wide impacts. Housing we can be proud of for generations to come. It must be handled in a abundane enoughwe need suburban rich areas to not destroy our planet. I thank you for your comment. Next speaker please. I think we need to go back to the drawing board. The Development Agreement has what it considers to be adequate and thats been the attitude all along that the city college doesnt matter. City does matter, its the place that trains the first responders, nurses, and all of the jobs that makes the city of San Francisco what it is. The mou building is four stories high. The proposal here is for eight. These buildings are gigantic. All over the years theres codes that the maximum amount of housing should be halfhave half the amount. Just have five hundred fifty units of 100 affordable. Still leave access. Thrsetheres only one city colle that provides economic benefit for all the people it trains. If you destroy the city college after the voters just voted on eight hundred Million Dollars of improvements, our Performance Arts center and engineering and arts and mathematics building those are the buildings that are slated to go immediately on the upper lot. Dont crush our dreams. Let us have a chance to better our lives with what we learn at city college. Thank you for qulu your comm. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is ken edg rustle. I applaud and support the development. The eleven hundred units are sorely needed. For a lot of this size in a prime location its too bad we cant house even more people. I want to first wish president yee a happy birthday and thank staff for this extensive work. 50 Affordable Housing. I support building more homes for teachers such as those who work at city college. I support building more homes for people who work in San Francisco and shouldnt be pushed into ever lengthening commutes that are opposite of the Greenhouse Gas. San is a welcoming place for people. I support more neighbors. We need to move forward not endlessly delay homes for people. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is robin pam. Im a rese resident of district seven. I strongly urge you to approve this project. Tses its a result of many yearf Community Engagement with the community. We need Affordable Homes and market rate homes that make the project work. Its important for San Francisco to speed this development along. The cost of housing is rising incredibly rapidly for everyone. As a neighbor i want to voice my strong support for passing this project. Not going back to the drawing board. That will would delay this project even further. Too bad we cant house more people in this project because its such a great site. Its close to transit and a great neighborhood. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Hi. I am honestly pretty cynical about anything that the board does with regards to Affordable Housing because previous projects have not really benefited middle income and working class communities in San Francisco. What would count as Affordable Housing is for people who make six figure salaries. Its designed for entry tech level workers. Your barris bar east hospitalit, construction workers, all these other communities are going to continue to be pushed out to the east bay. San francisco is going to be subsidizing these so called Affordable Housing units. I dont see why you should continue funding these projects when they are not really actually creating truly Affordable Housing. They are just subsidizing a certain classthey are not even san franciscans. They are recent immigrants that may or may not stay, who are probably going to leave very soon because they dont want to stay in San Francisco during this covid 19 pandemic that could imo on fo go on for years. I think this is project is a waste of tax payer dollars. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Im a district eight resident and a renter in San Francisco francisco. I strongly support this project. It will replace a usually empty parking lot. Whenever i walk by this parking lot rarely is it more than halfway full. It will replace a slab of concrete with more than a thousand homes that are subsidized and affordable. Frankly, im disappointed to hear the speaker before me complain about some immigrants living in these units. San francisco is known for being a welcoming place. A key San Francisco value is being welcoming and that means being welcoming of everybody. This project will accomplish those goals. Im disappointed to see the opposition rely on racist opposition. Im a professor at the university of california. I wanted to share some personal experience in regard it this. All time we have graduate and undergraduate students, ive had conversations with about the cost of housing. We have to deal with daytoday. Students retain faculty to have people be part of our community to be the besti think if were thinking aboutwe have better reasons to afford this project. Im a member of the lgbtq community. I see so many people thinking about moving to San Francisco thinking its this accepting place. But the steps that were taking to not accept projects like this one were shutting out those exact vulnerable populations. Projects like this dont get approved nearly often enough. If we want to be a community that can be welcoming and safe place, we have to approve a project like this one. For our Education Systems and community. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors. Cory smith on behalf of the San Coalition commission. Happy birthday to president yee and all the work he has done for this project. The proposal in front of you today means eleven hundred new homes. Five hundred fifty subsidized affordable. This is just incredibly valuable Public Benefit to district benefit to the community as a whole. Because a lot of people seem to not know a ton about the Affordable Housing. The housing were building is for our electricians and Fire Fighters and high school teachers. The people who work in our post offices, service workers, landscapers. All of these are the types of people that were trying to keep in San Francisco. President yee mentioned on monday this will generate four times as many Affordable Homes as has been built over the last decade. When you add in child care benefits and everything else. Everybody that has worked so hard to get this project to this place, really deserves a lot of credit. There are a bunch of people who are advocating for 100 su subsidized housing, that is great. I would love for them to be involved. Its a great project. Thank you. I just wanted to make a note that were still in the budget and finance Committee Meeting and 1 00 appropriations meeting will convene as soon as as this meeting adjourns. Thank you for your patience. Next speaker, please. Hello, im calling in support of this project. I was just actually going by lake mirr set on the bus actually and you see all these rvs. These people need housing. These are people going to s. F. State. These are people teaching at city college. You know. People are having to live in their rvs and theyre being harassed because there is a government tournament. Part of the trails are closed to accommodate a golf park. Nobody is complaining about that public land, but people are making racist remarks that we should not be welcoming new people into our communities. Its ridiculous. We need more housing. Were in the middle of a global pandemic. People need to be a bit more welcoming and friendly. Thank you, i totally support this project. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Madame chair, that completes the queue. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Public comment on items number 4 and 5 are now closed. So before us today we have a recommendation. I think that it actually compliments president yee has brought fort and i know that president yee addressed many of the issues we heard. But i just want to reiterate that a few questions just to remind folks since we heard a substantial number of Public Comments and reoccurring themes. I just wanted to confirm with president yee that the b. L. A. Recommends that an option be included for the city to purchase Affordable Housing properties at the balboa reservoir site. And i believe, president yee, youve been working on an amendment that would deed this land back to the city. And can you explain how this all works . President yee ill try to explain it, although supervisor fewer oewd maybe . President yee city staff can do a better job. The land on which the building is going to be on. Once all these agreements are done, the idea would be to deed the land back to the city and the city then would lease the land to the nonprofits that are developing those so they could actually operate it its got the city operating them. So, yeah, there is a lot of the recommendations and were trying to put it into the developer agreement. Can i also say that there is a lot of confusion with the Development Agreement. I talked about that were put in the Development Agreement is not new legislation that you will be actually voting on today, or making some kind of recommendation. So as you know, its probably new to a lot of people that made Public Comments. As you know, the Developers Agreement could change a little bit amended up to the last minute possible. Weve seen that over and over again as we negotiate whats better for the community. So i want to put that out there. That i know that youve seen this over and over again. The public doesnt really understand that piece of it. So maybe oewd may answer the other piece of the question, if its not answered yet. Supervisor fewer sure. Hi. Thank you, president yee and chair fewer. President yee did a great job of explaining the amendment that will be made to the Development Agreement. In the interests of the fact that the city will be contributing funding to three expected to be three of the Affordable Housing parcels and the desire to keep those permanently affordable at the time that the city contributes that gap funding and the Construction Financing is all closed, they will the developers have agreed to convey those parcels back to mohcd which will lease them. Thats exactly the set up ocd uses throughout the city. Its consistent with our practice. Supervisor fewer right. What percentage of the total land would be deeded back to the city . I dont have the number in front of me for those three parcels in particular, but when you take the collection of those parcels plus the new public streets that the developer will be building and conveying back to the city at no cost, and the consideration of the fact that there will be permanent Deed Restrictions on the open spaces, that represents about 57 of the total project site. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. And then i also understand that there is some complication getting the educator housing parcel back under public ownership. Can you explain what that issue is . Sure. And i will also allow kirsten for Bridge Housing to comment. One thing to note about the Development Agreement is that the the educator parcel will be fully financed by the Developer Team. So there is no city funding to create that affordable educator parcel. And that said, the city will have a regulatory agreement to ensure the affordability remains on that parcel. And so one of the amendments that supervisor yee is making is to extend that regulatory agreement beyond the standard 57 years to 99 years. Supervisor fewer got it. Yes, hi, kirsten, i think that actually answered the question adequately. And then president yee said there would be a use it or lose it clause added to codify the developers commitment to build the housing. Is that correct . And can someone explain how the timeline commitments would work . Sure. This is something that typically is paired with Development Projects such as Treasure Island that have a significant amount of public tax increment financing. And really what were planning to do is to add a new schedule to the Development Agreement that will be a schedule of performance. And it will lay out certain milestones for the developer to achieve in order to stay in compliance with the agreement. So really what it is aimed to do is to incentivize the developer to do everything in its power to advance the production of the Affordable Housing. And so that scheduled performance will be added. It will be include predevelopment milestones, making sure theyre applying for permits, applying for the state subsidies. And of course, the city plays a big role in the production of the projects. We have to make sure were granting all the approvals, so really, the approach will be collaborative and lay out the timeline for those milestones. And codify that in the d. A. Supervisor fewer got it. Then one of the concerns about the project was when i was briefed on it, the Homeowner Association would be in charge of managing the park and this would leave out the important voices of all the renters, which includes almost all of the affordable units, not to mention the People Living in the community but outside this project. If this is a public park, shouldnt it shouldnt be governed by an h. O. A. It sounds like this is also being addressed in the amendment to the d. A. Can somebody confirm what this might look like . I will invite the Developer Team to respond about their plan for the open space managing, but i will also say quickly that one of the d. A. Amendments will be to clarify and ensure that the h. O. A. Representation is a pro rata equitable representation across all the buildings on the site. Supervisor fewer got it. Sure. Supervisor fewer, if i may. This is the project team. I want to speak briefly for a moment on the design of the public open space. This was something when we first sat down with our Development Team and the design team, before we responded, we made the decision to make the public open space, the twoacre park, the center piece and the center of the way that the site was actually laid out. There were multiple reasons for that. It was both because it would be a fantastic Community Gathering place, but also because it would be a great point of access for the surrounding communities into the new neighborhood were building. The originally designed park had a strong eastwest orientation and that was based on the two, like, immediate connections from the site to the surrounding neighborhoods. On the west there is a connection to Westwood Park which is a bicyclepedestrian connection. And on the east, we have the widest main entry to the park space, its facing directly at city college. Its intentionally lined up to align with the pedestrian passageway between the mixed use building and the future of what used to be the performing arts, now the diego rivera theater. We tried to make this open space, an open parklike College Campus and invite the neighbors in to enliven and make it an active space. Not just a grassy area. I can talk about the park program, a large lawn, a playground area, a community garden, a pavilion and gathering space. Thats whats been proposed, but as is spelled out in the d. A. , we have Ongoing Community input process that has been laid out and all of those Detailed Design features are going to be subject to the review of the community you know, the ongoing c. A. C. That has been set up. And then, you know, thats something weve contemplated for some time. Were also now in one of the d. A. Amendments working on codifying, okay, once this park is built, how are we going to maintain that Community Input . While the Homeowner Association which is made up of the owners of the buildings, the three nonprofits, avalon bay and the future purchasers of the home, theyre going to have the budget and responsibility to maintain the park. Were going to set up a Community Advisory group that will advise and the h. O. A. Will report to help with programming, to help with ensuring that the priorities are right and then, i mean, i take this as a given, but you know, given some of the comments and questions, you know, not that anybody on our team would ever dream of doing this, but this board could also function as a way to make sure nothing was done by the building owners to cut off Public Access or discourage Public Access to the park. We talked about representatives from surrounding neighborhood groups, you know, have that as a voice in the future management and the future programming of the space. Supervisor fewer got it. And i also just wanted to mention yes, president yee . President yee im sorry. I just wanted some clarification from joel. I heard i think at least one is not true. People talk about the open spaces. This closed space, its like a private park for the people. And from the drawings and the discussion of this its pretty much open access from the streets that People Public streets. So is there something new i dont know about . The playground or the park itself . I dont know why people are talking about it like that. No. There is no i mean, the park immediately abuts the i guess the streets on four sides. These are public streets. There wont be a fence. Well probably have a low fence around the playground for safety reasons. But thats well within the center of the park, but, no, there is no effort to discourage public use of this space. President yee thanks for the clarification. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. I wanted to let everybody know that per the trustee on the City College Board of trustees said that the m. O. U. Is agendized for tomorrows meeting. So it looks like the m. O. U. Issue is being addressed with city college and hopefully we can get that done. And then just want to say in summary, we are, i guess what we heard a lot is about it being private land, privately owned and from what i just heard, its about 56, 57 of the land, including the park and open space as well as Affordable Housing will all be given back to the public and that is privately owned. And i also just want to say, i think, ideologywise, we would love 100 Public Housing on the land. I have said that. All of the Committee Members would love 100 Affordable Housing on public land. You know, one of the main barriers to building 100 Affordable Housing is really also the finances and the money to build it. Hence, we set aside a pot of money for it, but to do that on this piece of property, i think, would be not feasible, especially during our 1. 7 billion deficit. I see supervisor mandelman in the queue. Supervisor . Supervisor mandelman thank you, chair fewer. And i want to start by thanking and congratulating president yee on getting us to this point. I did see this project develop for the years that i was on the City College Board of trustees and i know that it has been a massive undertaking and i dont know that anyone would have envisioned that a Collaborative Community process would result in 1100 units going into district 7. Thats an incredible lift. And i think you are completely to be congratulated for that and for doing that in a way that respected the concerns of the community, but also that got the job done in terms of getting the housing of San Francisco met. I want to start by saying that. I have a record of having been supportive of developing a lot of housing on this property since when i was on the City College Board in the time of housing crisis. I think it makes no sense to maintain massively publicly owned parking, surface parking lots. And the fact that this is 50 affordable, you know, is also a great achievement. And i completely share, as chair fewer just express and i know president yee feels as well, the desire that this be 100 affordable project. And i wish that San Francisco had the resources from the federal government and from our local tax base to be able to develop many thousands tens of thousands of units more than we do at all income levels regulated, not just for very lowincome, but for lowincome and middle class and to create a neighborhood on a place like balboa reservoir where we wouldnt need to be subsidizing the affordable units with market rate units. But the reality is in the universe that we live in right now, we dont have those kinds of Public Resources available. So if we do not leverage our ability to well, if we do not Leverage Private development on some of these publicly owned parcels, were not going to get as much Affordable Housing. And i think the 5050 deal is about as good as it gets. We should elect a new president in november to free up resources for federal housing, but were not there yet. All that said, my one big giant quibble about the project, which i alluded to earlier in my question is that, you know, thats its not a ground lease. And i you know, years and years have gone into this. And the assumption on which this project are based are a fee sale. I think that president yee is again to be commended having ensured that we get at least the option to get as much as this land back as possible over time. But if i could roll this back to 2015 or whatever year the r. F. P. Went out. And this is going to guide my thinking about any future dispositions of public land that we see here at the board of supervisors. This could have been, i believe, a ground lease project. It would not have included ownership units and it might have trakted a different set of developer applicants, but we could have had 100 we could have had a ground lease project that, you know, theoretically should not have generated a ton less revenue for the puc, because of 99year ground lease is economically very, very similar to a fee. You know, perhaps there would have been some kind of haircut on that lease price. Or perhaps some other concession to a developer, but i do think we should be trying to get these lands back for our great, great grandchildren to be able to think again in 100 years about what they want to do with the property. That is the feeling that i have about future projects. It also impacts the ability of the city to ensure that were getting what we want on this project. And so i also want to thank president yee and supervisor peskin at land use for asking what happens if we dont get the Public Benefit . The child care, the public park, the Affordable Housing on the and ensuring there be a timeline and that there be some ability to take action based on that. The question that i do have there is, what is the remedy if the developer does not abide by the schedule of performance that were attaching to this purchase and sale . I know, you know, i think someone on staff referenced to collaborative approach, but you need the documents for when collaboration has broken down and were trying to insist on something. So what happens if the Child Care Center child care doesnt get developed by the time its supposed to be on the schedule of performance . Supervisor fewer staff . Thank you, supervisor, for the question. And we are going to be posting the updated Development Agreement with those full amendments, so i would first start by saying well have a chance to fully review that language. But the general framework of the scheduled performance really ties to the things that the developer can fully control. So the applications to the city for Building Permits. And really making sure theyre hitting their deadlines for things like that. And subsidy applications. If those performance targets are not met, it would be considered a default under the Development Agreement and so our d. A. Has terms in which the parties would be in default. Obviously, there are going to be a couple of additional elements to this. So there would be ways to cure that default before its officially a default. You would have a meet and confer tt. You would have to good faith discussions. But understanding the real estate development, the contract allows for exceptions and excusable delays given circumstances. Major economic issues. Those types of things would play into those excusable delays. So all of that framework is set up, though, within the general terms of the Development Agreement, which would at the end of the day mean that the developer would be in default if they didnt meet the scheduled performance goal. Supervisor mandelman which means what . A default means they supervisor mandelman i know what a default means, but what is the consequence . I dont want to get out of my lane, so i want to ask the City Attorney to talk about the default in the contract and make sure they can appropriately reflect what that is. Hi, there, this is betsy dietrich with the City Attorney. Thank you for the question. Ultimately, in a default situation, the ultimate remedy is to terminate the Development Agreement. So the entitlements that they have, they would no longer have. I would also like to supervisor mandelman and we would have a right performance as well. But in addition with respect to your question, the linkages, there is also a schedule of linkages in the Development Agreement that lee might want to talk to, because that is the actual trigger point for each of the various Community Benefits. For instance, they have to provide the Community Room by a certain point in order to get certificate of occupancy or Something Else that is tied to it. I think in that instance, its the certificate of occupancy for the building in which the Community Room is located. Supervisor mandelman are future Building Permits tied to those things as well . Yeah, betsy raises a great point. We do have, like many Development Agreements here, we have a linkage schedule, which is the biggest incentiveization for delivery of the Public Benefits as the project is built out. It lays out kind of a commensurate development of the Public Benefits as the market rate portion of the project is being built out. In this case, specifically for this project, the market rate each market rate Apartment Building cannot receive a certificate of occupancy until an associated affordable building receives a certificate of occupancy. Supervisor mandelman the reason that i ask is that under a ground lease, the remedy ultimately is, you can terminate the ground lease and take the property back. And i dont know if there is a right of revert in built into this deal, but thats, you know, a hard thing to enforce. And i also actually think certificates of occupancy are its hard to tell an acquiring condo owner that theyre not going to be able to have their condo because the city has right to with hold the certificate of occupancy until the park gets finished. So i think again, going back to my discomfort with you know, not having a ground lease, i just think there is additional protections for the city there. I recognize thats not what we have here. Im happy we have more time before this goes to the board of supervisors and i have to vote on it and i can take a look at the remedies and think about how this would actually work. But you know this is not just it feels like when they did this, they were thinking of this maybe a little more like a land sale. And you know, they wanted to negotiate a price and ensure the ratepayers got the value of the the fair market value of the property. But this feels a little bit this is a little more like, you know, more of a redevelopment deal where the city has actual interest in what happens and how it happens and when it happens. And wants to have some rights to insist on things actually getting done on a certain timeline. So i know folks have made a lot of moves in that direction and i appreciate that. And i think were moving in that direction in land use. And i want to thank everyone for their work. But again, in the future, think being selling land, i think we should think about whether we do a longterm grant lease. Supervisor fewer okay. Thank you very much. Any more comments or questions . President yee . President yee supervisor walton, any questions or comments before i make my last comments . Supervisor walton thank you, president yee. Madame chair, just real quick. Its not necessarily about this. I did receive a text about someone missing Public Comment. I suggested they send in an email to all of us with their comment, but i just wanted to let everyone know that there has been some technical concerns trying to get into Public Comment as we move forward to the next meeting. Supervisor fewer okay, thank you. Our apologies. President yee so let me i want to thank all the people that made Public Comments. Colleagues can see the opinions are diverse as the city is diverse. As i mentioned already, the whole packaging, the whole process of developing a massive project like this is complicated, so some of the compliments are as factual as people could make it. But sometimes the assumptions are a little off. I want to say one thing. Ive been in this area for nearly 40 years i guess. And the discussions 40 years ago were very different from what it is now. But still this little bit of where i work with my residents in d7 and a lot of them not all, but a lot of the residents are living in singlefamily homes and i want to protect that that quality in the area. But the pressure of developing more housing is really immense at this point. And everybody everybody agrees that not just one area of San Francisco should pick up the slack for them. But this should be distributed for all San Francisco. And d7 is not known to have a lot of affordable units. In fact, very few. And ive always said to people, well, there is pressure here. One is to keep the quality of life that you want. And then the other pressure is that they want to rezone everything. There are others that want to rezone everything where it can be all high rises. I always have taken the middle ground. That we do our share and there are certainly places where the density can go up without disturbing the quality of life like people want. And the balboa reservoir project is one of these examples where we can increase the density of the district without really having to change much of the zoning for a singlefamily home. There is going to be other opportunities like this throughout d7. And so i want to stay because i think say that because i think that people need to understand, this isnt 40 years ago where you can be exclusive and keep on fighting the city to develop this land. Its been 30, 40 years of talking about it and its out there. This is as close as weve ever gotten. Were not talking 5,000 units at the beginning of this discussion five years ago. Many were suggesting that. Were not talking no units. There are some people there were people that suggested that. And probably some more still suggest that. So, for me, you know, compromises are always difficult. It makes way for everybody to find something wrong, but you could tell from the comments that many people have seen something right about this project, too. So ill leave it at that. But again, well continue to work on the Development Agreement and as i mentioned earlier, its posted online so people can look at it. The final decision on this is not going to happen until we have our committeeofthewhole meeting in august. So this time to review those things. And by the way, a lot of these things were amending or things that the committee had asked for, so its not moving in another direction at all. But there is something i would like to have you amend on the ordinance itself. I started talking about it. Where the ceqa iir mentioned something about retail space. And somehow its put into this ordinance as a possibility of 7500 square feet which is not a lot, but i also said that the developers and because the community, we dont compete with ocean avenue businesses. We are totally committed to that. So i want to delete that language that is in the ordinance that states that possibility. And that would be on page 3, line 8. And basically it is a few words, so were clear there wouldnt be any retail space there. What i wanted deleted was approximately 7500 square feet of Neighborhood Survey retail space. Okay . Supervisor fewer great. Okay. So, colleagues, because this is due to ceqa filed for the project, we can make a motion to the full board without recommendation. But first, i would like to make a motion to accept the recommendations from the b. L. A. Could i have a roll call vote, please . Clerk yes, on the motion, supervisor walton . Walton aye. Mandelman aye. Fewer aye. Three ayes. Supervisor fewer then id like to vote to accept the amendment from supervisor yee and could i have a roll call vote, please. Clerk on the amendment, supervisor walton . Walton aye. Mandelman aye. Fewer aye. Three ayes. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Now id like to make a motion to send this to the full board as amended without recommendations. Clerk madame chair, because of the modification to the Development Agreement is substantive, so a formal motion to accept the changes is recommended. Supervisor fewer oh, okay. So i make a formal motion to accept the amendment, is that what im supposed to be doing . A motion to accept the modifications to the Development Agreement. Supervisor fewer yes. Clerk on the motion, walton aye. Mandelman aye. Fewer aye. Three ayes. Supervisor fewer okay. Now may i move this as amended and modified to the full board without recommendation . Clerk yes