Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Land Use Committee 21317 20170220

Has been sponsored by the mayor and board president breed. So this ordinance is not a new ordinance. It is it ej rated back in 1998 when our first Green Building program in place. It morphed and changed in 2004 to adopt lead silver as the minimum building standard for municipal builderce and in 2011 got lead gold as the building standard. This change was also it was also the same as what was going on in the private sector where also lead silver to gold is now the standard citywide. Theres a context and the reason were having this ordinance come before you today and that is that the Building Code has changed, want only for the city but the stay wide so you have the California Energy code. As well as the california state Building Code and cal green are updated and our ordinance needs to corspend to that and lead leadership and Environmental Design has version three which is expired and now has version four so at one level had this is a clean up ordinance to make sure were in context but using it as an opportunity to clarify and look to the future. So how are we doing . This is just a quick snapshot how the city has doing implementing the lead ordinance since 2004. To date we have 51 municipal bodybuildings, nine are platinum. This is one of the largest municipal portfolios in the United States. Some specific examples handout hospital is an example of the laguna honda is a example the first lead hospital. And the academy is double load for construction and maintenance building. The airport terminal two is the first terminal to be lead gold in the u. S. Here in the building we find ourselves city heal is the oldest lead Platinum Building in the United States and with the retrofits that we did on this building the taxpayers as well as the employees can benefit tw of 25 Energy Savings and thousands of gallons of water saved and those are some of the benefit s and the new Public Safety you may not know not only is it home to our police and fire, but it has three living roofs, brain water harvesting, gray water reuse and water savings fixtures make this the most water efficient building in the citys municipal portfolio and designed before we were in a drought and having this as our goal and pushes toward the future and resilient for whatever is to come so the proposed changes to this ordinance are in three buckets. Updates which i alluded to. Clarifications to make this i clear and easier to implement ordinance and finally additions to look forward to the future so the proposed updates the California Energy code has been modified and we need to point to the recent code. The California Green code has been updated and we need to point to the recent code in our ordinance and finally lead itself has expired version three and on to version four which is heavily focused on energy and efficiency which will help us as we try and meet the statewide goals of zero Net Energy Building. The lead three to body four was perhaps the area that gave the Department Heads the most heart burn and concerned about the comp implications would be so we worked closely with public works and as with the Building Construction team, with the consultants to do an analysis of actual City Projects to see what the impact would be on the building if we go from three to four. For new construction was a wash and 0. 8 increase in the cost of the building. For renovations we get a range of impacts depending how we accommodate the Solar Photovoltaic system from 2. 5 to 5 increase in cost. We believe these costs can be mitigated to a large degree by up front planning and yet its important to go in with our eyes open and a small increase Going Forward. The clarifications that we put in place. The first one is that we shifted the applicability of this ordinance to have a threshold of 10,000 square feet rather than 5,000 square feet. Citywide that threshold is 2,500,000 square feet so were 25,000 square feet and leading by example but projects have a higher cost burden and asking us to join us in the spirit of lead if not certification of the second area had to do with the port. It turns out the port of San Francisco has its own Building Code and confusion as to whether or not Chapter Seven applied to the port and its explicit that section 7 05 and 706 that may seem redundant are not in effect for the port but the port changed the code to make sure its consistent with Chapter Seven. Theres a part of this program which is the waiver process so that if a City Department feels it cannot meet the standards set forth in Chapter Seven they can apply to get a waiver from either the certification for lead or specific elements that are in that certification, and for the port we have put in place a process in the port where they will do their own waivers and director of the port will have the authority to grant the waivers but we instituted a transparent Decision Making process where the task force will issue a recommendation to the port. The port will make a decision and made public at the Environment Commission and the port commissions, so we clarified and increased transparency when it comes to the port and theyre incredibly unthese yatdic and willing partner and the last clarification which was very important is that we made it clear that this ordinance does apply to major renovations and tenant improvements in leased space so for example when the San Francisco employees retirement or the Health Service system remodeled their location they do it now with a lead check list and with lead certification and that way the taxpayers, the employees, the visitors are insured to have the benefit of a lead certified building, so that was then the amendments, and the clarifications, so the updates and clarifications and now looking towards the future how can this ordinance prepare us for what is coming ahead . How can we look ahead at what the state of california is putting in place . What about our climate goals . So the proposed additions were asking each project to do a feasibility on what it takes to build that project to be zero net energy . Its a statewide goal where the Energy Budget for the building is the same as the energy generated on site through renewables. It doesnt make sense to do it for large skinny buildings but three or fewer stories we may be able to achieve net energy before the deadline by the state of california. Were asking projects to do a cost benefits analysis for solar plus storage and how do we take the solar on site and meld it with batteries and use that energy in the evening or in the event of an earthquake or other disaster . And finally were looking at what is actually going in those buildings and it turns out that the furniture in the buildings in fact the furniture youre sitting on now often contains toxic chemicals and flame retard arts so were putting language in the ordinance for the department of the environment to draft regulations and City Department to the change the procurement in the wonderful lead program soas thats a snapshot of this ordinance in terms like i said there is larger context why we need to do it now. We have amendments that have clarifications and updates s and the idea to looking to the future so any questions you might have i am open. Colleagues any questions right now . Okay. Thank you very much. We will open up to Public Comment. Anyone wish to comment on item number 1 . Okay. Hello i am here to support i am laura and here to support the update to the environment code. San francisco is an early adopter of buildings and lead the country towards innovative Green Buildings and the private sector to follow. Its gone on to be a success around the world and we can pride in that and this update includes important true ups to stay current and continue to lead in this area. The gold standards for Green Building have evolved so we need to keep up and pushing the envelope and San Francisco wants to be a leader in this area and we can do so with some of the amendments in the ordinance. Finally were especially pleased to support some of the key pieces that director raphael mentioned at the end, the idea of making the buildings zero net energy which is a staple that the state doesnt fully know how to execute so we can show how to do in San Francisco, doing on of sight Battery Storage and paired with Renewable Energy is important as our Energy System becomes more renewable we have to figure out to keep the electrons we generate into sun and something we recommended in a report at spur worked on over the last two years that being load at what the bay area and what cities in the area can do to help advance a fossil free region especially recommended this idea be pursued so to see it incorporated into the municipal Green Building is a great idea as well as were happy to see the ordinance include the requirement to implement the better roofs ordinance which we worked hard on over the years and pleased to see and incorporated into the sites such as the Public Safety building so in short were in favor of the update and look forward to it be implemented. Thanks. Thanks. I have two other speaker cards. [calling speaker names] so if year free feel free to come on up. Good afternoon supervisors. Rich berman part of San Francisco and i am here to express my support of the revisions. The port has worked closely with the department of of the environment in carving out some of the revisionsa and they have been a fantastic partner not only in this but establishing citywide goals and leaders for us in establishing our own Climate Action goals which are reflected in the ports strategic plan, and were very appreciative of the ability to incorporate the especially 705 and 706 sections into the port Building Code. If there are questions about that i am happy to answer them. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Good afternoon. My name is Brendon Mc Haney and i am the director of the Building Councils Northern California office and here to support the Green Buildings requirements for the municipal buildings and San Francisco has been a lead on these issues and it ensures the leadership that these projects reduce environmental impacts. Our lead Rating System is the leading choice for environmental impacts and certifying the improvements made. While this standard has been voluntary adopted in the private sector and many are in the Public Sector and governments that saw the benefits of reduced energy bills and improving environmental conditions and healthier and more productive working spaces. Local government leadership and raising the ceiling for performance has in turn raised the floor and advances in the building and environment code and for technology and market advances and the lead system is regularly updated and this would require lead verse four and the current version of best practice in building environmental performance. The state of california has expressed its intent that all buildings are zero net energy by 2030 and producing clean sources and take a step in that dreakz and mandating the standard consistent with the policy direction. With so much uncertainty at the federal level its important to push for leadership on environmental cashes and thank the city and county of San Francisco issue for the leadership and look forward to working with leaders and staff to make sure that municipal buildings meet a high level of performance. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to comment on item number 1 . Yes. I am a neighborhood activist and here for the next item but i think at that point somewhere in our great bureaucracy and system somebody has to Say Something a little bit realistic about this building and what is going on with it and lets say we build a zero Net Energy Building but all of the activity that go in and owl and embedded in an environment and economy that is 70 based on fossil fuel so were increasing the fossil fuel you know, juice, you know and thats the shortcoming of its not beautiful in other words. It has a huge wart on it. Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to comment on item number 1 . Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel]. Colleagues any questions or comments . If not a motion to move this item forward. So moved. Second. Okay. Motion by supervisor peskin with recommendation supervisor . Yes, sir. If we could do that and second by supervisor tang. We will take that without objection. [gavel] madam clerk will you call item 2. Item 2 is ordinance amending the planning code to allow amusement arcades south of market eastern neighborhood and mixed use district except in the residential enclave districts affirming the departments department. Thank you. I am from the department. Thank you members. Last week we heard this item and asked for a continuance so the City Attorney could prepare amendments spflg to allowing the arcade use or prohibited removing the prohibition of arcade use only in the soma Light Industrial district and we have revised legislation from the City Attorney so we ask for your amendments to the original legislation that it only be limited to soma service Light Industrial and we have legislation. Do you have copies . Sorry. Do you think maybe you could walk us through the amendments here cant vote on them until understanding what they are. Yeah. Originally the legislation had the arcades prohibition deleted in the south of market and mixed use district so all of the mixed use district and each eastern neighborhood but we prepared prohibition for the south of Market Service Light Industrial district and this is an amendment of the whole so it doesnt show the original place wrist it was originally allowed. Okay. I have some cross outs and so forth. This is the amendment we can take this forward and move it forward today . Okay. So just in the title as well as it looks like 17 and 18 on page two . Correct. You have an extra period on page one at line 17. Supervisor peskin attention to detail here. John gibner and there were sections not amended in the first ordinance and removed from this version all together some changes to zoning coal tables that no longer need to be changed because the ordinance is scaled back. Okay. Colleagues any questions, comments for the sponsor and team in. Less is more. I am fine with these changes. Okay. We will open up Public Comment then. Thank you. [calling speaker names] if there is anybody else wish to speak please line up and do this for the next items as well. Everyone has two minutes to speak if line up on the far wall. That would be great. Good afternoon supervisors. I am president of the south of market business association. I remember as a kid i still loved to go to the local cafe in my town and play pin ball and not just games but meet people there and a fun time to have a friday evening or saturdays and so forth so it was a great time to spend with friends and so we feel its the same thing now. We dont have the pin ball machines anymore. Its sort of more electronic and techy stuffs and i dont blame myself but its great for the community and great for the young generation to come and spend time with friends and you know but also what it does is makes the area more vibrant and on top of that the city benefits because of the money that comes in from the folks that spend at these places that will have these entertainment what do you call it . Arcades, amusement arcades, sorry, so i urge you to please support this. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. I was here lapt week and ask for your support and here again for that and piggyback on everything i said last week. You know this is a concept that is resurging in the country from new york to portland to Southern California and it will be helpful to get it in our city now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else wish to comment on item 2 . Okay. Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel] colleagues we have an amendment whole in front of us. I will make a motion to adopt the amendments discussed and send forward with positive recommendation to the full board. Okay. Motion by supervisor tang and second by supervisor peskin. Madam clerk will you call items 3 and four together. Item 3 is exempting requirements and authorizing land and on 180 jones street establishing the Affordable Housing fund and accepting a 2. 7 million gift to the fund and approving the [inaudible] of conveyance of property and appropriate findings. Okay. Thank you very much. These items sponsored by supervisor kim. Yes,. We will open it up to her to speak in the beginning. I know this Committee Heard this item last monday and just wanted to summarize the ordinances that are before us today. First of all i do want to recognize many of our Community Leaders and residents from the tenderloin and midmarket area that were part of working on negotiating the deal that is before us today with 950 market. The ordinance that is before us today was an outcome of discussions that the community had with the Developer Group out of concerns that below market rate units for ownership wouldnt be accessible to the vast majority of residents in the neighborhood. Due to that they identified a site, one of the last developable vacant parcels in the tenderloin, 180 jones which is currently a parking lot and worked with the developer to purchase and acquire the site and dedicate the city to build at least 60 units of step up Affordable Housing for single occupancy residents and this is a huge housing issue here in San Francisco. We have many residents that are longterm single room occupancy residents who are ready to move into step up housing, other Affordable Housing and freeing up their rooms for other individuals that are recently homeless as future housing for the formerly homeless in San Francisco. This group worked close with the office to purchase the land and additional funds to build that 180 jones street. The primary project is important to the revitalization of the midmarket and the loin area. We proximate the value of the land purchase and contribution to the fund at approximately 25 of the on of site Affordable Housing obligation. I had mentioned last week at mondays Land Use Committee when questions arose about the value of this deal that our office works very hard to push the envelope with all of the private developers to ensure that were sharing in the value conterto land and building the maximum Affordable Housing possible but also we want to make sure were consistent with our developments so we crafted this deal looking at a project that passed unanimously at this board of supervisors last may of 2016 which is the 1066 market cite and the parking lot and residents were concerned they werent qualify for the below market rate units and residents asked that developer to acquire another parcel that is very meaningful to the tenderloin neighborhood, 101 hyde street which is currently the Old Post Office building, previously one of the ways that the tenants received mail and communication, and to purchase that site from Property Owner that had entitle to build 100 market rate units and that land is dedicated to the city and they also dedicated an Affordable Housing gift to help jump start the predevelopment for that site so it will also be 100 Affordable Housing. On top of this because of some of the historic nature or the historic nature of the building in that it previously housed transgender, lesbian, gay and bisexual retail and environment sites. The comptons district Historic District Committee Work with the developer to seed and grant a 300,000 fund dedicated to city to support Webcor Obayashi tlgb. The money will. Go towards the Cultural Heritage district in the tenderloin, create a transgender focus community in the tenderloin and want one or more transgender store fronts in the comptons this legislation codifies many of the components i talked and i want to recognize the audience that worked together with the developer and 950 coalition and the sro collaborative, Market Street for the masses, the Compton Coalition and city side and Mayors Office of housing and Community Development and staff that are here today, our Department Much real estate, the Planning Department and o ewd staff and City Attorney and our project sponsor and team for working so closely with our community. We do have updated numbers based on some of the questions and concerns that came up at Land Use Committee today which i know Committee Members have, and i just received additional amendments that we do want to make to item number 4 that were result of discussion with mohcd to codify we intend for the Affordable Housing development to be offered to individuals and families with income of 40 ami or lower and intend the Affordable Housing at the site provide preference for tenants in city supported housing for at least three years and they havent have all of the subsidy for the development on the site but do our best efforts to secure the gap funding so just to be clear because there were concerns about a gap in the Affordable Housing project and a gap for 101 hyde as well. While we pushed with both developers they were able to commitment to 25 off site which is greater what was previously gathered at 20 however it didnt cover the gap on both deals but we have an analysis that shows the gap for this project at 180 jones is lower than 101 hide which the board supported last year so with that these are the amendments that i am hoping the committee will make. I will make sure each of the Committee Members get a copy of these amendments during Public Comment, and if there are no further questions chair farrell i ask that we open up for Public Comment. Thank you supervisor kim, so and thank you for those amendments and we will be taking care of them after Public Comment. You know last week at the hearing on this item and my colleagues on the committee would join me on this wasnt comfortable moving this ordinance forward with the information in front of us, and perhaps i am too used to be at Budget Committee and harvey rose is present presenting for the board of supervisors and last week there was a memo is that showed ordinance had a two and a half Million Dollars profit to the developer and just to be clear im not here to decide the profit for the developer but i am here to make sure that Development Deals made outside of a Development Process agreement are fully vetted. If we are exempting projects with the money its important policy decision and i am glad to entertain those when we talk about the community that came forward and wanted Affordable Housing in the neighborhood but i want to make sure that the city gets an adequate return and the best deal possible and frankly the way we went about this we were holding housing hostage in the city and its not the right approach. Last week when i raised questions about the profit and the departments and the developer couldnt have agreement on the numbers so we didnt have the information in front of us and thanks to the Mayors Office of housing and the developer and the planning for over the last week working with my office and i believe my colleagues as well to do a further dive on the analysis up to about an hour and a half ago i was on the phone running through excel sheet wts developers finance team to unpack the data in front of us and reality is today or two months ago we have completely numbers from the city staff. I want to run through the numbers but quite frankly from a process perspective and from a Land Use Committee perspective let alone the full board of supervisors perspective that simply doesnt work, so Going Forward supervisor tang and i and the rest of my colleagues will join us and introduce legislation to make sure we have a full analysis of these projects done before they come to Land Use Committee where there are numbers that our City Departments will stand behind both at the time of production as well as two, three months down the road and to make sure that again if we do not have projects going through a full vetting of a Development Agreement that we make sure we have full information here at the Land Use Committee before approving these projects so with that i know my colleagues actually have comments they want to make but after that i am going to be asking ms. Kate hardly about the updated numbers and walk through that and ms. Rogers from the Planning Department, additional items to add in and give you the opportunity to walk through the numbers as well so we will talk through the numbers and the differences from a few months ago but before they will turn it over to my colleagues and first supervisor peskin. Thank you chair farrell and i want to echo the chairmans words as it relates to process but to put them in a little bit of context, and let me start by saying that over the last number of years the vast majority of Residential Development that has occurred in San Francisco has occurred in district 6 in supervisor kims district, and i am profoundly aware that supervisor kim has used her office and worked with various departments including but not limited to planning and the Mayors Office of housing to push the envelope to make sure that the community is getting the most Public Benefit in the form of Affordable Housing that is possible, and in deed it is i think has been an example time and again when we were back in the dark days of 12 on site inclusionary where supervisor kim showed us in projects that the required Development Agreements or not we could provide housing for workers, for teachers and so i want to salute that. As to process and i am not patting myself on the back when i say this. There has been something lacking and to that end that was one of the reasons that the board albeit it did not pass forward to the full board with a positive forwarded to the department on housing and whether public or private deals could actually get that level of scrutiny. So that supervisor kim wouldnt be doing it all on her own as she was pushing the envelope to get us more Affordable Housing so i do conquer Going Forward and i hope this is meant in the spirit it is given that we will actually come together so that we make sure were not leaving any money on the table, and the questions that i asked last week and some of my colleagues asked were really about whether or not there was money being left on the table. I conservation cur that develop concur that Developers Get into this to make money and it doesnt hurt my feelings when they do that and thats when developers do but it hurts my feelings so we could get more Affordable Housing or closing a project whether at 180 jones street or on market has the maximum feasible amount of Affordable Housing. We dont have a crisis in luxury units in San Francisco. We have a crisis in low income and middle income units and i think that is what supervisor kim has been trying to solve for, so i hope that Going Forward the board can actually have a conversation so we dont have what we saw here last week and i mean no offense to the Mayors Office of housing or planning but it was highly siloized and clearly not the level of communication and the numbers were clarified and a lot of that has been done in the intervening week and made me more comfortable but as the hearing going on we have questions about presumed Interest Rates and crystal bale things that we can ask but the lizon Going Forward we should have higher level of procedural oversight as the one off deals with created in the public interest. Supervisor tang. Thank you and i will just definitely echo what supervisor peskin and farrell said and of course i want to thank supervisor kim and her office for as supervisor peskin mentioned just always looking out for the district and make making sure we can get the best deal and we know shes a tough negotiator but i think what this committee was pointing to last week was not about this project on jones or market. It was about a larger idea of transparency and making sure there is information independently vetted whether by department or outside parties so really thats the point we were trying to get at but conceptually i can speak for the agreement that we know the committee and the agreement is the best for the neighborhood and i will leave it at that so we can move on with the hearing. Thank you. Okay. With that we have a number of speaker cards and but ask kate hardly to go through the letter with updated numbers and so were clear on what the updates numbers do say. Good afternoon. I would like to begin by saying that we agree. We have a process in place in the city to analyze transactions where theres some concessions or variations from the legislation for real estate and Development Agreement and the Mayors Office of housing participates in the agreements regularly and scrutinized by the legislative and Budget Analyst Office and were more than happy to do that sort of work and we do think that its a great way to make sure that each transaction that moves forward is maximizing Affordable Housing, offering a fair return to developers, but that were very clear on what the numbers are, so before you go on i just want to say in the course of our discussions, our discussion and my discussions with other Department Heads over the past week since going through this rigamarole last week everyone is in agreement that we need a Better Process so i look forward getting that legislation through so the Land Use Committee is dealing with facts when we have everything in front us and no one is pointing fingers and i think thats where we all want to be. Sounds good to me. So i have copies of the letters i sent you via email this morning. I am happy to provide hard copies. You have them . Okay. So essentially supervisor farrell you asked us to further investigation into the research that we did in december regarding 180 jones and 950 market. At the time we use the information we had to assess the terms of this transaction and whether it made sense. There were a lot of moving parts and we did the best we could with the information that we had. As you have described in december we found that the difference between the developers surplus and that is you know, i use that in sort of not standard way because we dont have our we dont have information on the entirety of this transaction which includes a hotel but it looks like the developer had a benefit of 2. 4 million if the developer provided funding to the off site versus just building on site inclusionary. The developer rebutted that assessment on december 15 and said a few really important things. One is that we were using sales cost inflation factor of 3. 9 which was too aggressive given what the market did in 2016. Also there were some policy questions about whether the developer should be exempt from the gray water system requirements as well as whether a fee applied for tdr Transferrable Development rights was appropriate and whether we should be looking at the developer getting a benefit by instead of all of the section 4 15 inclusionar y fees up front at First Construction document which is is typical and required under this section instead deferring a portion of the fees, approximately 11 million, until temporary certificate of occupancy sorry. Excuse me. Supervisor peskin had a few questions. If you want to go through the numbers i just have questions of taking a snapshot in time for 2016 as compared to using a half decade worth of data and while the market may have flattened although its kind of hard for us to believe given that we just got our six month report from the controller and 2016 had the highest ever in the history of the city and county collection of real estate transfer tax and we are way over on property tax, so intuitivity i dont know if this type of unit flattened a lot bit in 2016, but intuitively if the 3. 9 number goes back to 2010 which was at that point we were coming out of the recession when nobody could get finance dispg what have it it seems a little dangerous to start using 1. 2 . Im happy to solve this in other ways conceptually and including but not limited to the return on investment and the exercise fundamentally is what is the difference of the 31 on site units and however many 60 to 88 off site units and if the developer is making more is something to think about but were getting twice as many units. And there are lots of ways to skin it but im not sure if taking that number is the way to get there. Well, its a hard thing to argue. I think you could commission a full market study and come up with a number that is appropriate. The developer proposed 1. 2 based upon and then provided market data from polaris that showed there was actual decline in sales prices in 2016 for the building type theyre proposing to build. In addition, we looked at information from parra gone real estate group, trillia, other market watcher who is are consistently evaluating the data and they all confirmed there was for this building type especially one and two bedroom units a plateauing and even a sales price decline. In addition these reports are showing because of increased inventory there isnt so strong a market. Now is 1. 2 the right number . I cannot tell you and that is thats something that you know its a prediction and its something that you know deeper study could probably provide a better answer, but theres definitely contradictory data showing that you had ten, 15, 17 price appreciation between 2010 year over year and 2015 and the plateauing and then saw a drop in sales prices for this. Will that continue . Its hard to say. Well, i think ms. Hardly to further supervisor peskins comments though what were being asked to approve though is literally putting our finger on a number and saying specifically that this is what we agree is the growth rate and the pricing increase for the next two and a half years, and so and we can talk about the merits and have further discussion about it. I for one i am mixed about that. One, i cant believe it on one side given what we have gone through in the city and talk about affordability issues. However, given the amount of meaning on line, given supply demand i am excited if that is the truth, but you know as we talk through as i work with the developer through the Financial Model and share with my colleagues on this committee its a very big difference what the developer is getting and not if we agree 1. 2 versus 2. 4 and the developer. 2 i am sure you will run through it if we are the you speak theyre losing a few hundred thousand dollars on this because of this ordinance, but if we actually think its 2. 4 doubling sounds like a lot but in the grand scheme of things and housing is projecting that much in the city of San Francisco and project it out and many before would have said its true and then at 2. 4 theyre getting a benefit of 500,000 and thats my point last week. I dont want to grant legislation and giving them hundreds of thousands of dollars and the additional benefits. Lets get creative but make it cost neutral for the developer so i think while its difficult the point is though today were having to decide what that point in the sand is so thats why i think this discussion is going to be an interesting one. Well, i think there are ways to address that. We can commission a better market study then just sort of cursory review of the materials and i think its important to look at the entirety of the transactions, so they originally came forward in support of this because we were acknowledging the communitys desire to have the 68 units built at a lower affordability rate than 31 condos on site. Granted we wanted to make sure there was no additional benefit related to the developer in that that was adverse to Affordable Housing so a lot of turns on the inflation rate which we have to make a guess on. Even a full market study we will make a guess. In addition since the time that we did our additional analysis in december the developer provided another Million Dollars in gift funds beyond the 2 million they previously committed to and there are the questions of the applicability of a tdr amendment as well as whether we should be looking at the delay and the payment at tco between First Construction documents and tco as something that needs to be applied against the developers contribution, so when you put all those together with the projected sales prices thats really the analysis that we need to consider, and as we said in our last letter to you if you assume a 1. 2 inflation rate then its about break even between on site and off site, but if you say if you decide as policy makers that the benefit that there really shouldnt be a benefit conferred or a benefit applied to the developer because theyre not paying their fee right at First Construction documents as is typical in a section 4 15 in lieu payment. Then theyre actually spending approximately 1. 8 million more to do the off site development. Now, if you say 1. 2 inflation on the condos sales prices is too low and go to 2. 4 then you would have a different outcome and were more than happy to continue this analysis and give a variety of scenarios that bring in all of those elements, but there are some policy questions that have to be determined as part of that. Okay. Do you want to run through your analysis and just the comparison because i think its helpful for everybody. So when we went back we took the data that we saw on the marketplace also with the developer claimed that we were too aggressive in the Price Inflation and revised the market rate theyre projecting. We also failed to account for financial carrying costs for the developer from tco to the point where the sales was completed. We didnt have an absorption rate or the cost of funds were at that time. We now know what it is and so theyre actually going to have to spend about 800,000 in interest in order to borrow the money to make the section 4 15 payment. We kept the gray water system credit and the tdr credit the same but now that we know what their money costs we also gave them an additional we also applied an additional benefit to them for not having to pay their fee at First Construction documents. They increased their gift to the city by a Million Dollars since the first analysis, and as you add and subtract all the credits and debits it came out to about a 260,000 loss to the developer if they provided money for Inclusionary Development at 180 jones street. Again there are some policy questions here that should inform that analysis about the tdr, about the requirement to pay the fee at First Construction versus tco, and about gray water, and we tried to lay those out for you in the letter, and that is where we landed. Okay. Thank you ms. Hardly. Colleagues if no other questions we have planning planning. Im sorry. I wanted to say one thing. We have staff here that has information about these issues. Maybe this is for planning and my understanding along the way the job linkage fee was calculated originally at 1. 4 million and subsequently 400,000. What is the behind the scene story on that. Good afternoon. I have some of the behind the scene story but supervisor kim knows more than i do. The ordinance introduced included a original job link am fee and a guess on the fee and shows how complicated to figure out the real value a deal such as this because thats the straight fee and the drafter of the ordinance didnt require when we would assess the fee we would give credit for existing office use that need to pay the fee so in this case the existing use on the site would credit the developer for a. 9 million credit so due . 9 million in actual job linkage fee. So they got a credit for on site use so you have to pay for the impact of the higher intensity use but if you have already that use on the site you dont have to pay because youre not increasing the intensity. You only pay for the amount youre increasing the intensity. So the final job link an number was . 9 million. [inaudible] [off mic] thank you to the experts in the audience. So it went. 08 to 400,000. Because of the credits. I like the other number better. Sorry. Supervisor kim. Just to talk about the amendments we made to the ordinance. The originally ordinance was for 18. 8 million and this was under the assumption that the linkage fee was that amount and however through extensive conversations with the developer knows there is a gap on the jones site the developer and i worked out a deal and despite the reduction shes stay paying off well, were waiving the job link an fee and instead of the reduction its 700,000 reduction so she wanted to make sure there was a gift above what is required and that is codified in the ordinance that is before us today. Just a couple of things though. I just want to concur with the Land Use Committee. I would love for there to be a consistent assessment of all of the land use Development Deals. It has been incredible work for my staff and office that feel that the vast majority of the developments in the city to make sure were getting a fair deal for the city and making sure were building as much as Affordable Housing as well as contributions to arts and open space and Pedestrian Safety and the whole multitude of things we care about when building healthy and complete neighborhoods with the vast amount of development, but you know we do have to run our own numbers and we depend on a lot of Community Members through the Affordable Housing developers to help us with numbers to make sure were getting a fair deal so it makes sense for the city to provide that. The Mayors Office of housing has been helpful and olson lee and kate hardly are always working with the office for the best numbers possible and we support that but i want to emphasize the 180 jones and market deal structured in a deal that we did a year ago a block away on market so we did a cost comparison between those two developments to make sure that while were getting the most we could were treating developers as fairly ooze possible, and not asking one to do more than the other, and so very similarly 1066 market, the market rate units and both of these projects are out at 25 and 101 hyde and the units there and on jones 60 units and i know there were concerns about the gap. The gap on hyde is and so because for a number of reasons we were able to crush the dollars more and offer the land cost more in 180 jones street than 101 hide but if we have concerns about the payment of First Construction document and we didnt because we know it would take several years to build on jones and the timeliness of the payment wasnt as important to us but if we talk about the value of that this committee and board didnt question us when in the 1066 market deal we let them make the Affordable Housing gift as an exempt contribution to a foundation so they actually got tax ex contribution and by giving to the San Francisco foundation so there is a tremendous value to that as well and this board didnt question that value we gave to the shorren steinos 1066 market so obviously theres a lot of deals. Theyre apples and oranges. This is for ownership and hotel. Sen 66 market was all rentals and we do the best we can to have consistent housing deals before the Land Use Committee but i agree it would be great to have an independent analysis from the city to make sure were running the best deal possible. Ms. Rogers, can i invite you back up . I believe you were going to go through additional numbers. Yeah, there were two other numbers that planning staff was responsible if you but i would like to support the idea of forwarding additional fiscal vetting support changes by the Development Agreement have such a process and the staff and commission would support such fiscal analysis by tree experts just as this body has concerned today staff and the Planning Commission has concerns when the ordinance was before them but we didnt have the tools to fully vet this from a fiscal perspective so we appreciate the boards interest in doing so. The other two fees i wanted to talk about besides the job linkage fee citizen gray water fee and use the numbers from the developer and the intervening woke the puc tested the numbers and concluded those are appropriate. However, planning staff does continue to differ from the project sponsor where they should be subject to that requirement at all, and as i said last week it is our opinion that the project sponsor couldnt have received the entitlements before the date and its a policy decision before the board to waive it and secondly on the costs. Last week we estimated of 25 a square foot and compared to recent sales and with research we found its a set rate required by board resolution by specific purchase for the site. Thank you ms. Rogers. Thank you. And again in terms of all the analysis we looked through in the past week i concur and thank puc for weighing in on the gray water analysis and planning and talking about tdrs and the caring cost questions and the biggest question whether we agree as a board and i am supportive i have a amendment to make sure that we do, a 1. 2 growth rate over the next two years. I think that is subject to debate and so forth and i think we can have that discussion. Colleagues if no other questions right now for staff i think we do have a lot of public speaking cards here so i would like to go through them if open for everybody else. All right. With that we will open up Public Comment. I will read your name off. Please line up and everyone has two minutes. [calling speaker names] and i got some more here as well. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is rob peal and the development and Communications Manager with the housing coalition. I hope you had a great weekend. 950 market hab through the journey and came to us in july 2014 so two and a half years ago and my goodness a lot has happened that time. At that time it was a sud. It was clear that the project sponsor [inaudible] deliver in this case the arts committee. That didnt work out and went to [inaudible] project and a year later saw it again and now in early 2017 with what we feel say terrific proposal and maximize the amount of permanent Affordable Housing it can deliver. We think this solution introduced by supervisor kim is very sensible. A lot of decisions on the project were made jeerg. Its hard to predict where things go but this is a smart proposal and its good today and we hope to move it forward. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker please. Hello. I am helen beam representing the tenderloin equitable project development and were here to support the 180 jones street ordinance because of the benefit its provides to the tenderloin residents and community. Basically we believe that this ordinance is preferable to building on site affordable units and doubles the number of Affordable Housing that would be built and provides the units at a deeper level of affordability and includes the step up Units Available to sro tenants in city supported housing and free up their units for other homeless units needing a home and so for these reasons we believe that the 180 jones street ordinance best serves tenderloin residents and we request that the committee move this item to the full board. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Hello. My name is Josephine Rivero and i live across the 550 market project since 1990. I have worked as a Hotel Housekeeper on the marriott for 16 years and a Union Representative here. I am representing the civic center [inaudible] park center [inaudible] and chancellor. I had housekeeping jobs with the union and without a union contract. I can tell you how much better its for the Hotel Employees to have the union. The wages are better. We have job security and protection and we get health care and pension when we retire. The developers of 950 market have signed an agreement that will allow workers at the hotel to organize a union without fear of retaliation. This will be this will provide good living wages, jobs that will benefit this neighborhood and also today i am asking you to approve this motion for 180 jones which is an important part of this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good afternoon. Cynthia gomez at the hotel union. As you heard the project sponsors signed an agreement that will protect workers right to form a union without form of retaliation which is increasingly important and signed in december 2015 and so the hotel jobs will certainly be the kind we need more of in San Francisco in terms of living wages and protection and benefits. We have members who live in the tenderloin and depend on sro and Affordable Housing so any project that will expand Affordable Housing options is certainly one we support. In this case we as i said the project has benefits and workforce training as apable way to good jobs and 80 jones the ordinance is something were definitely urging you to support. Dont allow for the Community Benefits and housing and the prospect of living wage jobs to be further delayed. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is Curtis Bradford and president of the east tenderloin Residents Association and the and the coalition that negotiated the benefits as part of the thing and also here as one of the members of the tenderloin Peoples Congress and i would like to say i am here today to speak in strong support of the 180 jones street. Worked on this deal a year and a half and negotiated by members in the tenderloin and residents like myself and sat down with the developer in robust negotiations to reach this agreement and an unprecedented the opportunity to support this resident driven process that created this. This is what the rose dents wantd and they asked for the development and negotiate thursday development and its just part of a whole package of benefits that were negotiated for the tenderloin including a rent free space at tark and taylor and for the Employment Program and part of a larger package negotiated by the residents. I was one of those people and i would really expect that our board of supervisors would support this resident driven initiative. Frankly were talking about a few dollars here and the dollars even out, 100,000 more or 200,000 this way . How do you measure the benefit of building Affordable Housing in a site in the tenderloin that wouldnt be built . We want this housing. We need this housing. We want your support. Thank you. Next speaker please. Hello. I am Jesse Johnson and reiterate what curtis said today. The 180 jones street is important. Its crucial to the future of working class and low income people in the tenderloin and equally important the process by which the decision was made. This entailed months of negotiation between the coalition and the group and hours of conversation within the community. We covered a whole range of issues from strategies for our survival perhaps collective vision of our future, accountability, representation, transparency, all these issues were an important part of that discussion. I know in the past two too often decisions of this magnitude have been made by political players or gate keepers and this time was different and had empowered residents and please support that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker please. Hi supervisors. My name is eric and im a Community Organizer in the tenderloin and member of the tenderloin congress. Support the 180 jones street project. We have a state of the art agreement and standard for developers in the future. This process took over a year and agreement that speaks to the need wants of the community. The Land Use Committee and the board of supervisors should honor the desires of the residents and approve this project as originally negotiated. The opposition to this project is a cynical attempt by supervisor farrell to politicalize the project while appearing to be an advocate of affordable low Income Housing which has never been the case. Dont play politics with our housing and benefits. Thank you. Thank you very much. [applause] mr. Chair may i remind the members of the audience there are no audible expressions of support or opposition. If you would like to show your support you can use your spirit fingers. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Next speaker and by the way as the next speaker comes up i will call up the next cards. [calling speaker names] thank you and good afternoon supervisors. My name is stephanie ashley. Im the executive director of the st. James infirmary and here today as a member of the Compton District Coalition which is you know is a coalition of organizations serving and made up of the Trans Community in the tenderloin and the comptons coalition came together as just one section of a Broad Community effort to reach agreements around the 950 Market Street project and i am here to sept that section of the community and we encourage to you move forward with the 180 jones project and the agreement as it stands. Supervisor kims office did a phenomenal office bringing the Community Together with agreements that really benefits as much and the most needy sections of the Tenderloin Community and were hopeful that 180 joans can move forward as quickly as possible. St. James infirmary and other coalitions and Justice Project are a block away from 950 market and were invested in seeing the best outcome with the project and we believe that the 180 jones street in its current form is that version and we hope that you move the project forward with as little delay as possible. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good afternoon. I did not fill out a card. I am with land lease and general contractor on the project. We see it as positive plus can you hear me . Its a positive plus to the project itself, plus to the community itself. We would be providing publicly about 2,000 job in construction itself over a 20 month period for the construction. We work our company is well known for being safe. Were safety k. We will do everything we can to project the workers and the public itself and to maintain the necessary conditions that we neil best benefit both the people who live there and work at the site thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Yes supervisors. Randy shaw director of the tenderloin clinic. You see togetherness in the community and every labor developer on the same page and why the project needs to move out of committee today and i appreciate the comments before why this is a good deal and not clear to some of you last week and i want to calk you when youre in the numbers game to realize something very important here. The money spent on site condos was no benefit to the tenderloin resident, no benefit at all so the fact that you give certain benefit from doing on site condos that cost one thing and comparing to 40 median for Affordable Housing that do benefit tenderloin residents thats humongous. Taking the condo money is like flushing it down the toilet for the tenderloin and no benefits and it is not simply a money game and in an article i wrote they had to get 18 million that supervisor kim arrange friday forest city to fut them in play. If we have a few new rule to have all of the money there wont be any development and the whether approved theyre below budget because of the Construction Costs go up and we have to be careful about the money and not just the dollar amount but the value and in this case 180 jones is the best value for the city and the tenderloin. Thank you. Next speaker please. [applause] supervisors my name is ramone and i represent [inaudible] tndc has been part of this coalition for the community to create this deal for the community between group and support of 180 jones and have a process and respecting that process once its allowed by the city, and we want to encourage communities to participate in their communities and so in effort to do that and support that we need to move forward with 180 jones street and because the community has put the work, has shown up to the meetings, has worked together, and i think this is a very Good Opportunity for the board to support a community that has shown up, worked hard, made a deal, and that shows that is something thats needed in our society, more people participating, more people taking an interest in the community, and i think participatory planning is important thing and we need to respect that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker please. Good afternoon. My name is [inaudible] and i am representing the Compton Coalition for the comptons cultural district for transgender people and as a team were excited to see the formation of 180 jones and a team and implemented negotiation as innovative and tailor made to this region of the tenderloin and were in full support. Thank you very much. Next speaker please. Good afternoon. Jamie mayer manager director of the theater and the nonprofit space for the market development. The ordinance enabled project in farther costs more than the other option. In addition the developer is providing more than 5 million of Community Benefit package to ensure existing neighborhood residents participate in the benefits of the project. Its essential that the committee pass this ordinance to make much needed Affordable Housing to the neighborhood. The community made it very clear this is the Affordable Development solution it wants and needs and we believe the developer is paying more than their fair share. Any delay causes harm to those in need of housing in the tenderloin. Without passage of the ordinance our option is build the fireable units on site and fewer units on site. This is not a solution for the community. The neighborhood has waited long enough for jobs and how longing and programming for this site. We encourage you to support this ordinance today so that the project can move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good afternoon. My name is donel boyd and i am here to support the 180 jones ordinance because its a step up program and for me who just got housed it adds back to the natural flow of things from homelessness to the shelter to sros and then to an Affordable Apartment so i would like to endorse it, and i would like to ask supervisor farrell a question. He said in the beginning that we are holding housing hostage in San Francisco, and we includes you; right . And i want to know and word hostage means youre holding something for something and what does it take to get housing flowing and housing it held hostage. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Before you go sir let me call the next cards up so they can come up. [calling speaker names] my name is steven ten us and a 30 year residents of the tenderloin and worked and volunteered with sro collaborative and i am or was a number of the 950 Market Street coalition. For a year and a half we worked hard. We worked long hours. We went to over a hundred meetings in that year and a half and we had a deal with group i. Now i dont know what your motivations are mr. Farrell but i think you really blew it on this one. We had an agreement with group i. Its not just about money. Its about step up housing and getting people off the street and into housing and people like me and in sros to get something than a sro. To delay this is unconscionable. Youre doing nothing but harm with the delays. There is no reason for delays. Theres an old saying if it aint broke dont fix it. This aint broke. Everyone wants. Why you dont i have no idea. Please pass it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Hello council people. I am reginald meadows from the tenderloin people of conquest. I want to first of all thank jane kim and her efforts shes putting forward to help the community and others to make it possible to have Affordable Housing down there, real ones that circumstances not the condos. It is important to note that what we are discussing is something already agreed upon by the [inaudible] and the developers. The agreement should stand as it is for the monies and programs already agreed upon there should be no need for further discussion. As those joined in and determination has agreed. If money was what they really needed more of they would have discussed it at the table, not with your help mr. Farrell, so for mr. Farrell we need not that you jump in at this time and make any changes period. Lets turn this situation around. If we were sitting in your chair where youre at in your nice suits and your community. How would you like it and dont concern yourself with the deed of the people but the money you get in your pockets so we have to change all this now. [inaudible] because we voted you in so why dont you act like it and do your job correctly. Thank you. [applause] thank you. Next speaker please. Good afternoon Committee Members. I was part of the 950 coalition negotiating the Community Benefits agreement. Its great were working on this this week. Wednesday is the 100 anniversary by attempt of politician and Church Leaders to shut down the tenderloin and businesses and thousand people out of work and they thought they put a lid on the neighborhood for good but as you know the tenderloin is kicking 100 years later and coalitions like the one and members of the tlgb community and nonprofit folks and others come together in the tenderloin and make our Community Thriving and arrangements to keep our neighborhood strong. What more could the Land Use Committee want . Were coming with a deal worked with the supervisor and the developer and Community Groups and a deal that will have benefits to many sectors of the community. We believe fully because we vetted this project for months there is an overall fwf and here we hear nitpicking what percentage of growth we will see over the years so we can less what level of profit the developers will make. Were not interested in slowing down the project because if the developer loses money and we reviewed the programs and Community Groups in the tenderloin reviewed the benefits here. Were confident that the project should move forward and trust the neighborhood in what is best for the neighborhood. Every question youre asking we have asked for ourselves. Hundreds of developers met with Community Groups have not been value whd think going the overall benefits here. The deescalation training they offered for all Hotel Workers to be trained in so they know how to deal with residents that hasnt been evaluated. The 300,000 of job training funds that hasnt been evaluated. There are benefits that havent been considered in the amount of profits the developers stand to make and understand we went through a two year process and trust the numbers and the process and we ask you to move it out of committee with a recommendation and approved by the board of supervisors. Thank you. Let our residents step up in the step up housing. Thank you. Next speaker please. Greetings supervisors, mark, aaron, jane, katie, daift Elliott Lewis i am have been part of the negotiation process with the developer for two years, part of 950 Market Street. I am implore you to look at the big picture. This project is entitled its Going Forward. Its being built. Ground will be broken soon so the question is do we build on site 31 units of condos for people that most people in the tenderloin could never afford or do we build twice as many units off site on 180 jones street and half of ami and this is step up housing for people who live in sro rooms and i dont know if you spent a night in a sro room. I have. Its a small room with a bathroom down the hall and you dont get a kitchen. This is a chance for a life changing event for people who live in the tenderloin to step up their lives. Again 950 market is Going Forward. It can go forward with off site housing or not and for you to argue about you know, potential rates of growth and profit, potential rates of growth and real estate prices which nobody has a crystal ball. Lets face twe didnt know in early november 7 what would happen november 8 that we would have a maniac for president. We didnt know that. How could you know how could you know what is going to be the potential interest or growth rates next year or five years . And if you look at the construction gap of what is going to cost to build 180 jones street versus not its much smaller than other gaps in the community. The Community Supports this. I implore you supervisors not to obstruct off site housing. 950 is being built. Lets help the community. Dont block us. Support us. Thank you. Next speaker please. Hi. My name is Allen Stewart and on the board for the magic theater and i just had three quick points. One is as a former Business Owner in the city i understand the need to look at numbers and the importance of numbers when youre building something but i heed the Terrific Community support that is out there for a project like this and just listening to what is going on here it seems like a no brainer to move forward so i sergeant urge in that regard. In regard to the the magic 38 who hopes to theater who hopes to occupy a space there and we represent who the city represents and we speak to the community and to the Tenderloin Community in particular and great to bring that voice to the space and the third point which has been said but is valuable and worth repeat suggest that the neighborhood has waited long enough for the jobs and housing and programming for this particular site and encourage to you support this ordinance today so that the project moves forward. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Hi. I am Sonia Fernandez and work if the 38 on market. I am surprised about the delay. Maybe i dont know City Government but as allen said this is a no brainer. Its my understanding as a resident of San Francisco and the lack of Affordable Housing is the number one biggest problem in the city. Through the 180 jones project group and adding the below market rate unit to the housing supply. This is Affordable Housing that the Community Needs and as you have heard asked for. Delaying this housing hurts those in the tenderloin. As a personal note as a former renter and resident of the tenderloin and a person trying to stay in the city and raise a family in the city please take action and keep us as San Francisco. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good afternoon. My name is adam and im a literary apprentice at magic theater and reading a statement on behalf of a trustee. I am offering my support in the 180 jones street Affordable Housing ordinance. As a volunteer in the bay area and arts organizations in the bay area and 35 year resident i try to support these proposals and offers that we can bring a swift and impactful solution. Housing is a completion issue and the full resolution is an iterative process instead of a master plan. My frustration is that Many Organizations search for complete solutions with difficult issues. From my perspective there is a real offer from group i with a meaningful solution and delivered quickly and a step in the right direction and support by the community and ask you to approve this ordinance. The key points that offer a swift solution is this Housing Ordinance would add up to 70 below market rates to the housing supply more than double the units created on site. The off site housing was conceived and driven by the community from the start as the best way to serve the tenderloins residents. To make this a Reality Group i is dedicated and purchasing the land on jones street and providing the payment and gift for the construction of this Affordable Development. These numbers are based on an equivalency study conducted by [inaudible] consulting hired by [inaudible] to confirm there are no additional profits to group i besides building on site and the project costs more than the bmr project option and developer is providing 5 Million Community benefit package to ensure existing residents participate in the benefits of the project. Please approve the 180 jones street Affordable Housing ordinance. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker please. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is Gail Seagraves and work at city central sro collaborative as a tenant objectioner here in the tenderloin. I am here in support of 180 jones. On a personal note i have been in an sro for eight years, not because i want to but thats all i can afford. This gives me and other longterm residents an opportunity to have hope to actually move into a place with a kitchen and a bathroom. That happens to be very important. And i just urge you to please trust us, the community. This is a good project. We worked hard. Trust the community and pass this please. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please mam, before you speak i have three last cards and i will call them up. [calling speaker names] hi. I am Felicia Smith and a tenant ob at organizer at the hotel. I went through a bad dedivorce after 25 years of marriage and unexpected. I was told i had two weeks to get out of the house they lived in for 27 years. I didnt know the laws. I left. I slept on a park bench for two months and a broken down pickup truck. A Police Officer that would come and check on me when i was sleeping in the park told me about 311 which got me into an sro. I was very grateful, but i have two kids. Too many riewps and regulations. I cant have my kids with me at the sro. A step up program would be perfect. I could have somewhat of a normal life again. I was so depressed and desspondant until i heard about 180 jones and other projects like this and it gave me a sense of hope. It gave me hope that maybe i will be okay one day, so please dont delay this anymore. We need it. I need my kids. [applause] thank you. Next speaker please. My name is otto dusty and i speak to speak last and i like to hear what people say and the discussion here and i appreciate it and i find my own thoughts about things improved or changing by that. I would say that i agree that the focus of this on a slightly lower income of people, working group, not the lowest income by far but lower group will work out much better for the loin. I dont know if there is more money on the table or not and maybe unless you carefully put that money in a good direction i dont know even if we get more money it will improve the project any. Thank you. Next speaker please. Hello. My name is jawlian dash owner of holy stitch and seat two for the midmarket district. I am in full support of the ordinance. I think it goes without saying and everyone saying we need housing. The Community Asked for this, desires this. Knowing everything that is based on a relationship and people to people basis when it boils down to things my perspective and sentiment and knowing joy and Business Owners and the community me myself cell clothing and art and i have relationships with many of them and support of joy and what we would do and the ethos of the community and not just as buy in in and not facetious but another level. I lost housing. I was living in the tenderloin and having a family and business that i rely on my art i see full sierk circle. The saw the project and youth for the factory and because of the disparity of housing being in the community of the tenderloin, being a Business Owner, relying on my hands for my survival and family i see the necessity of the project to get done as soon as possible. My business is across the street from the 950 project and i see the ins and outs of it and again i am in full support of it in anyway. Thank you. Next speaker please. Hello. My name is windy. I am speaking today as a member of the public. I would like this project to go forward without any further delay. Very few Affordable Housing units are built under 55 of area Median Income which translate to approximately 41,000 a year. Okay. People are fixed income generally pop out at 18,000 a year. That is not even enough. Theres no housing being built on that lower end. Any delay is going to add costs, both time and financial. I dont understand why there is such a high level of scrutiny on this project. If you want something to scrutinize okay balboa reservoir for instance, okay. The numbers are 18 for those making less than 41,000 a year. Thats 55 of area Median Income. 15 of those units for people making 90,000 a year or 120 of air Median Income and then 113,000 or 150 of area Median Income. 17 of the housing is there. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good afternoon. My name is judy young and im the director of the Vietnamese Youth Development center and edie and mason in the heart of the tenderloin i am hear to support group i and have been working with us for three years and truly understand the needs of the Asian Community in the tenderloin. Theres over 30,000 families and young people and single residents that live in the neighborhood and we want to make sure that their jobs and housing for the community as well so our center works primarily with immigrant youth and families. We urge you to pass this ordinance today so our youth and young adults and families will benefit from the purchase. Our clients will get jobs on site and our families and most in need of housing will benefit from the 80 jones site. Now more than every the Community Needs housing and jobs and imperative that you move forward the ordinance as soon as possible. Im here to support the movement of the ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please as were getting to the end of the line if there is anybody else to speak on Public Comment please line up on the far side. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is [inaudible] im a field representative with the carp enters union and were here to support this project at fine 50 Market Street, 950 Market Street and on jones. It will bring the Affordable Housing that is much needed to the residents of the tenderloin and create jobs, avenues of opportunity for apprenticeship and journey men alike and we urge you to move this project forward and build it right. Thank you very much. Next speaker please. [applause] good afternoon. My name is brenda washington. I reside in the sro hotel and there over eight years but lived in the tenderloin for 20. I have seen the good and bad and up things and the down things, but what would let me down is not passing the 180 jones Street Initiative for step you up housing. Im a two time cancer survivearer. Every day my health is worse than the day before and i dont want to wear a diaper because i cant make it to the bathroom not having my own bathroom. I dont want to get infections because of peoples handling of food. I want to fix my food. I have no where to do that so i am asking you and i am praying that this project passes and i am one of the residents that gets to live in there or even just seeing it before i leave this world would mean a lot to me. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Thank you supervisors. Steve on behalf of group i the project sponsor. You heard discussion about the rest of the Community Benefits package that we negotiated with the community and i wanted to through those. This is in addition to fees and the transit fee and other fees, the child care fees as well as in addition to the Affordable Housing discussion we were having today. This package is worth about 5 million of additional voluntary contributions from group i. It includes free art space, 2000 free rent space. The magic theater will have a lab and training for the community. It includes 350,000 in deescalation training, public space and Safety Training for employees and hotel guests. It includes 350,000 in construction mitigation impacts for low income residents living immediately adjacent to the site. It includes three 300,000 in Workforce Development housing and 75,000 for lgbt Interpretive Program and agreement with local two. Not including that neutrality agreement is not monetizeed in this discussion so all together its 5 million. In addition to the 3 million gift the group i is providing under the 180 jones ordinance. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker please. Hi. Dan jordan. Im with the central city sro collaborative. I am in support of the 180 jones project and needs to be built. People are low income will be able to afford that whereas with the 950 market even the upper middle class people cant afford that not going at 2,000 a month or more. People are Social Security we get maybe a thousand dollars a month give or take and for a person who has only about two units of low Income Housing to be built in his District Supervisor farrell i think thats pretty pathetic. Thank you. [applause] thank you. Next speaker please. And any other members of the public to comment on items 3 or four . Okay. Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel] supervisor kim. Thank you. I do believe that the Land Use Committee has copies of the amendments that i articulated earlier before Public Comment so it would be great to have a motion to amend the ordinance to include those amendments. Second, i do want just to acknowledge the comments that steveetel made and there were in my talking points but i forgot to make them. Outside the ordinance that is before us the community signed a Community Benefits agreement which makes the package larger than what is before the Land Use Committee today. There is dedication to magic theater in the presidio and find a new space. They worked closely with the developer early on, i believe the beginning of last year for a ground floor art space there which will be a theater and add another theater to the midmarket corridor along kind of the historic nature of what Market Street has previously been with agreements that the theater would work with partnership of the youth and the arts organizations in the tenderloin to provide art performance space. Of course there is several mitigations around the construction for the residents that live near by but also the 300,000 contribution for Workforce Development fund that will help train tenderloin residents to be employeda the hotel whether they finally open but finally something that could not be part of our negotiation but i want to thank the developer for agreeing to the card check with local two to ensure that the workers have an opportunity to unionize if they would like so, so again this is what is before the Land Use Committee today and so committee i just ask for your support and again i just want to recognize and thank all of the members of the community for coming out today. It has been a very long process and just going back to the gray water exemption. Normally its something i wouldnt support but we have been talking to 950 market developer since 2013 on the project and so many changes as a city originally wanted this to be an arts sud and the developer worked with the community on a arts project that included hotel and residential, and then theres numerous design changes that happened over the summer. Honestly we werent expecting that the project wouldnt have site permits before november 2016 when the gray water ordinance took into effect and we felt it was fair because they had been in the pipeline for three years to give this exemption because of the length of time it took for them to get through the process, so again thank you to all of the members of the public for coming out. You reminded me how long the process was well and appreciate your patience and work and the last thing i would say we never had a project commit to step up Affordable Housing for single room occupancy tenants and this is really a historic accomplishment. This is something we sorely, sorely need and not only does it provide an opportunity for residents to is step up in the Affordable Housing unit but free up sing occupancy rooms in the future for those on the streets today so this is incredibly important. We need to expansion this portfolio and i know we had meetings about it but we need to make it happen and thank the developer for making that real. Thank you. Thank you. So colleagues we have more comments but a set of amendments from supervisor peskin and working with the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development. Can i a motion to accept the amendments . Those are amendment frs item 4 . Correct. Yes, i am happy to move the amendments. Second. Moved and seconded. We will take those without objection. [gavel] and colleagues i will say and to supervisor kim and my committee i want to thank everybody for the time over the past week to be be able to review the analysis. Thank our City Departments for coming together dwelz the developer. What is different about this project we have a baseline project but an ordinance in front of us that is creating certain exemptions and bestowing benefits and to the community and the unions and thank you for coming out and speaking with the representative last week thank you for doing that. That means a lot to the committee and myself but when we have a project like this in front of us and a law a separate law that creates certain exemptions i believe its our duty at the board of supervisors and the Land Use Committee to make sure that the city getting the best deal possible. I dont back down for a second demanding that we have a robust analysis of every deal that comes in front of us. Its not the business of the city of San Francisco to be in a position not knowing whether were getting benefits or fleeceed in a deal and we need to do that every time in land use and we will do that Going Forward and thats why i am more than anything aside from seeing all the units being built excited about the process because because now we will have legislation Going Forward supported by the City Departments and everybody was frustrated how the process moved forward in the last months to make sure we have the analysis done and with that analysis being done, with the developer spending the time Going Forward with that i am very much prepared to support this project as it is and i think that we need it to continue to look hard at these development projects, and again make sure that the city gets the best deal possible building more Affordable Housing absolutely and making sure that everything we do is on a net basis to the developer and see it come forward and lets build it now. I know its a Long Time Coming and held up at planning for various reasons and six months last year and legislation to carry it forward. One week is a blip on the radar screen to make sure this committee and the full board of supervisors is able to do the right analysis Going Forward so with that again thank you to everyone. Thank you to the Committee Members and thank you to supervisor kim and congratulations to advance and i am prepared to support this as is. [applause]. Supervisor peskin. Thank you chair farrell. I thought the intervening week was helpful to ask questions of staff and i want want to thank and welcome the comments of supervisor kim just relative to process moving forward and reiterate my earlier comments, and then not to beat a dead horse but i do want to say and i am fine with the arrangement how the tdrs are but to staff i want to say having looked at resolution 16 14 it does not create a price of 25. It is a resolution and i am just saying this to staff because i want to say it on the record that was aimed at the board several years ago selling off tdrs off of municipal buildings that didnt previously have them including city hall and established a base minimum price of 25. It was not a ceiling. The legislation that is sitting in front of me is very clear and by the way theres a study, libby stifle cited with this project and shows sales as high as 37. 50 and want that on the record and with that i am happy to vote for the please call the next item three and four as amended. Supervisor tang. I want to ditto comments made earlier as well. I think that seeing what has transpired this week could have been frustrating for you and i understand that but just the information that has come to light really heights something that we want to work on together moving forward longterm for broader policies around the arrangements so with that i am happy to support these two items moving forward to the full board. I dont know if there was a motion made or if i should make the motion. Go for it. I will make a motion for items 3 and four as recommended with amendments. Motion and a second. We will move that to the full board. Madam clerk does that conclude our business . That is the end of business. Thank you everyone. We are adjourned. [gavel] soon. speaking foreign language. greeting of peace brothers and sisters and esteemed guests we thank you very much for joining us here and society of San Francisco during this critical time in our countries history first i want to thank the following city leaders for your work and commitment in protecting and advancing values we would like to thank our esteemed mayor, mayor ed lee, the City Attorney District Attorney george gascon, ms. Sheryl davis the human right director of human right commission, human right commissioner, San Francisco Police Department the City Attorneys office are faith leader if in this city a special thanks we want to give a special thanks to mayor ed lee who showed up here the day after the election i thought out of the country he came to assure the muslims of this city they have nothing the fear we want to thank him a special thanks for his leadership of the Diverse Community in San Francisco and like to say it him and unapologetic fight for the citys dignity and justice and civil right and renewed strength we believe for elected officials throughout the country so we would like to thank him thank you, mr. Mayor and i saw one time thank you very much for our beloved mayor, we hope and actually prefer that he runs again laughter . I hope so but it is possible we can keep the time so we can complete