And meet the affordability mandate set out bit general plan as well acid prop k and really create a service for the public in san francisco. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, commissioners. Whitney jones the director of the Housing Development form chinatown ucu. First i want to thank the city staff who are moving this process forward. Thank you, guys. Many city sites have been held by agencies for years without a process for moving them forward to meet overall city needs. So this process of starting to move these sites are consider uses for these sites is a great one. We support the chao choochoo paper presented to you earlier earlier and highlight a couple of points that i think you have heard a couple of times already. A couple of simple points with my heard at the public meetings, the emphasis was on affordable and middleIncome Housing. We think with that emphasis to set a great emphasis on affordable and that sites that offer the opportuni
Housing needs and 16 of our moderateIncome Housing and 100 of our market Housing Needs. So the priority for low and moderate makes sense, but if you add together what our Housing Element tells us, were supposed to build 62 of all of our housing for low and moderate income households. The first concern that we have is why then is this somewhat arbitrary 50 goal in the portfolio as opposed to let meet our Housing Element . Lets take it 6062 of all the public site housing and it would meet our low and moderate Housing Needs particularly when he saw the slide saying how poorly were performing in both of those categories . When you look at a neighborhoodlevel and we have an even bigger problem. Mission district, south of market, the central city, compared to other neighborhoods, we dont have an even distribution of Affordable Housing over the next five, six year ends. We have a real teenager of dearth of housing. And increasing our expectation. And socalled perfect sites for Affordable Hous
Regardless of what is voted upon or not voted upon there should be additional conversation with Board Members in a little bit more detail as we make amendments whether voted on positive or not we are going to need positive direction from the board ill make a cautionary note there what was extensive notes taken from the asterisks of board the other evening this is a thoughtfully krauftd proposal for your consideration that enexcuses the feedback that will not be perfect opportunity to make amendments and we will be here until tomorrow morning we we make additions and subtractions i want to call to the commissions attendance we have professional educatorors macro those recommendations well not make a recommendation well not purport i wanted to speak to that in support of our staff working with the community as well and just remind us all that is the first year were in growing modes weve been supplementing and trying to keep lights on for years this is a thoughtful way of moving forward w
I will so thats the reason ill not support the amendment. Superintendent. Thank you commissioner president murase and thank you, commissioners just a couple of points of clarification i think that regardless of what is voted upon or not voted upon there should be additional conversation with Board Members in a little bit more detail as we make amendments whether voted on positive or not we are going to need positive direction from the board ill make a cautionary note there what was extensive notes taken from the asterisks of board the other evening this is a thoughtfully krauftd proposal for your consideration that enexcuses the feedback that will not be perfect opportunity to make amendments and we will be here until tomorrow morning we we make additions and subtractions i want to call to the commissions attendance we have professional educatorors macro those recommendations well not make a recommendation well not purport i wanted to speak to that in support of our staff working with
Amendment not voting on deciding whether. Were voting to make the amendment or can i comment on the amendment. Yes. Discussion on the amendment. I think theres needs to be an increase on the Betsey Carmichael and the longfellow will but not. 2 i dont know how you can build a program with a small fte he and even im looking at the multiple entry pots for multiple language i i mean, i dont know 0 how were going to probable build something that is strong weve been working on the physically program for how many years and innovate a dictate staff person it is gone through the it rags and if we want to make that program a Solid Program i dont think that. 4 is sufficient. I will so thats the reason ill not support the amendment. Superintendent. Thank you commissioner president murase and thank you, commissioners just a couple of points of clarification i think that regardless of what is voted upon or not voted upon there should be additional conversation with Board Members in a little bit more