Issues, both the policies and politics of it. I want to thank everybody that came out today to share your perspectives on either side of the issue and the many that have communicated directly to my office and to my colleagues. I think this sort of contentious nature that we have gotten to around the proposals to streamline Affordable Housing highlight how complex these issues are and there are a lot of different perspectives to best address these problems. It highlights how important it is to get the details right and to consider the specific details. I think the presentations today, thank you so much to the Mayors Office of housing and Planning Department as well. The presentations have been helpful along with Public Comment in clarifying my thoughts. I want to say that i am proud of the board of supervisors measure. It will rezone and streamline Affordable Housing sites across the cities specially the western neighborhoods serving a wide range of people without pitting it against low Income Housing needs. It is just the kind of mixed income Affordable Housing policy we need. I look forward to working with the full board and the mayor and educators and the community to see that this leads to more housing city wide for low and middle income households. Regarding the Charter Amendment, i do appreciate the effort by the mayor Office Office to explore new models and to address the Housing Needs of middle income residents which is a high priority for me and my constituents. I have a number of significant concerns about the policy and process of the mayors Charter Amendment which leads me to oppose moving this forward today. My main concern is that the Charter Amendment is not needed. As stated Affordable Housing including educator Housing Projects like the outer sunset educator housing are already eligible for streamlined review through sv350. What is needed are the zoning control adjustments in the boards ordinance which i look forward to support as it moves forward to the november ballot. I look forward that the key project is able to take advantage of the streamlining from the boards initiative if passed so that 130 teachers are able to move into affordable new homes up to 18 months sooner. Finally, i look forward to leveraging rezoning in the Initiative Ordinance and streamlining 350 to aggressively move forward with the district four Affordable Housing strategy i have been developing with my constituents and looking at the four public sites and three dozen private sites we identified for Affordable Housing development. Thank you. Thank you so much, supervisor mar. I want to appreciate everyone. When you listen to the stories of educators and what they are dealing within San Francisco right now, it is just really hard to keep it together. I am a parent of a child in public school, and i know firsthand what her teachers and all of the paraprofessionals at her school are facing. They are leaving. There is so much turnover every single year. It is a true crisis. I have no doubt that we are all the mayor Mayors Office the Planning Department and the policy office and the mayor and all members of the board of supervisors, we want to fix this. There is no doubted we all want to fix this. There is a fundamental difference of opinion how to do that. On the one hand, you have the majority of the board of supervisors that the educators themselves who believe that with the Precious Resource of public land that is in such short supply the minute we build on it will be gone forever should be reserved for Affordable Housing. There is a little difference what the a. M. I. Levels are that constitute that. The major difference here is what should that land be for . How do we build the amount of educator housing we need the quickest way possible . I believe it is to fight for public funding at the state and local level and at the federal level again to preserve that Precious Resource for 100 Affordable Housing for teachers. We are starting that with Francis Scott key. With the 20 million in the bond for teacher housing. We are not going to stop relentlessly fighting for that funding. I believe that is the fastest way to get us there and the right way to get us there. On the other hand you have the Mayors Office and a few members of the board of supervisors who believe the best way is to convince private developers that have a profit motive to, you know, as long as we give them 66 of the land to get the top dollar they can get for the commercial space and the luxury housing that they build that they will be willing to build 44 of those units of educator housing at the highest level. That is a real disagreement. It is not worth fighting each other. I think supervisor fewer said this. We want to attack each other. That is not it. We are fighting for how we can get to the greatest amount of educator housing the quickest way possible. We have a major disagreement. There is a lot of talk and accusations going around. That is not what we are doing to each other. The mayor is not doing that to the board of supervisors and the board of supervisors are not doing that to the mayor. Our intentions are right. We disagree how to get there. I want to say that i agree with many of the speakers who i disagree with on the best way to get there, that we have progress here with the willingness on both sides to rezone the city for Affordable Housing on public lands, and i think that is great. Today i will be supporting supervisor fewers well that is just a hearing. When it gets to the board of supervisors, i will support supervisor fewer,ual ton, haney and peskins Charter Amendment for housing. Supervisor walton. Thank you. I want to thank everybody for being here. I know it has been a long hearing this morning. The one thing for me that i truly understand after listening and sitting through this mornings hearing is that we have a lot of people here in San Francisco that are dedicated to addressing the Affordable Housing issues here in the city. That is important, and it is exciting. I know a lot of you in this chamber have taken off work today, taken time away from family and summer vacations. I want you to know we do appreciate you being here and understand your commitment to addressing some serious issues we have in the city. I do have to say it is always concerning to me to support a Charter Amendment solely dedicated to what we do in times of crisis. It is hard to reverse when change is needed. This locks us to a very high a. M. I. For years to come. Regardless of whether or not the economy changes and there may be need to decrease the high point. We need to address this issue legislatively and as a unit. The Charter Amendment is divisive at this time. I prefer to work with the executive branch and educators to legislate this like we should. In addition, we have to be very careful how high we make a. M. I. Levels through the charter. Things change. 140 of a. M. I. Cannot be the speak standard for Affordable Housing in San Francisco. My family lives. I know how hard it is to live in the city. Like supervisor fewer stated. I live in a small bedroom and three of us and sometimes four of us when my eldest stepson who is an adult is with us. We are on top of each other. I lived in Public Housing growing up. I have lived in studi studios. My mom and i have had to stay with friends. It is not ideal to be in the situation my family lives in. We love San Francisco. We work hard in San Francisco. I want to work hard to make sure people dont have to live on top of each other, particularly people raising families here in the city with less options than people may have. I also know there are thousands of folks that have it worse than me. We all have to think about their needs as well. A Charter Amendment, this amendment will redefine 100 Affordable Housing to raise income levels requirements, create definition of teacher housing. Not supported by the former body that represents educators in San Francisco and allow Market Rate Development on public owned land. That is a major issue for me and a lot of my come leagues. These def colleagues. We should not be giving away publicly owned land for Market Rate Developments calling it affordable teacher housing. We know we can do this as city leadership. The director even mentioned that. Costs may be different but it is something we can do. I want to read something for people who are accusing me and my lack of support for a charter which is hard to reverse. Here are numbers. 7218, 3454, 2600, 2150, 574, 600, 1240, total proposed between 16,686 and 17,000 836 units with the mixture of affordable, working class and market rates. Does anyone know what these numbers reflect . These are the units in the pipeline in district 10 alone. I have actually built 100 all Affordable Housing. I have also led successful proposal to build 164 all Affordable Housing units in district 10. I know a little bit about getting housing built. I would not call myself a housing expert but i would say i have good knowledge and practical experience in getting housing built in communities in San Francisco. Calling me a nimby is sort of like calling donald trump a decent and moral human being. I played a role in building all Affordable Housing projects and making sure housing gets built. Responsibly and with benefits to the community. Thousands of units, some of which are under construction right now. We by ourselves also cannot say what is best for educators without the support of educators. We were able to get approval for the first Affordable Housing at francis co scott key. We have the ability to streamline through sb35. This changing the definition and increases the a. M. I. Averages which is not responsible to do through a charter. Because of the lack of flex bill when the economy changes in San Francisco. All projects proposed can be affected by the Charter Amendment qualify under sb35 for approval including francis scouted key. The land needs rezoned which should have happened a couple years ago. The true reason for the dilatory removement at the Francis Scott key project is due to the developer that doesnt know how to work in San Francisco and not truly chosen by the school district. This is the first project of its kind. They secured all most 60 from housing bond money promised by the late may or lee. With 44 million in 2017. That contribution from the city allowed units to employees who make more than the low federal income limits at a max of 60 of media income. Federal subsidies were availability to fund the rest of the project. This should have been awhile ago. We should have been way ahead of where we are when it comes to Francis Scott key as a project. The ordinance proposed by supervisors fewer, peskin and haney and i. Affordable homes including educator housing created in partnership with teachers, with the Teachers Union to serve the actual needs of educators both in the San FranciscoUnified School District and the city college of San Francisco. These educator Housing Units would be 80 i for those who earn 30 a. M. I. Some of the paraprofessionals only get parttime hours. It including everyone in the middle scale as we talk about middle range housing. It actually keeps us at income average of 100 a. M. I. The remaining 20 will be for educators earning up to 160 of a. M. I. The board of supervisors has also set aside 20 million in housing bond specifically for this new program. When we talk about possible increased costs, we are being thoughtful of ways to make sure we account for that within this ordinance as well. In addition to the housing bond we recently passed legislation to allocate 50 of all future educator revenue from the state from production and preservation of Affordable Housing. We will now have 70 million from additional funds for Affordable Housing in this years budget alone. We are working hard to fund more housing. It is a true obstacle to developing housing in San Francisco, the actual financing which was alluded to today by the director of housing. This package of streamlining and funding will empower San Francisco to put a dent in the Affordable Housing shortage by providing truly Affordable Homes to educators and family. I also appreciate the mayors amendments proposed today. I support and encores our mayor. Changing the charter is not the right way. With that said i moves we table item 3 to discuss further and work to address concerns in the legislative and less divisive manner with all of the leadership here in San Francisco at the table. Before we take that motion there are a couple more comments. Soon pesupervisor mar. I referenced sp50. It should be sp35 that makes the projects eligible for streamlined review. That other bill is on my mind a lot. I apologize foi apologize for t. I want to make it clear that i am in support of the initiative we offered together with supervisor walton and fewer and peskin. The rezoning done by that initiative together with sp35 will allow us to streamline and build 100 affordable projects. Because of the defense as i mentioned in my comments the definition of teacher housing which is important to maintain at broad levels of affordable so that folks who are paraeducators can afford these units and maintaining the principle of 100 Affordable Housing on public land. I am in support of the initiative and not in support of the charter or other initiative as currently written. Thank you. Seeing no other comments. Colleagues, if we can make a motion that we heard and filed items one and two. Can i take that without objection . Without objection those motions pass. Supervisor walton made a motion to file, is that the right language . Table item 3. What i will say about that is that that is not usually my style of filing motions at committees. We are essentially a board of supervisors right now with quorum. The fact there are six supervisors in a quorum of the board in the in favor of the Charter Amendment i dont think it makes sense to be labor the point. We should start working together to figure out which measure we put on the ballot and have as much unity as possible moving foforward. We have a bond and Charter Amendment to win and they are both important. I will take that without objection. That motion passes. Is there any other items on the agenda. Clerk i want it to be clear it is the rules committee that tabled the matter and item 3 is tabled. Any other items . Clerk that completes the agenda for today. Then the meeting is adjourned. Manufacturing in cities creates this perfect platform for people to earn livelihoods and for people to create more economic prosperity. Im kate sosa. Im cofounder and ceo of sf made. Sf made is a Public Private partnership in the city of San Francisco to help manufacturers start, grow, and stay right here in San Francisco. Sf made really provides wraparound resources for manufacturers that sets us apart from other Small Business support organizations who provide more generalized support. Everything we do has really been developed over time by listening and thinking about what manufacturer needs grow. For example, it would be traditional things like helping them find capital, provide assistance loans, help to provide Small Business owners with education. We have had some great experience doing what you might call pop ups or temporary selling events, and maybe the most recent example was one that we did as part of sf made week in partnership with the city Seas Partnership with Small Business, creating