Up here, there was a lot of discussion before Public Comment but there were no points raised, actually. There was a lot of purposeful confusion between allowed and requires, the mayors Charter Amendment allows projects up to 140, and supervisor fewer repeatedly claimed that that meant it required, all projects to be 140. Theres a big difference between allows and requires, and when you meld those things together, people in the public hear that you are being insincere and it really makes it sound like there are no reasons that this is just fighting. I was disturbed by the cavalier attitude supervisor ronen had towards waiting 100 days. One hundred days is a big deal. If you run out of your time good afternoon, supervisors, robert, i live in district 5 and money for Affordable Housing is hard to come by. One supervisor said the real need for resources, money for building and acquiring land. Good news is that the mayors proposal would help with that. It would lower construction costs, it would streamline Affordable Housing, i mean the real question is like are there actually streamlining issues. The answer is yes. In your committee packet today there is a memo and says in the year and a half since the Effective Date of senate bill 35, which allows for streamlined approval of Affordable Housing projects, six 100 Affordable Housing projects have gone through the discretionary review project and paid fees. They expect 8 to 9 annually. People are filing discretionary reviews and if you are a Neighborhood Group you can do so for free. I think this is pretty this is patently ridiculous. If we think theres no problem with discretionary reviews, it should be uncontroversial to get rid of them. And if you dont like the mayors proposal, which i support, i would hope to see legislation which gets rid of discretionary reviews, apparently not a problem, from the office of the controller. I think overall there is a real need thats just being confused here. This is not about building studios for everyone, this is this is about actually providing funding for Affordable Housing somehow, like although i will say i would be happy if we upzone west side in any sense of the word. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is susana parsons. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment, particularly on the mayors Charter Amendment. On behalf of spur, i urge you to support placing this proposed Charter Amendment on the ballot in order to streamline the review and approval of 100 Affordable Housing and housing for educators. We believe the passage of the measure will have a real impact on how quickly and cost effectively the city and industry will be able to produce the types of housing urgently needed in San Francisco. We know that the full board of supervisors supports creation of housing for educators and low and moderate income households. This measure will address our infamously complex approvals process that provides many opportunities for opposition to delay or halt Affordable Housing. All at the expense of our city residents. The measure will require the city to create a more efficient and less risky approvals process, resulting in quicker delivery and less expensive production of exactly the kind of housing San Francisco needs. We urge you to refer this measure to the full board and give our supervisors the opportunity to show leadership on housing in San Francisco. Thank you. Good morning, laurie, inner sunset resident. Delighted that lawton and 7th avenue is a site for 100 affordable educator housing. I support Affordable Homes for families and educators now and oppose the mayors Charter Amendment. Public land is a public resource that should be reserved to serve the greatest need not to enhance developer revenue. Homes for public educators, including very low paid support staff, are vital to supporting Public Education itself. It is shameful that the Mayors Office would use widespread support for affordable teaching housing as cover for buy right Market Rate Development and offer affordability upwards in the same breath. There should be no buy right development on public land and no public subsidies for market housing. Who are we leaving behind . I would add, why are we leaving them behind and on whose behalf are we leaving them behind. Returning to the 7th and lawton project and the questions of affordability levels. One proposal for this location is 325 square foot studios. Two people or more in 325 square feet, that is not a home, that is temporary shelter. It is frankly tire some that we continue to hear from the Mayors Office the mantra that rarely used discretionary reviews are the reason for high housing costs. When will they decry speculator demands for sky high returns on their investments. Finally, supervisors, thank you for your work with the unions representing our public educators, exactly how Work Force Housing should be envisioned and enacted. [please stand by] i want to thank the board for standing up for the ability of the board to assert its own legislative authority. As i see it, the Charter Amendment basically bypasses the legislative branch of the government and we still have a belief, i think, in the separation of powers. And what the unfortunate thing about the Charter Amendment is, reminded me of prop 13. How installed and california constitution was linkage between commercial property and residential property, and it has become impossible to change that and the results are devastating to california. Idea of installing buy right for developers under the false front of teacher housing in our constitution is another way of bypassing the legislative authority which actually represents more of the people of San Francisco than the Mayors Office. And i just think that i want to associate myself particularly with supervisor fewers remarks at the opening, i feel like they covered the realm of what has really been happening and echoed by those of you up there. And i hope to see frankly that the overwhelming majority of the board supports [microphone cut off] supervisors, my name is ken tray, served San FranciscoUnified School District from 1985 to 2017. Most of those years was as a classroom teacher teaching social studies. Working with the children of San Francisco. Im here today representing uesf, a staff member of the union in support of the initiative. There was some illusion earlier to whether we worked with the Mayors Office or with the supervisors. I think uesf would say as up front as we can that we started good faith negotiations with both sides of the legislature here in city hall. We did meet with the Mayors Office, talking about the Charter Amendment. Never really had an opportunity to talk about their initiative. At the same time as we told the Mayors Office, we were invited into discussions with the board of supervisors, and we, in fact, did work very closely with the board of supervisors on the initiative that we are speaking in favor of today. At the end of the day, what the board of supervisors came up with in intense discussions with San Franciscos teachers and para educators, is policy that will cover Affordable Housing for our lowest paid para educators to our most veteran teachers. It will allow for a scope of housing which includes 2, 3 bedrooms and not jamming in the members and provide support speaker time has elapsed. Good afternoon, supervisors. Peter coen. Council Committee Housing organizations is very pleased to see the boards proposed Affordable Housing and educator housing and Family Housing initiative. Teachers have been working with several Board Members since the beginning of this year on legislation to build on, if you recall, last falls very successful legislation with the south market sally district, Industrial Area and legislation specifically to allow Affordable Housing on the sites. Overlay zoning approach. We wanted to build on that, and the density bonus programs and apply the policies citywide to all residential districts, neighborhood commercial districts and importantly, our public sites, public lands. For 100 Affordable Housing. This is baseline zoning. Rezone all up front, dont have to go by one by one, thats the biggest time delay, zoning and the e. I. R. S triggered. A huge boost in whats called geographic balance. Everybody says lets build housing on the left side, lets do it, a goal we believe in. Money now in the housing bond this november. We all agreed on that. But an entry level question. Where, and what sites . We dont have those sites. The fundamental value to rezone the sites up front. And it sounds like the yimbis agree on that, too, fantastic. Lets do it. Also pleased to see that educator housing have been included in this initiative so we can really start focusings on that particular population group. We know you have choices before you today. Maybe even some competing ideas, but we encourage you to pick the boards measure, well thought out, we Work Together the educators and move together all together as a ballot what we have heard today. More sites for more housing. Thank you. Supervisors, steven boss with m. B. Action. I like some who spoke before me, thrilled there are competing measures to upzone the west side as we have been advocating for for years. We need zoning equity for Affordable Housing on the west side. I want to note the only actual Affordable Housing developer who is out today supports the mayors proposal, i think thats worth really soaking in, really, you know, taking credence and support for that. And i also want to talk well, supervisor fewer, i was frankly offended by what you said, you said two People Living in the studio, thats not thats not acceptable, basically is what you said. Ive lived with my partner in a studio, 500 square feet. I, you know, lots of people live in small studios with their families, with their partners, and to imply that thats not a real acceptable way to live is the height of privilege. You are insulated from these problems as a homeowner, of course. But the rest of us have to deal with our housing shortage. Its also the height of privilege to kill the mayors proposal here and not let the voters decide. This is a very small Cross Section of San Francisco. We have all taken off work, most people cant do that. The people most affected by this cant be here. So lets let the voters decide, bring them both to the ballot, and i mean, im hopeful, im hopeful that the voters will make the right choice. Thanks. Is there any other member of the public who wishes to speak . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. So, colleagues, perhaps i want to see if anyone wants to make any comments before we vote on the three items before us. Looks like supervisor fewer would like to start us out. Supervisor fewer. Thank you, chair. So, i think that in listening to public testimony we have heard people ask me so who are we leaving behind. I actually think that we should probably vocalize who we are leaving behind. According to latino parody report of 2016, household medium yan for White House Holds, 106,000, 919. Asian, 105295. Latin x, 70,000. And blacks, 46,000. Blacks Resident Experience poverty three times the overall poverty rate in San Francisco, 46 of black children living in poverty in comparison to 27 of Pacific Islanders children, 15 latin x, 10 of asian, and 3 of white children. Nearly 40 of San Francisco households that bring in less than 30 of a. M. I. , or asian american, or pacific islander. The majority of latin x households in San Francisco make less than 100 of area Median Income with the largest population latin x households falling in the 30 to 50 a. M. I. Designation. Between 1990 and 2014 and 15, decrease of low income workers living in San Francisco, 30 increase in median rent associated with 21 decrease in low income households of color. Correlation not seen for low income White House Holds. As housing prices rose, the share of low income black households in San Francisco living in high poverty rose 41 in 2000 to 65 in 2015. In comparison to low income asian, 27 latin x, 19 and White House Holds 12 . When people ask who are we leaving behind, and it is not a requirement they build at 140 of a. M. I. , it is allowable to build at only 140 of a. M. I. So, when people ask who are we leaving behind, when we dont require Affordable Housing levels to be built at every level, these are the people we are leaving behind. They are our friends, they are our family members some of them, they are our neighbors, our educators, they are social workers, they are people who are working every day jobs to serve those in San Francisco. By our own analysis, the average black worker in San Francisco makes 60,000 a year, compared to the average white worker that makes 156,000 a year. So, who are we leaving behind if we say that we allow developers, and again, not require, developers to build Affordable Housing at 140 of a. M. I. These are the people we are leaving behind. And this is why this issue is so profound. It is not simply about streamlining because both of these initiatives i think also allow for streamlining. It is about redefining what we are requiring developers to build when we identify what we identified as Affordable Housing, and then giving those developers streamlining to build that type of housing for just this group of people. So, people also ask me who am i protecting. I am protecting the same people that we are leaving behind. I think that, and i just want to also speak to the comment that the public commoner said, i didnt say it was unacceptable for two people to live in a studio. I just said it is unacceptable to assume that it is i just think some of the speakers today were absolutely right. We have two competing issues here. We want one of them to get on the ballot and of course being on the boarding it should be the boards initiative. I think i agree, i hope that the Mayors Office and the supervisors come together and Work Together as we had during the city budget as well as the housing bond, and i have said to the mayors representative that i hope the mayor will come on to ours, the one that is actually being supported 100 by educators in San Francisco. I believe that educators know best about what they need for their work force, and as i said, as a former School Board Member, i work closely and i was a School Board Member for eight years and all three of us actually have been on the school board, all three of us have been president s of the school board. We know intimately how hard it is to retain and also to recruit teachers. This is a truth that has been true for a very long time, and whose responsibility to build the housing, quite frankly. I say it is envy. It is inclusiveness in my backyard, people of color, of all chick groups. People of San Francisco, and, hopefully, the good people of San Francisco will see that in order to actually include everyone, we must include in this crazy housing market, we must include Different Levels because people in this city actually earn incomes at Different Levels. We must mandate it, as we must always mandate things for people of color and also poor people. So i dont have a vote on this committee, but i am urging my colleagues to do what we were elected to do to represent the people of San Francisco that we are a city of diversity, economic diversity, racial diversity, diversity of thought the it is a slippery slope to redefine