Speak on item 24 which is to amend the redevelopment plan area to allow block one also known as 160. Period we would encourage you to approve the item to move it to the full board on april 12 we been supportive of this project that think its important to remember that this project is within the form of redevelopment Planning Areas gone through much more extensive approval process including going through the citizens Transbay Citizens Advisory Committee which received an endorsement from and into the opposite Community Infrastructure commission which received unanimous approval for. Then the Planning Commission. Overly onto the full board. Its unprecedented 40 onsite Affordable Housing for middle class families and we would think that given the discussion that state place at this for the past couple weeks with the Charter Amendment this be a project he would want to support. We support it just because the extra hundred amazing affordability 73 more homes, 44 formerly affordable at 60 . Equity achievedits a testament to ocii and supervisor kim for coming up for that 40 parking payment and as well as [inaudible]. Its a lot of enthusiasm from the Architecture Community as well. Were excited to have this power in the city. We hope you can move it to the full board on april 12. Thanks for your time thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon pres. Breed and commissioners. Carpenters local 22 directors in about 3500 carpenters here in San Francisco. We support the amendment to the redevelopment plan for the transbay redevelopment project area. Also known as 160 fulsome. That extra 100 feet is going to add housing that San Francisco needs, Affordable Housing. Is going to add jobs that carpenters and all trades workers need in San Francisco. Its going to provide middle Income Housing that actually carpenters they go to work on the project may have an opportunity to live in that tower, and we ask that you also support it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Tomdisappointment for police chief new policy, to both. We stopped. Still not the change we are seeking. That is still the wrong direction. We should have a desire instead of a Police Officers retiring. Never point a gun out of their holster, never firing a bullet. Another disappointment. Muni. Where losing 8 seats on the light rail. Each, maybe 12. With that they be more on the buses. I cant tell on the buses. So, but the new policy now is, if youre sitting in a disabled or senior seat you make it reprimanded. So kind of making repercussions were almost making it criminal. Its a new direction. The future plan to have more standing room. Is it part of the 3rd street disaster between the giants baseball park, the giants development with 11,000 jobs, the hospital thats already there with the 18,000 of the basketball stadium. We are going to replace 3 part lines and a freeway with reducing 8 to 12 seats in our muni rail so more people can stand. Again, i think its the wrong direction. Just before the dust settles on this past election, the mayors race, i was disappointed with the top echelon of the democratic party. I was a new direction man that was a new mayors man. We can all agree that he was handpicked. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Joe wilson hospitality house urging the board to move with deliberate speed to address the widening and deepening affordability crisis. I appreciate the value of feasibility studies and anticipating with some degree of trepidation once spent months spent questioning the studys conclusion, challenging the studys methodology, debating the study empirical data. Meanwhile, committees across the city, bayview, omi, chinatown, expensing experiencing deepening inequality and a whining affordable the gap. I actually found it interesting Feasibility Study done by an engineering form in the midwest addressing a particular crisis to public utility. It turns out this Feasibility Study was commissioned by the state of michigan treasury department, conducted by a firm out of detroit on behalf of the city of linz michigan, looking at the cost benefit analysis of pumping dirty water into communities across the city. It turns out, they concluded that it would be economically feasible to use dirty water, rather than to continue to use healthier cleaner water because the economics did not work could i urge you to make sure that when you act, you act in the best interest of the public, not merely because the numbers were. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is julie galli also work at hospitality house and i want to voice my support for updating the inclusionary ordinance to increase the amount of Affordable Housing required in all the developments. I work with lots of members of the community and Affordable Housing is by far the number one concern. Ive also been part of several committee coalitions and groups to meet with developers to try to negotiate something so they can come to the neighborhood in a more i guess cohesive way and time and time again they say they will only build a legal minimum of Affordable Housing. Despite with their budgets are. So, making these kind of changes can have a massive impact on not just middle income people but helping people with homeless and getting housing as well. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name isi testify that the Planning Commission last week and also at the january hearing. I am deeply troubled by the misuse of the word affordable. The Planning Department said that none of the housing that is in the mayors socalled affordable bonus density plan would allow people to make less than dirty 4000 a year to live in those filings. I wish you would strike the word, affordable, from any with this station that appears before this body. The city is building no housing whatsoever for anyone who makes less than 34,000 a year. This is one of the biggest lies ever seen perpetrated in San Francisco history. If i am wrong, please correct me. I like to see some documentation. But the Planning Department is actually speaking through 2 sides of its mouth when at some point in that hearing said we are building housing for the lowest income people in San Francisco. Well, they also said that none of the housing would be affordable for people who make less than 34,000. 80. So, those are 2 irreconcilable visas of information that i have not seen corrected anywhere. I wish he would correct it for us all. Thank you. Next speaker, please. This is one of points i want to highlight also. You get situation enjoyed by high income bracket of people but not enjoyed by lower income bracketed people. First welcome you advertise affordable and low Income Housing and have the voters vote for your campaign but the truth of the matter takes place and read the fine print, its not affordable whatsoever. Its like its 5m project. I watch when you supervisors speak to the public and say youre providing housing opportunities for teachers and teachers cant afford to live in the 5m building then i watched the City Attorney talk talk about board of education director and his staff can afford to live in the 5m though. Then when Public Comment, not one, but 5 schoolteachers, explain and testify they cannot afford to live in the 5m Apartment Building complex. Again the same response understands and testifies that she cannot afford to live in the 5m Apartment Building complex. You claim low in affordable Income Housing, Affordable Housing, and the lowest income for the building is 71,000. The next income bracket is about 89,000 and tops off at about 105,000. Thats not affordable low income has moved its fraudulent information. You do the same thing with proposition d you claim 40 Affordable Housing and then when you look at the fine print, after campaign input a female thats living in a inhome foster care, and wants to live in the building it turns out youre providing greater opportunities for people that are making 122,000 a year. Since when does a person thats making 122,000 a year need to be under a low income Affordable Housing program . Now, i want to point out theres actually been thank you. Thank you very much. Im sorry, sir. Next speaker, please. Unfortunate, i could give everyone the same time. Its 2 min. [inaudible] sir, thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello. I want to speak about the expense i had yesterday. Was working on market and buchanan. I stopped and saw their 3 people on the sidewalk and i saw these officer harassing them and i was standing there watching and the Police Officer began to then interrogate me i was not doing anything wrong at the very minor example of i think the harassment of people on the street feel. It escalated i was a leader. I was called pearl brought. The officer began to make up things about me. I was just watching, observing. The people i talk to on the street after the officer left so they felt very threatened and think about people who go through this on a regular basis, i have place to go. I place where i could go to be saved afterwards. Im curious about how people who might not have place twos to go would react to an officer coming up to them and threatening them and also lying to them and not being honest with them could either than the city i pay taxes. I believe that we should all have a say in terms of how people are treated here. Again, very minor, minor incident, but people might not hearpeople here might not have experiences like this but there are people not being treated fairly and with respect and i would like it to be recognized and more to be done to make sure that everyone, every Single Person in the city is treated with respect and safety. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I live in south market and jane kim is our District Supervisor. I live inhouse. My issue is housing. The unaffordability of husband and i for one i gross under 60,000 a year and im a veteran, vietnam veteran. I then eligibility home certificate. I participated ini participated with a couple of other the beyers for some homeowners program. To no avail have been able toand this is 2011, 2014 and 2015. I have certificates good nothing ever came of it. The transitioning between befriend Housing Authority with the property at 330 and 320, tina is questionable and i think that my residency there is in jeopardy. I thinki dont believe that this ami 12 of Affordable Housing is appropriate. I think it should be a little bit more conscientious in your decisionyour decisionmaking process in terms of affordability. 120 does not cut it. Not for me and i refused to be displaced. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public would like to provide Public Comment at this time . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. [gavel] colleagues, we have some unfinished is this. We will go to items 18 through 25. Our adoption without committee reference. So, mdm. Clerk, please call items i can25 these items are considered without committee reference. A simple rollcall vote may enact any of these items. Member may object something and im having considered separate. Are there any members would like to sever any items . Supervisor yee yes, item number 22. Peter supervisor peskin item number 25 at this time, we are22, 25. Letter present, item number 23 23. Okay, on the remaining items, adam clerk these called role supervisor wiener aye, yee aye, avalos aye, breed aye, campos aye, cohen aye farrell aye kim aye, mar aye, peskin the i tang aye. There are 11 aye those items are adopted in adversely [gavel] adam clerk please call adam 20 to item 22 resolution to establish city policy to maximize the percentage of affordable inclusionary Housing MarketRate Development report ordinance and to ensure fairness and feasibility. To proviso yee supervisor yee this is a resolution that will frame further work in defining our in establishing what is really needed with Affordable Housing would like to move with in the Charter Amendment that we on the june ballot. Most of this with a timeframe that would like to do this so i had submitted resolutions last week and now theres been some discussion about certain language that i would like to amend and its been agreed upon as a mentioned earlier so, the let me read out quickly, or highlight the summary of the amendment we are talking about. So, one of the amendment we included was the board of supervisors intend to adopt a ordinance by april 19, 2016. So, we are time definite. The 2nd amendments would be joining ordinance would include grandfathering clause to ensure fairness for projects in the pipeline. In the 3rd amendment would be joining ordinance would include a feasibility clause requiring the controller in the City Department to conduct a periodic economic study to maximize affordability in the cities inclusionary housing requirements. Number 4, the first economic usability analysis shall be prepared prior to may 31, 2016 and will provide that the board of supervisors will review it within 3 months of its issuance. Number 5, trailing ordinance to allow for the project middle income units to be one of percent of ami in the board of supervisors will set the maximum affordable unit pricing based on input from the Feasibility Study. Number 6, trailing ordinance shall allow for the city to approve projects by developing a Development Agreement which can include variations from the inclusionary housing requirements. So, these amendmentwith the groundwork for the trailing ordinance and indicates a good faith effort to adopt us by april 9, 2016 with the provision indicated in the summary of amendments. That i just outlined. I feel comfortable with supporting the Charter Amendment as was introduced and to pass this resolution with the understanding that these arefor agreed upon legislation. Colleagues i hope to have your support in this. First, i would like to saymake a motion for amending the resolution so supervisor yee has made a motion 2nd by supervisor farrell. Before we adopt the amendment, i just needed a point of clarification on the proposed trailing ordinance and the date certain of april 19 trailing ordinance and the date certain of april 19, 2016. Can you please explain where that date came from, and if its actually realistic based on the fact that its arch first and this isit may take more time than that . The purpose of that date is to show intent to introduce the ordinance. So its not the completion. I will defer that to supervisor kim said she was part of the discussion supervisor kim this is a date negotiated with all parties. He was in conjunction with the Mayors Office. They will be working very closely with the Planning Department to ensure a swift hearing of the trailing ordinance so that we can have this in landuse and to pass it by april and to pass it by april 19 now. So this is the date that was worked out but we did go to the week and get that the Planning Department they would work with the planet salute you this back of the board by the middle of april to provide assurances to stakeholders on all sides in terms of the Charter Amendment thats moving forward for the june primary ballot. Thank you for that clarification. It just seems very ambitious. With that, colleagues, can we take these metrics without objection . Without objection humanoids passes unanimously [gavel] on the item as amended to take this item same house, same call . Without objection the item as amended passed unanimously [gavel] is called the next item item 23 is a roses resolution to urge the San FranciscoPublic Utility Commission to provide enhanced Public Access to testing roads and trails in the peninsula watershed land consistent with the goals of protecting the water supply and Environmental Quality of the area. Supervisor avalos this resolution is next up after hearing about a year and half ago to having great Public Access at the peninsula watershed. I meant for to go to committee select a motion that we send it to committee for a thorough discussion. So, we can just send it to committee. Okay, great. Thank you. We will move to the next item item 25 is a motion to authorize operation of green proponents and opponents ballot arguments rebuttal about arguments for similar to the voters at the june 7, 2016 consolidated general election. Colleagues, i actually have some amendment and for contact purposes, its best for us to designate only one author for each argument and my staff has asked around to each of the offices that think we have a consensus on how to proceed with this particular item. I want to entertai