Transcripts For SFGTV Police Commission 20240712

Our overall Housing Production targets. We have struggled in the past coming in with less than half of this number of affordable units as well as lower level of production of housing overall. I wanted to add that we did not exam whether these targets were the perfect targets or acknowledging we have struggled to meet these targets in the past. We wanted to look at policy and investment to allow us to meet these at minimum and leave that discussion open to the public and policymakers about whether different targets should be pursued in the future. One of the key policy issues we explored was where new housing would be added and what it would look like. Initial analysis showed that we do need to add additional capacity for housing to be able to sustain the level of production at 5,000 units over the 30 year timeframe. What this map that you are looking at shows is our past reductions since 2005 in pink. The pipeline is shown in hollow circles. It is on the east side around downtown and a few major plans such as candlestick and treasure island. As part of this analysis, we looked at feasibility of different types of developments and different locations and building types. Something that came through is High Construction costs which have been affecting the housing industry as a whole for the last few years are definitely a major barrier to producing and sustaining market rate and Affordable Housing over time. Those harder to quantify process and definitely also has an impact on housing costs. As part of this examination of where housing could go, we looked at three concepts for future housing growth. On the last you can see east side concept which essentially envisions additional housing being added to the east side areas where we have added much of our housing in the recent past. The next concept looked at adding more housing on major corridors which would receive additional infrom from structure infrastructure development. This would be lower rise than the east side concept, but the transit corridor would be more midrise as Development Type five to eight stories again focusing on transit corridors. Lastly, we looked at residential growth in the map on the right in the orange color. This looked more at dispersed housing growth throughout the residential neighborhoods. Much development was projected to occur on major corridors since that is where the larger parcels are. In this concept we did not exam any high changes so we are looking at 40foot as currently exists in most of the residential neighborhoods. We looked at each of the concepts with an equity lens, looking at how much inclusionary housing they were likely to produce, and i am getting a message i have poor network quality. Can you hear me. Yes, we can hear you. Okay. So we tried to layer that additional analysis of different equity implications, the financing and production of Affordable Housing through inclusionary and feasibility of building type depending on the development concept. Another key issue to meeting our housing targets included in the project were looking at Affordable Housing funding. We worked with our consultant be team to estimate we need approximately just over 500 million, 517 million per year to reach these affordable Housing Production and preservation targets. You can see on thegraph that we have close in 2019 and 2020. This represents a Real Investment from the city reflected in this Affordable Housing bonds that have been passed, funds dedicated and various sources. You can see on the path we have struggled to get a similar level of investment. We have a significant amount of investment against through the Affordable Housing bonds in the pipeline. Funding will drop off in the future without additional action. I wanted to note that homelessness and stabilization programs such as Tenant Legal Services are not included in this figure. They would be in addition to this amount. To summarize in the key policy issue areas we looked at as part of the project. We looked at increasing housing potential with focus on equity, sustaining Affordable Housing funding. We looked at helping to lower Construction Costs and streamlining approvals or other things to Lower Development costs, and finally the Stabilization Strategy to look at programs and policies to protect vulnerable residents and continue the expansion of homeless we have a specific mandate to think about the racial and social equity impact and how we can improve on the current state of affairs. Before participating in this work, planning worked with consultants and city agencies to identify key areas of potential strategies we would carry into this work and so these four main areas include avoiding longer term eviction debt and foreclosure crisis to speak to what supervisor mar brought up and to prevent homelessness. Ensuring the city continues to build new housing and increasing and leveraging Public Investment to preserve existing Affordable Housing and lock in affordability for the future. With that, i will pass it back tbackto miriam to talk about our housing plan. This data is what is forming our plans and policies. The most significant plan in front of us is the housing. As you know, a requirement of the element of the general plan required by state law. [indiscernable] you are chopped up. You are hard to hear. I am having the same problem hearing her that you are. The connection is choppy. Is this better . Yes. Sorry about the technical problems. I was indicating that the state has very specific requirements for the Housing Element. In San Francisco we go beyond those state requirements. We do have a much more extensive Housing Needs and Data Analysis, some of which is based on reports you have seen and Additional Data analysis that helps us understand some of our specific challenges from overcrowding to some of the data that needs to be breaking down by race and ethnicity. We also have an Environmental Impact report which we are the only city in the state of california completing this level of environmental analysis, given our current challenges. Most important is how we are reframing this. If we were to do an update like before, we will be failing the challenges and opportunities as supervisor mar indicated at the beginning. Through previous efforts we have been engaging with our communities to understand what are some of those core challenges and what you see in front of you we have summarized the input at 4 00 level. Racial and social equity, displacement, Housing Choices in all neighborhoods and neighborhoods resilient to climate and health crisis. These are some of the input that we have been hearing from our communities so far. We just started the first round of Community Engagement for the Housing Element. We are talking to various communities across neighborhoods. We have convened a Housing Policy Group to discuss those issues. We are planning two more rounds of Community Engagement, one at the end of the year and one next year. We will still need additional time to complete a drafting to present to you and complete Environmental Review process to move towards adoption. This data and strategies forming our plans and policies are substantial and need reframing as you have indicated. In addressing that, we are flagging the racial and social equity issues pressing today to allow us to respond to the health crisis, to the economic crisis, to the crisis of political unrest that not only San Francisco but many cities across the u. S. Are experiencing. We can only accomplish that by working closely with our communities. We are doubling our Community Engagement efforts. It is only through that that we will be able to reorganize Data Analysis report and improve the access of the data to you and community organizations. It is relying on that type of information that we will be able to develop recovery strategies that can confront this crisis and introduce major revisions to the Housing Element. We are mindful the level of Housing Affordability is lower than what we need and can accomplish. San francisco as a city who cares and with resources should be able to deliver more and the Planning Department hopes to be able to help that adjustment, change and take on this opportunity. We would very much welcome your enframe how to reframe the report to address our Current Crisis and best inform our plans and policies. This concludes our presentation. Thank you very much for having us and sharing our work uptodate. Thank you. Supervisor mar. Thank you. Chair peskin, i would like to request that we allow Public Comment right now and then we could have board or Committee Questions and discussions after Public Comment. Before we do that, to the Planning Department. Usually when we get the housing balance report we get a little presentation what the over and under was in all 11 districts. I didnt see that part. We were trying to cover the multiple reports in a succinct matter. We sent the link to the report. If you desire we can put together a more detailed presentation. We were concerned we were already taking too much time. All we have is time. All there is yesterday and tomorrow. If you want to put up the slide that shows the most recent housing balance report and you can do it after Public Comment relative to how we are performing in various districts at different level of a. M. I. , we can come back to you. With that why dont we open up to Public Comment. Any members of the public to speak on these items 4 and 5 . Thank you, mr. Chair. 32 listeners with seven. First speaker, please. [roll call caller hello. A couple things. I will be quick. One, i appreciate the Planning Departments report. It sounds like they really are trying to change and make our opportunities for workers and Affordable Housing issues more prevalent around the racial and economic divide of the city. Number two, i wanted to suggest that it is very, very important and critical as a person from the Labor Movement to tell you that it is not just racial and economics, it is also included workers and they are the essential people. We have found out that the people who can work in their offices can work anywhere in the world and still do work here, but those who are essential teachers, nurses, doctors, janitors, security guards, transportation. They need to live here so in order to work here to provide vital services. The Labor Council is in the process of gathering data about the workers unionized in the city, where they live here or outside the city, what they make and what their Affordable Housing needs are. When we say market or luxury rate. We are talking millionaires. Not even the highest paid workers qualify for the Affordable Housing principles that we have in the city. We will produce that and be talking about it in the Labor Movement. I cant speak for the Labor Movement here. Who i want to speak for is myself and my children and grandchildren who live here now who are thinking about moving. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Caller joseph smith. Thank you, supervisor mar for this important hearing. Prioritizing the needs of people of color and low income. In this time of Global Health crisis resulting in economic crisis, the health and Economic Needs of people with low income and color, including those we acknowledge as essential workers could not be more clear. Until we take concrete steps to change the way we do planning, the resolution will it is as an empty jumble of words. We need a new framework for planning. From the start of our process in the Richmond District we are from the framework to make this a true call for meaningful change. We call this new framework dapss. De segregation, affordable, production, sustainability. These needs to be addressed deeply. The only way to address the systems of segregation is to create de segregation systems. We have to demand an answer to the question what are we building and who are we building for . You can read about this in the people power media. Org. Thank you, supervisor mar and mir iam for bringing forward the concerns of the vulnerable in the community. Operator if you wish to provide Public Comment. Call 415655001. Meeting id1467294229. Pound and pound again. If you have not done so please press star three to speak. This will indicate that you have raised your hand. Please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin comments. Next speaker, please. Caller supervisors, i heard the presentation. I think the Planning Department has not taken into consideration how long this pandemic will be. While they were doing the presentation, they have started before the pandemic began. Realistically speaking, they are not keeping up with what is being done reasonin regionally d nationally related to the pandemic. It is here to stay until 2023. If you think that by addressing something that happened before the pandemic and sugar coating it and that some of us believe this, that is not going to happen. Our Planning Department fundamentally is still racist. Our Planning Department in San Francisco fundamentally is still racist. Sometime ago you supervisors looked at the housing act of 1956. What i will state is the racist laws our state is perpetuating. You are trying to do something, for which we give you kudos. Let me state again. Our San Francisco Planning Department is racist. Racist. Thank you very much. Operator next speaker, please. Caller my name is arnold town send resident of district five. We have been talking with the Planning Department over some weeks, and we applaud their efforts. I have been concerned for many years about the lack of relationship the Planning Department has had with the african community. It has been negligible as best. I want to caution that when it comes to the Affordable Housing this city for too long has had an all lives matter approach. When all lives matter, black lives dont. When we talk about disparity and when we talk about people of color, we dont usually mean black people. We have to become specific in our intent if we meet the needs of the africanamerican community. I hope the board of supervisors will do as we change dynamics how and where we deal housing that you will when it comes to black americans in San Francisco that you will get the same courage that it took to say we dont care what the law says in this town same sex dont have a right to marry. I hope you will takethe same courage we dont care what the law says. Thithis is a sanctuary city we e not treating immigrants in any inhumane manner. When we approach the needs of black people instead of courage we hear prop 209. I am hopeful this means it will be a breakthrough and we will really see the needs of black people that we have been ignoring for 53 years that i have been in this town. Thank you. Operator next speaker, please. We have 18 in the queue to spe speak. Caller resident of d5, the filmore and senior disability action. Reading the Housing Inventory and balance report, it is year there are two glaring trends of inequity. One is Government Agencies so busy chasing people who might be here by 2022 or 2050, they are neglecting the people who are here now. That is the people with the greatest need. Extremely low income folks under 30 of area Median Income. Who are they . Thousands of low wage essential workers, families of color yous r under popty line, 75,000 Social Security seniors and others priced out of housing and tax credit housing and closed out of private Public Housing and sros. The second trend is that city agencies are excluding those with the greatest need. By reinventing the definition of affordable. Planning does it when they include the units when we know new a. D. U. S start at market rate. They push affordable to incomes higher and higher. Planning does it when they go to 5,000 affordable units in 10 years with 120 for the extremely low income. Zero for 2019. We have no extremely low category. The reports show we will never achieve racial and social equity. We will never adequately house the people with greatest need until we stop reducing Affordable Housing. That is deeply Affordable Housing. That need is growing. The voices are getting louder. Thank you very much. Operator next speaker, please. Caller this is stewart flash man speaking on this item. I feel it is related to the balboa reservoir project. I want to thank supervisor mar forgetting this presentation presented today. It is an eye opening presentation and to me what it says is the current planning process is not working. We are not getting the affordable units we need. We are getting a surplus of market rate units. Why . The way the system is working we are piggybacking affordable units as bonus units. It is going to fail. We are Building Four or five market rate for every affordable unit. That shows in the statistics. What we need to do is sever affordable from market rate and focus on affordable. Lets not put affordable as piggybacking on market rate. Furthermore, the market rate units compete with affordable units for Construction Materials and that means that the affordable units end up being second class citizens. I want to point out one of the things pointed to is Work Force Training. One of the major sources for Work Force Training is ccsf that is ignored in the city Affordable Housing policy. Thank you. Operator next speaker, please. Caller i couldnt agree more with the past two speakers and with supervisor mar. I want to state that [indiscernable] it has many opportunities or did have. They are being taken over by luxury housing. We are not going to 25 years. Our objective is to preserve the rental housing we have that is reasonably affordable. We ultimately decided that our reach for the future was for a lot of Senior Housing projects. [indiscernable] it is between high density housing and shopping and so forth. That hasnt happened. The commercial district is taken up by expensive condos. A few units that are affordable. Those would be gone. I would very much like to speak to supervisor peskin about it. I will mention the only project recently that i know of was the one that i proposed and the Mayors Office of housing agreed and david baker and everybody was hot to trot. That was the project supervisor peskin tried to save by landmarking. He was no longer in office and david chu were not interested in a Senior Housing project. They tried to find Affordable Housing initially and reducing the price but didnt think there were any. Operator thank you. Next speaker, please. Caller i am a Research Analyst and one of the things my job touches on is asking that the community evaluate what kinds of jobs is given Hotel Development might bring to the community and how those jobs will correlate to the ability of those workers to live in the same city in which they work. I am very glad to see that we are continuing to discuss this. I am very glad the issue is brought to the forefront and that there is a mechanism for putting real numberings to the trends that we can all feel anecdotally. We all feel how difficult it is for Community Members to live and work in the city. I want to echo concerns about the details we learned in the report. The fact that higher income earners, housing was produced at 140 of the need or 139 , either way it is massive over production of housing for the group least in need and people such as our members that make between 30 to 60 of the Median Income are competing for a small chung of the pie. The odd numbers to eliminate the jobs and consolidating them out, our members still need to work in person. The question becomes how far do they have to travel . How much damage to the environment from increased driving . How will this impact their lives and the lives of the community. I am concerned about the gap between the Housing Production and needs. I really want to encourage that whenever we discuss new development that we discuss operator thank you. Next speaker, please. Items 4 and 5 on the agenda. Caller this is anastasia, district 8. Thank you for holding this hearing. Thank you, supervisor mar and to planning staff for the presentation. Racial and social equity is central to the Central City Department report today is more likely to obfis indicate rather than enlighten. Low and middle people has to be the Planning Department. Mohcd has an opportunity to take the new mus numbers and commit o fulfilling more Affordable Housing in our city. I signed up to work with our planning presenters to work on Housing Element 2022 racial and social equity we must prevent people from being pushed out. Thank you. Operator next speaker, please. Caller this is sue hester. A couple things following up on comments. The work force has to be the priority to building housing in the city. When workers dont make enough money to afford hous housing ine city they create problems unless they are homeless to go in their car, they get on batter get. We are causing a problem for the region by not producing the housing in San Francisco for the work force in San Francisco. We need to revisit the fee we charge for big Office Developers downtown, update the fee, look seriously at the work force of entire building, including the jan tores and the people who service the building. The concentration that happened in the past couple years o yearh income and high rent towers in the eastern part of the city is driving up the price of housing for the city and pushing people out. Linda chapman is right. We have had a lot of sites east of vanness gobbled up by people that want to make a little fortune on those sites. We have to go back to look at the area plans that were developed with a different set of assumptions about the cost of housing and the need for housing in the east neighborhoods. There has been push back from the south of market and mission because the presumptions in that plan are really outofdate. It is still a deadweight on the city. Operator next speaker. Members of the public on item 4 and 5 today call the numbers on the screen. Caller hi, i am senior and disabilities action. I am so glad, supervisor mar, that you called this very important hearing. I am disappointed the housing balance report wasnt more detailed. We know we ar we are losing buis with many units due to the loopholes in buyout legislation over the past few years. The other result is that the units have been turned into luxury units expanding upward and out word. These are no longer units affordable to anyone of moderate to low income. That is a loss that we dont track and we have to track. The other thing is about the homes bought many, many years ago and that wealth is passed to the next generations. I think we need to be very, very careful in terms of Racial Equity when it comes to the state laws coming down protecting those families, especially those families left out of financial, economic equality. For example, i am concerned about we need to be building for all essential workers that we saw in this period, they are traveling from so far away. They need to be here and walk to workplaces as they have in the past. For many, many reasons. I do think that job housing fit is very, very important. It also only talks about active work force not retired work force which is seniors, people with disabilities working just parttime right now or the retired, fully retired community. Thanks. Operator next speaker, please. Caller good afternoon. I am with the council of Community Housing organizations. Thank you to the Planning Department for making clear where the housing need in terms of income, housing balance report points out how little affordable is built and how much market rate housing is complete imbalance. 140 of eight year goal at 4 00 years into it. What does that mean . That report shows the represent controlled housing to provide stability for families is lost every year. This would have been interesting for the public to show what that looks like neighborhood by neighborhood. The reports dont show the racial impact of the housing imbalance. The priority the Planning Department is giving to the race, this analysis should be the next step of research. What is the sf medium bit by etc group . What are the Median Income of the communities of color in the neighborhood . How do we create plans for housing to provide stability . How do we provide opportunities for folks so their only choices are not to move. There was a story from california and the data you presented shows why this is happening for so many people. Finally, i want to say you talked about plan for building 5,000 units every year with two thirds luxury. How does this meet the need we have by the economic and racial groups that are so desperately in need of housing. As you stated, 2019 was the first and only year we had adequate funning for the Affordable Housing needed. That is what you should work around. Operator thank you. Next speaker, please. Caller i am a resident of excelsior. I dont see excess of luxury housing. The problem is the new market funded housing not a money user is luxury. That is it is a public disservice to make words inextricable. This is a shortage not surplus. The market price reveals the shortage. My neighborhood has very little construction of luxury housing. Most of the homes are Million Dollars, not created as luxury homes. They were by the overall lack of housing by the underestimated how much housing San Francisco with need during an economic boom. Market and filter are bad words. The failure that is driven by economic policies. I would appreciate that it is driven by the citys need to grow to economy to pay Public Workers and pensions in accordance with policies and set asides and state and federal laws. Please endorse prop 15 this september. Our tax system is regressive. If we can get support for more housing in the city. We need to evaluate if we can build enough housing that way. 39 over the above market category is nothing compared to 35 below the overall goal. If we cant get enough housing outside market we should open market thank you. Next speaker, please. We have 36 listeners with 13 in the queue. Good afternoon, supervisors. This is peter cohen with the council of Community Housing organizations. It has been fascinating hearing. Thanks to supervisor mar for walling this needed opportunity to spend back and think about the big picture. We learned from covid19 and the severen justices it exposed in housing. This is well timed. This is a hearing about Housing Needs. I want to point to a comment by supervisor peskin. It shows 22 of the city Housing Production is affordable over a 10 year period. That is vastly insufficient. Those who try to build Affordable Housing need to not be always running in the negative. 22 affordable means behind the eight ball. What is shown by staff is the arena, regional Housing Needs. The citys performance matters. 140 of market rate production is great. For the previous speaker maybe you should do more. What is more important is the affordable is not falling so far behind. Everything should be at 140 not just some portions. That is the tremendous inequities we are experiencing. I want to point out this is not just a numbers game. This is not an argument over numbers of units built or o how big the housing numbers are. It is about the people the Housing Needs to serve. Thathat is ununequal and unjust. We need to think about centering the conversation on the people we are trying to house. Operator thank you. Next speaker, please. Two minutes. Caller i am district 4 resident. Thank you, supervisor mar for keeping the spotlight on such important issue to people in the city. I wondered on the numbers the 140 for market rate. It is a question so we have less production of market rate can be attained the following year or however that is done. I am not quite sure. I am very worried about the Planning Commission and appointments there. We have to take a stronger look if we want to change things at who is on the Planning Commission, who is appointed in the same way we look at the Police Commission at the moment. We want cutting edge people that are looking out for the needs of the communities and not coming from whatever Real Estate Company they came from. That is why they got appointed. We have a problem on the commission. One, the idea of housing equity. All the rest need to be very well retrained. I am also very interested and glad that we are looking at affirmative action in San Francisco and maybe the rate of return for people of color who have been priced out of the city. Generational people. About the more than 10 state bills that are at the state right now and will be approved or combined in the next month or so led by our very own elected state wiener operator next speaker, please to items 4 and 5 today. Caller good afternoon, board of supervisors, members of the committee. I am representing united educators of San Francisco. I am here because first to say thank you to supervisor mar for putting this issue up. Today we heard from the Planning Department the report on the comparison between the numbers of Affordable Housing being built compared to luxury market rate. It is obvious this must change. This is how it is impacting educators. Many educators to be forced to make decisions if they should tip and work in San Francisco due to the lack of Affordable Housing. Our educators and student families should live where they want to. Educators help workers and essential workers and the people of San Francisco should live here. They contribute and provide to the city. If we cant keep the foundation of our community in the city that they live in, how can we came we have Equity Housing in the city . Thank you so much. Operator next speaker, please. Caller good afternoon, committee members. Thank you gordon mar for introducing this topic. I am harry bernstein. Several short topics. I appreciate the attorneys comments endorsing 100 Affordable College and city college. There should be more efforts to support and promote 100 Affordable Housing projects. Two, there is Research Showing less than 50 Affordable Housing creates more demand for housing than it suffice. Three, the means of affordable in perpetuity. For the useful life of the building. This may mean that when the afford built expires, it could be a situation like foster city where the rents jump up disproportionately so we make sure this isnt happening. 4. There is a consideration of a tax on businesses vacant six months. Has the city tracked or will the city track residences vacant with a vacancy tax. The numbers of units should be reported regularly. Last thing if we get the report card. Production of low and moderate housing should be an f at 31 and 33 . Low cost housing 51 is d minus. We cant consider giving an a plus to over achieving 140 for luxury units. Operator next speaker, please. Caller good afternoon, sarah ogle be. I want to thank supervisor mar for making this presentation possible, and i am glad that it did touch on issues of overcrowding and density which i brought up in my previous Public Comment. California sent Committee Chair scott wiener makes the point that density can cure overcrowding. Especially with covid19 and the spread, we are talking about an adequate response especially with housing. One of the keys and i want to agree with the previousmentter. Who are we building it for. I would add where are we knowledgbuilding it. It is clear that San Francisco has a lot of work to do when it comes to zoning. There is unaffordable luxury Single Family housing zoning in the majority of San Francisco. We need to open up our zoning policies to welcome multifamily housing on the west side. Look at the herself age of minorities. It is not right. It is morally wrong. We basically pushed defector segregation, and people who have been wage suppressed are going to continue to be able to not afford the Single Family housing on the west side. Please consider the need that is great and now that we need it on the west side to provide senior Affordability Housing units there. Thank you. Operat. Operator i am sam and i live from district 80 the border of the mission. I am calling to implore the supervisors to think bigger. With regard to the context of housing in San Francisco ask themselves why there is all this controversy of building luxury housing on the east side. However very little on the extreme luxury housing. 2 million mansions blocks away from the muni. You dont see people complaining about that is the definition of luxury housing. That areas are not doing their fair share in building sufficient housing for the future of San Francisco. The question should be how to build enough housing for everybody to live in San Francisco. The answer is going to be a combination of market rate and subsidized housing. Where can we build that . It is clear if you look at the sense still so low density. Houses are still expensive is a failure on the board. I hope they can take bold action needed to make housing more affordable for everybody. Operator we have six in the queue. Call is numbers streaming on the screen to speak. Next speaker, please. Caller good afternoon, supervisors. I am robert. I live in district 5. If you have been following the plans for the bay area. The next Housing Element will mandate 32000 to 39,000 above moderate homes to say nothing of the 80,000 total homes required for our city. That depends on the regional allocation. It is still in the air. We will have to build around double the rate we have been building above moderate homes and we will have to build more housing in general to meet the goals. Our average is worse than that. Since 1970 we added 380,000 jobs and 67,000 homes. That is around five jobs per home for the last 50 years. To say the least, nobody will give San Francisco an award for home production. The 2014 Housing Element does not affirmatively burn the housing. We will have to correct that for the next one. In the current one less than 14 were planned for. These are neighborhoods the state deems the richest. We need to open these up to more housing to reimburse the trends over the last 50 years. I am glad we could institute a housing registry. The Budget Office suggests that we could have 1. 7 to 3. 3. 7 million per year rental. Thank you. Operator next speaker, please. Caller i would like to thank gordon and aaron for recognizing that there is an excess supply of market rate and under supply of Affordable Housing. Basically the Housing Market is bifurcated. The idea that some people have is that by building more market rate housing the benefits are going to trickle down to the poorer people for affordable units. That is basically a smith. They believe that but if you look at the statistics that isnt happening. It is a bifurcated market. One of the things the Planning Department presentation did was talk about the 30 year housing targets. Within that it brought up prop k. The benefit of prop k was that it required onethird Affordable House willing. The whole idea behind prop k was you are using public land and it is going to be able to make things cheaper. Given that fact that it is on public landid shoul land it sho not 33 . That is what is happening with the balboa park reservoir. It shouldnt be 550 market rate units. They are subsidizing affordable. If you look at their own feasibility memo it says that 17 or 187 units are paid by te city. The developer is responsible for 363. Operator thank you. This is item 4 and 5. Callers we are on item 4 and 5 on the agenda. If you like to speak press star 3. If you are for balboa press star 3 to remove yourself. For those on items 4 and 5, please continue to wait. We will notify you that your line has been unmuted. You will have two minutes. Next speaker. Caller good afternoon. Thank you for having this hearing. For one thing i would like to propose that there be a moratorium on all market housing for the next 10 years and only be 100 Affordable Housing be built until parity is reached between available housing so there is an equal amount of 100 affordable as market rate housing on the market. We have done the math. A person making 15 per hour makes 28,800 per year. If there is a house with two people making minimum wage which there are hows in that category that is 57,600 per year before tax deductions. Therefore even if housing that is now affordable isnt affordable to those homes, to those people. Those are the people most in need of housing. We would like to suggest that some legislation be introduced for a moratorium on market rate and truly Affordable Housing be built for the next 10 years in San Francisco. We suggest the city assist owners of storefrontses now vacant and we can see that the many, many businesses are not coming back. We would like to see the city assist the owners to convert those to residential units. They would have a nice source of light but that would go a long ways if those units could be affordable residential units, all of those vacant store fronts in the city. Also, we would like to suggest that the full Market Developers change their Business Model and find a way to instead of seeking profits from commercial operator thank you. Next speaker, please. Caller this is russell davis, chairman of the Mount Davidson manor Homeowners Association. I grew up the bronx in a citybuilt, owned, managed Housing Development for low income people. If the bronx can do it, San Francisco can do it. Any new developments in the city be 100 affordable. There is two other issues i would like the board of supervisors to consider. That is i never hear anybody speak about quality of life issues, only quantity of life issues. As new york city showed, high density sardine style living is not conducive to good health. Most people dont understand that San Francisco is already the second most densely populated city in the united states. I dont know why we are trying to over take new york. As one speaker density secures over crowding, that is ridiculous on its face. I dont believe high density is necessary in further developments in the city. Thank you for your time. Operator next speaker, please. We have 3 30 listeners and fourn the queue. Caller i am a district nine resident. I wanted to echo what the previous speaker said in terms of housing is a right, not a privilege. We need to make sure the people housed in our city represent all areas. Especially those folks not making the money of tech workers. We have different families and not just rich families. A beautiful home and green space. With postcovid what San Francisco will be like we need housing for families, not just singles. We need to make sure the people here can age here and we are not forcing people out. I advocate more housing that it is Family Friendly for folks not making millions. Thank you. Operator next speaker. You have two minutes. You will be notified your line is unmuted. You may begin. Caller i am cathy lip some. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the desperate situation of housing. I am a member of senior disability action. Two years ago we learned 75,000 San Francisco single renters had an income too small to qualify for low income Senior Housing. What we did. We had a small campaign, put together to get bond money to build some Senior Housing and to apply senior operating subsidies to those who needed it. We included money to build housing for people with disabilities and families with extremely low income. Certainly on a related subject. The a. M. I. Metrics from the Mayors Office on housing that tries ttries to align householde and income with Affordable Housing needs reworked to fit reality. The recently released report from the supervisors budget and legislative analyst says the city needs 9300 Affordable Housing units or three times the number of approved units in the citys pipeline just to keep up with the rise of low wage jobs expected in the city over the next six years. Certainly any resemblance of social and Racial Equity strongly supports that housing. Lets focus on affordability. I stand with those and so does the senior disability action to focus on affordability. Thank you. Next speaker. This is for 4 and 5 on the agenda today. I am kenneth russell. I encourage you to look at the history of zoning. Specifically look to the west side to allow greater density so it wont remain exclusively high cost Single Family homes. I heard some say we have an excess of market rate housing. That statement is based on our previous number and how production lined up with that. Those numbers were an estimate at the time. The market itself through our housing prices has shown us that was inadequate. If we had an excess of market rate housing the prices would not continually increase yearoveryear. We need to build more housing both affordable and market rate. We are doing a poor job across the board. Thank you. Operator next speaker. You have two minutes. Caller this is martin from district 5. Thank you for looking at our Housing Needs. I dont mean to pick on a previous speaker. The person from the Mount Davidson Homeowners Association grew up in low Income Housing in the bronx and successfully by a Single Family home in Mount Davidson. That is incredible. It is a testament to the way social mobility can happen when people are securely house 679. I believe from Public Housing. If we look at a racial red lining map of San Francisco. You will notice that areas like Mount Davidson and the west side of San Francisco were completely inaccessible to buyers or renters of color, specifically black renters. We see the only 5 of San Francisco is black or africanamerican that is down from 15 almost 30 years ago. Unfortunately it is by design. When you look at the zoning map, our current zoning map of low density Million Dollar Single Family homes is the same map you would see 50, 60, 70 years ago during red lining era. It is illegal now the mistakes from the past are still seen today. The generational wealth from racist red lining shuts out people of color from the west side of San Francisco. I hope the supervisors study the places like the hub which does need the racial and equity study. On the west side how do we get to houses built in the 40s, 50s and 60s on the 1, 2, 3 million. Sometimes they are dilapidated. Operator thank you for your comments. Next speaker please on items 4 and 5. You have two minutes. Caller greetings. I am jessie fernandez, district 11. Neighborhood alliance of organizations with a rich tradition of people of color and immigrant led planning around the excelsior. Over the past few years we experienced surge in Market Rate Development which is the majority of the housing pipeline from district 11. As you reframe the strategy i would offer that our inclusionary requirement framework restricts housing for the most vulnerable to market oriented which reproduces housing imbalance. It has been rolled back to 18 from 25. That reduced portion of bmr units to serve low income to increase higher income residents portion. We need a better understanding of the incomes of essential workers and develop housing goals around those. Currently the majority of affordable units in excel see or are not affordable to those with the lowest incomes in the entire city and are left out of bracketts that are required of new tents for bmr units. We need to prioritize Language Access and participation from marginalized communities through Leadership Development that honors local expertise and defers to the leadership of residents. I heard the Planning Department say these are onetime respons responses. That is the generational racial despair in housing generally. Thank you for your time. Operator next speaker. Two minutes. You will be notified when your line is unmuted. Caller this is jonathan randolph. What does the housing balance report miss . It shows a slice of the pie. What it misses is what is going on in the existing housing. One or two percent of households move to new housing every year. 10 move between existing houses per year. The Important Role Market Production does is speer the rent of existing housing. The balance report does not support reducing market rate production we are meeting the socalled above moderate need determined in the last recession. Instead we need to produce as much of the market rate housing as possible so it will reduce the rent of all housing because most people live in that housing. Thank you. Operator next speaker. That completes the queue. Thank you, Public Comment is closed to all of the speakers on all sides because there are actually more than two sides of this. Thank you for your comments. I will turn it back over to supervisor mar, who is the sponsor of items 4 and 5. Thank you, chair peskin. Thank you to all speakers during Public Comment and thank you to the planning staff for all of your work on these various reports and for your presentations at this hearing. I did have some questions on some of the different reports. I will start more a comment about the housing pipeline. Thank you, chai chair peskin abt meeting the vehicles for the different income level and hiding the fact we have exceeded our goal through 2022 for above market rate housing by nearly 40 . I agree with chair peskin. That is the data we present to the public should be presented in a more accurate and honest way. In the housing balance report, i had a few questions regarding the cumulative housing balance percentage and i wanted to highlight chair peskin you asked a question if the planning staff could present information or a chart showing the cumulative housing balancing lance by district. That is a key part of the report not included in the main presentation. It is available when you want to see it. Now would be a great time. This chart includes expanded calculation which is net new Affordable Housing plus completed acquisitions in rehab and housing replacement and permitted affordable units. Units removed from protected are subtracted then that number is divided by the net new housing built plus net built units. This is different from the housing balance calculation. This including the third column the replacement units. This is broken down by district. The last column is the actual percentage representing the housing balance by supervisor district. The column i spent the time on is the fifth from the left. Units removed from protected status. That would be units that were rent controlled and became trc or converted to condos or rent controlled units that were demolished or removed from rent control status, is that correct . Yes fifth column removed from protective status. Includes those removed including condo conversion and owner move in. It would not include other ways that people were removed from their units for other no fault evictions . No only those four categori categories. Interesting numbers. Chair peskin. Can i follow up on this slide . I am just trying to understand. The difference between expanded cumulative housing and cue lative housing balance. Expanded gives us 28. 6 affordable. 21. 5 is the prior. The difference is the rehabunits, is that right . Yes, thats correct. It is rehabbed and acquired units. Are those units distinguished between units occupied and not occupied previously . If it is occupied then there is rehab. Then it is reoccupied, we counted that as net increase of one unit . Yes, we are included it because it then becomes confirmed affordable. In certain cases in the table 6 a and 6 00 p. M. Of the housing balance report it is the number of buildings and number of units by district and includes acquisition rehab of Affordable Housing units, small site programs and the rad program. Those three programs. It is an affordable unit that is rehabbed as part of this, it is still going to count as positive unit . I understand there may be situations where it loses affordable is not longer affordable. You rehab and that is affordable. That is plus one. Here we are counting them the same if it was affordable before and after we factor it in here. I appreciate the clarity on it. It streams strange to count it seems strange. It is important to improve the quality of housing. But to look at it in the housing balance report as additional unit seems, if i am understanding it correctly, seems misleading. Am i understanding it right . The rental assistance demonstration is preservation of at risk public projects. It might be units not affordable any more. Ththe continuation of affordability is an added net unit. I guess following up on supervisor peskins question on the fifth column. If something is officially converted to a condo or he willlis act or the ellis act eviction. There is no quantifying the rent controlled units to the market . We know there are thousands of units occupied by longterm tenants. It is reset to market level which is a loss of an affordable unit until that becomes below market many years later. That is not reflected . Those would not be reflected in the fifth column, that is the official removals from ellis act, is that right . It doesnt include rent controlled that might be back to market rate. It includes those notices reported to the rent board. I have other questions but i know supervisor mar was making comments. I think those two columns we are counting units that were already affordable. We rehab and still affordable towards positive. We are missing. It is hard to capture. I want to say that we are missing the units turning over if they are not ellis or removed from the Housing Market when rent control tenants are displaced for any reason and that unit then becomes unaffordable market rate. We are not capturing the loss of those units. That picture is more grim when we factor those things in. Thank you. Supervisor mar. Thank you, chair peskin. I wanted to have this chart to make the point that my district 4 has by far the worst cumulative housing balance negative 178 here. That reflects the market rates versus Affordable Housing developments in district four as well as high number of rent controlled units removed from protected status. This is why i am committed and made a high priority to focus on expanding Affordable Housing for low income and moderate income folks in our neighborhood in district four. I did have a question around the overall citywide cumulative housing balance percentage. Whether that is 21. 5 of the regular table a or the 28. 6 in the expanded table. I agree with supervisor prestons point around the expanded table. Do we have a goal in terms of housing balance and what cumulative housing balance percentage should be . Housing report is simple analysis. Prop k to set city policy to construct or rehabitat 30,000 homes by 2020 and 33 which would be affordable to low and moderate income households. This is intended to supplement that analysis. One important thing is that the calculations do not specifically track performances towards prop k. The metrics do differ slightly and it is not the best comparison. That could be something we potentially change if necessary until it does reflect city goals. One other question. I understand that the planning code section on the housing balance report states if the cumulative housing balance percentage policy load 33 and that is reflecting prop k goal in any given year that the Mayors Office of housing shall derm how much funding is required to bring the city into the minimum 33 housing balance and there should be a strategy presented to the board to accomplish at least the minimum of 33 housing balance. I wanted to ask what is being done in terms of following this provision of the planning code section regarding the housing balance report . This is miriam. Thank you for the question. Housing affordability strategy we have been working with the Mayors Office on housing and Community Development to address what are the additional strategies that need in concluded to increase that affordability. The financial analysis, account of existing projects, cost of those projects are included in that report for your review and we will be happy to provide more of the specifics as needed. If i may interject, supervisor mar, supervisor kim at the time actually basically suggested that when we hit that number, luxury new Housing Starts would come to a stop. The very powerful luxury Housing Developers were out and mayor lee at that time opposed that solution. That was a solution proposed and as far as i am concerned is still on the table. Thank you, chair peskin. I dont have any other questions about the housing balance report. I do have a few questions about the Housing Affordability strategies presentation. You mentioned that it seems that the strategy is less about strategy to address Housing Affordability as it is a strategy to expand Housing Production overall in the city. If the strategy just to further the status quo on housing policies which has really failed to meet the needs of the vast majority of residents in the city, working people, and specifically the Housing Affordability strategy sets goal of onethird of the housing to be affordable and twothirds market rate. As we have seen what has happened over the last decade market rate housing are above moderate housing is overwhelmingly luxury condos because that is most profitable for the developers to build. What is the analytical basis of the planning goals of onethird affordable when the housing requires 56 affordable. That is highlighted through this hearing. We exceeded the market rate by 40 through 2022. I just want to understand for the housing afford built strategy why are we talking about onethird Affordable Housing and twothirds market rate . The intent of the report was to do an analysis that would allow you all decisionmakers to adjust the targets as needed. The city wanted to accomplish the specific goals. You have an analysis. If we are to target 1600 affordable new units and 1100 preservation of affordable units then we need 500 million. That can be adjusted to the number that our decisionmakers decide to increase. We didnt do analysis we used as reference the existing targets that the current may horand previous mayor stated and that is a reference. They intended not to use this but to use the analysis included here to achieve the city goals and to our policies and investments to decide how we want to inform the Housing Element based on this analysis. This report was to give analysis not necessarily a recommendation. If i can jump in. Information is power, and every time we have hearings on this it is fascinating. It brings out the libertarians and the communitybased folks who have been fighting gentrification. I am always fascinated by it. Occasionally we change Public Policy as a result of these reports. Thank you, supervisor mar and former supervisor kim for creating the context to have this conversation. I want to go to what supervisor preston says. If you look at the fifth column and because of the way my computer works i could not see the total number at the bottom. It was in excess of 3,000 units over the time period. The reality is if we can stop the disruption of people of lives through speculation, eviction, gentrification, that is about a third of your units. There you go. 5,000 units. 3951 units. That is the fifth column. If we can actually stop people from evicting human beings from aging in place, there is the number. I understand the libertarians dont get that because they dont believe in protecting people. That is actually the way we can solve this problem in large part without tearing people of lives up. You need not comment on that. I am commenting on something i have been working on for 20 years. Those numbers used to be worse. I agree, supervisor peskin. I guess i have one final question around the Housing Element on presentation that is related to my concern about the Housing Affordability strategy reflecting the status quo in building overwhelming market rate house housing and luxury cs and not meeting the needs of the folks in the community struggling with housing instability right now. For the Housing Element, i have a question. From the presentation that you did on the Housing Element, it is not clear to me that the analysis is really going to keeply reflect the current Housing Needs of low to moderate income residents of workers and families and seniors in the city. I am asking will the Planning Department include the Housing Affordability and stability needs of San Francisco residents in the Housing Element including quantitative measures based on lost of rent controlled units and demographic trends and goals, family trends and goals, and also the impact of Market Rate Development on gentrification and affordability of housing in surrounding areas. Thank you for your question. We will be happy to share with you the fame work of analysis we are focusing on right now. There are some new pieces of information that are not available, but that is not an excuse for not doing some of this analysis, some of the segregation of data by race and segregation of data by terms of displacement. It is very difficult to get. We will do an extra effort to figure out what is possible and share that with you over the next three months we are conducting that data gathering analysis. I hope it does flag nose issues that we need to address as a city and that you have clearly articulatessed from the beginning of this item. Thank you. Chair peskin, i dont have any other questions right now. Thank you, supervisor mar. Supervisor preston. Than thank you, supervisor mr all of your comments. I have aufew questions and comments. Just to the last where we were asking about housing balance and expanded balance. I want to emphasize the bottom line there. I think for the public when you are looking at this document and presentation, i think it would be misleading to assume 28. 6 of our affordable Housing Production has been Affordable Housing. I dont think that is the data. 21. 5 is the more accurate. I dont want it to be a false comfort to near 30 when you look longer term at Housing Production numbers. I did want to ask a couple questions. I should start by thanking all three representatives from Planning Department for extraordinary amount of work that goes into these presentations and crucial work not just for the board in setting policy but for the public to understand how all of these complex programs fit together and what the bottom line is. I do want to ask about a few other Public Comments. I think they were making a similar point around people and not just units. Supervisor mar you made a similar point. I want to ask of the high end property, there is a market rate property. Do we have any information about the occupancy rates . We have the numbers of units produced. Is there any information regarding occupancy of the newly constructed units . Thank you, supervisor preston. We have limited information on occupancy. We have limited information on people and we are working to address that. The availability of data is part of the challenges that we are facing is not just around the situation but we tend to focus on buildings more than investment of people. That is part of the target. Supervisor fewer and mar, started a more detailed Housing Inventory to get information about occupancy. Who is occupying what . We didnt succeed in the resources and funding and prioritizing the effort at this point. This is something that we will continue to explore and identify how we could secure that type of information. How we can track. When you have a project in front of you, you know who is occupying the building, when you try to address vacancies you know the units vacant. We have estimates from various sources but not precise numbers. Thank you. I think it is essential that we figure out how to get on top of this. To just look at numbers produced and not look at the demographics who gets to live there. When i hear people seriously trying to argue that building market rate housing in more well off neighborhoods is going to 134 how how13torelace people ofe wealth and income issues who can afford and not afford market rate housing. I think we need to look at ways to look at how many of these units are occupied . Who gets to occupy the units . Who are the followings living in San Francisco earning 50 a. M. I. And moving to affordable unit . Who are the people buying the 1. 6 million condo somewhere . Not just on income but on the Equity Analysis, who is able to occupy a different unit. That leads me to another question around the data gathering and i know there are delays in generating the housing jobs report and others. I am curious what is is there a backlog on research and Data Collection side . If so, why . Under staffing, lack of available information or am i wrong and there is no delay . There is a delay. We apologize for that. Some of that is we lost staff, but some of that is related that the staff working on that Data Analysis had to go to support the emergency center, emergency response. There is challenge in securing the specific data in the regional form. Nonow we realize we need to trak employment. Given the concerns you are raising and we are hearing from communities. There are certain jobs that are being impacted the most. Tracking those workers that are severely impacted by covid19 is something we should provide in this report and it will be a little more difficult to gather. However, we think by the end of august we are provide you at least the employment and wages information so you know what has been happening uptodate from the data sources that we have. Thank you. Maybe it is a comment and less of a question. I want to be clear. Some of this i raise not as criticism. What everyone is dealing with everyone understands not everything is done on time. We talked about some things intentional and structural. Supervisor peskin alluded to the funning issues funding issues of the department. I want to make sure that the Planning Department is not unintentionally favoring delivery of permits and the attention that it needed to Development Projects at the expense of the research and Data Collection here. I dont know if that is what is happening. I want us to be mind full going toward. I think tw twothirds of the funding that comes into the department to fund the department are in the form of fees for services. We would be missing the elephant from the room if we didnt recognize that could lead to priorities within the department if folks know it or not. I wanted to make sure that the work of presenting this extremely important data and doing the race and Equity Analysis i am thrilled the department is committed to doing. That we are paul mindful that doesnt take a back seat to the other demands, particularly those paying the bill for the Planning Department. Is it twothirds or three quarters of the money coming to planning from the developers or to others to whom services are provided . You are correct. The main source of funding is fees. We also welcome your critical perspective as we discuss with our commission. We need to own our structural problem to resolve them. It is going to be a major effort but we think with all of your support we will be able to succeed in reallocating resources. As you will knowledge San Francisco is a city with resources and people who care. We can make the changes with in the Planning Department is city deserves. Thank you. It is a longer conversation beyond this hearing. We have to look at structural issues that put us in this position where each time we look at housing balance we see impressive numbers on the market rate Housing Production side and struggle on the Affordable Housing side. Iit is pay big dent how from hoe fund. This is an important endeavor. I also just switching gears. I was looking at the numbers around the specific district and was troubled by the numbers in table 2, 3, 4 which breaks down from looking at the end of 2019 some pretty dismal numbers from my district. I will let other supervisors comment on their districts. Entitled, permitted, under Construction Projects 6. 7 affordable at the end of 2019, the end of this last period. Permitted under construction 8. 2 affor affordable. No permit 2. 4 affordable. This is why with such a priority for us in the hub with the project that did move forward to make sure our Affordable Housing was built on site and why that is such a priority for me and i know for a number of other supervisors, but i guess if they challenge to myself and others. It is that we need to be dramatically improving the percentage of on site affordable. I think we are on the way to do that. Wawas there a dif to not get in the weedings. Iis that the approval which didnt have on site affordable . We are under 10 . That is very concerning up to 2019. We can look at the specifics and get back to you. I am not quite sure exactly which projects were counted under each district. I will get back to you with the details. More generally, i am curious for any of what do you see as the main cause for what seems to be the imbalance here . Is it the money allocated . What are our Biggest Barriers here and how can we change this from your perspective . This is a substantial question. There are different factors we discussed from Construction Costs to zoning, to development, to investment but one could focus on the you have alluded to we have the structural issues where our system is designed to make investments in a particular sector to bring the resources for affordability we havent been able to get to that scale. We lost federal funding. State funding is limited. The city of San Francisco when we compared to similar cities of our size has been producing more Affordable Housing than our counterparts but nowhere up to the level we need. We have to put substantial thinking into how to increase resources. Private sector, corporate sector . Public sector . I think the Current Crisis gives us a window to make the changes that were not possible before. We were not able to house our Homeless Population as we are doing right now. We were not able to address some of the critical investment that we might be able to. We want to be mindful the economic crisis we are facing now is very substantial, dramatic. If we are able to realign our distribution of resources in ways we were able to do before, we are not coming up with a new history. We are able to produce higher level of affordability in the past and question is how to do we get there . What do we need to do today to bring public and private investments to those level of affordability . How can we engage developers who succeeded in building the project to serve the population . To produce a product to serve a Different Group of folks in a Different Community . Thank you. Final comment. I think that when we are producing Affordable Housing 19, 20, 21 , there is a significant argument we are stepping backwards for overall equity. We do as a city, as you all know, have an obligation for affirmatively fair housing. This developers have bottom lines to deliver for investors. They can be pressured to provide affordable minutes to make concessions regarding labor practices. At the end of the day it is this balance and this discussion that is at the heart of whether we are furthering fair housing or not. When we are having the neighborhood around 80 of the units unaffordable to working class units disproportionatesly available to white folks. We are taking steps backwards. I appreciate your work on this. We are in a point of urgency on so many fronts. Thank you for your time put into this. I appreciate it. This is one of the most robust discussions i have had and i want to thank Planning Department staff for signaling a new direction. Thank you, miriam and your colleagues. I want to say a couple things. One of them is a policy desire. I think it is low hanging fruit. I mentioned it earlier. Historically when we wanted Additional Information for these types of discussions from the housing balance report, we had to legislate it. [please stand by]. The libetarian folks who are very, very engaged in this issue and have recognized the densities and that the adjoining counties to north and south with a lot of work to do. I think it would be also good to focus this conversation regionally through the terms and lower communities of color and we should have that in an apples to apples way. I was part of the movement to when supervisor kim threatened to annex a nearby city that was unwilling to increase the housing density on vacant land, so lets expand that conversation. So supervisor mar, and i really appreciate everything that you have, and please any closing comments for you, supervisor mar. And what is your will . Thank you so much, chair peskin and supervisor preston for your comments and engagement in this really important discussion. There is a number of very important items to get to so i will keep the closing comments very short. I did want to summarize that my goal today was emphasize the importance of data and who is the housing for and are we prioritizing and addressing the Housing Needs of residents an communities to insure the diverse and racially Equitable Society . This needs to be the core of our housing policy frame work, not just in the rhetoric and not just in theary tough we report on about not just on the narrative. We need it in the measurable data and the quantitative goals and the metrics that hold us account to believe the real people who live and work here. We can only address what we can measure. Again, i am disappointing that the jobs housing fit is not a fit and so i look forward to receiving the completed report before the end of august. I also look forward to seeing how the points brought up today will be reflected and incorporated into the Housing Element and in particular the Housing Needs in San Francisco. I look forward to continuing conversations with planning staff and insuring meaningful public opportunities for final sign off. And finally, supervisor and executive board member of the association of bay area of government, i recognize the challenge that the forthcoming regional arena allocation will have on San Franciscos response in the Housing Element. In addition to establishing the framework we discussed today, i will commit to advocating for arena allocation that aligns with the framework we discussed in a frame work that supports San Franciscos a Housing Affordability and stability needs. It will be reflected in the district and housing work including the sunset Forward Community planning process that we launched this summer and our effort to increase Affordable Housing capacity on the west side. And my policy priorities to stabilize and protect sunset residents from displacement. Thanks again, colleagues and staff at the Planning Department and to the members of the public who called in to engage with us today. And i would like to move that we continue this item to the call of the chair. And that would be both hearings, supervisor . Item four is a resolution and it has to be excuse me, you are absolutely right. And by planning code and accepted. Im sorry. Chair peskin, i would ask that the committee move the resolution accepting the housing balance report forward to the full board, and also continue the second hearing to the call of the chair. Thank god that we asked for the housing balance report to actually be put on the screen so we could have done it justice. And before we call roll call vote on that, let me also just speak to two elephants in the room before we move on to our last three items that will take several more hours. Yes, there are absolute nimbys in this town and there is a history of systemic racism as it relates to housing. It was in covenants, conditions, and restrictions. It has played out in exclusionary zoning, but there is also the exercise and i realize that planners and the Planning Department are not allowed to address this in reports. But there is also the exercise of vast power that is brought to all 11 of us and a mayor that is called the expenditure of money in politics. It happens through astroturf organizations. It happens through independent expenditures. It happens through political donations. And it is no mistake that supervisor kim and i had to take these t static percentage of inclusionary housing out of the charter where it never belonged because a handful of developers convinced a mayor and a board to put that before the voters and funded the campaign where it actually passed. So let us also remember that a lot of this is about rich people getting richer and to the libertarian, i suggest you think about that, too. With regard to item number 4, there is a motion, madam clerk, to send the resolution with regard to the biannual housing balance report number 10 to the full board. I will make that motion on that motion, a roll call please. On the motion to recommend, supervisor pes kin. Aye. Supervisor safai. Aye. Supervisor peskin. You have three ayes. And then i would like to make a motion to continue item number five to the call of the chair. On that motion, a roll call please. On the motion as stated, supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor safai. Aye. Supervisor peskin. You have three ayes. Madam clerk, reads the next item. Item six is ordinance amending the planning code to provide an exception from the density limit calculations for all affordable units proprojects and not seeking and receiving a density bonus, permit the legalization of all unauthorized dwelling units and members of the public who wish to provide Public Comment item six should call the number 4565 a0001, meeting 1467294222 and pound and pound again. And press star 3 to line up for item six and the system will prompt us that you have raised your hand. Wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted when we get to Public Comment. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Major. At the question of the sponsor of the legislation, supervisor mandelman, he has asked for a continuance to august 17. Given the unique covid19 time that were in where during the middle of august we are going to be in the middle of our budget deliberations, we may or may not have a hearing on monday, august 17. So subject to Public Comment, i would like to continue this to the call of the chair. If indeed we have a mid august meeting, i will put that on the calendar. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak to the item number six . Operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. Hes noted 25 listeners and two in queue. Operations, if you could queue the caller please. A first speaker please. Go ahead, first caller. Caller hi. There is tom, executive director of livable city and just thank you for that hearing. It was great. And it highlights a loft of the issues that this legislation will directly help. This legislation does a few things. It protects san franciscans who live in unauthorized units from losing their housing. We have thousand of san franciscans who live in unauthorized units. They are not a tup of housing. Some are very old units and in any type of building and just units not approved with permits when the unit was built. Some are decades old, many are rent controlled and this would give every one of the units a path to legalization and protection under 317 from conversion, demolition and merger. It gets directly to the issue of why are we losing rent controlled and affordable unit. Lets stop that and get that number to zero units we have that are not replacing in kind. The other thing is it does is incentives for Affordable Housing by exempting them from density limits. We do have an exemption of affordable units from the citys density limits. These are projects that will abide by height and bulk and rear yard and exempts are, h1 and 2 and doesnt apply in over half the city. It caps at 25 of the total number of units. And to lower density units with the small number of additional units. And so 100 affordable projects, for example, couldnt put them in the space of a monster home. Even though they fit and could be generously sized units, but there is that cap. If you believe in dense tu equity, and if you believe and want more on site affordable, supervisor preston, and if you want Affordable Housing of all shapes and sizes in every neighborhood, this is the ordinance for you. We hope you will support it when it is written. Wanted to thank supervisor mandelman for bringing this forward. It is incredibly timely and those components are absolutely what we need right now. Thank you. Next speaker please. Next speaker. Caller i am an africanamerican retired resident of district 1 1, Vice President of the omica. Longtime learner, very opposed to the river and if it is in Affordable Housing to me maam, i dont mean to interrupt you i dont mean to interrupt you actually, i do mean to interrupt you. We are on item six. And that is the an exemption from density limits which we are about to continue. The item that you want to speak to is item 7 and 8 which were about to call so if you can just get back in the queue, we will call you or you can speak about that in just a minute. Speak about balboa in a minute. Thank you, maam. Sorry for that. Are there any other speakers on item number six . If i understand it is going to be continued, i will let this go until it is continued. Thank you, maam. Okay. There will be hopefully on october im sorry, august 17. We will hear this item. Are there any other members of the public to speak to exempt from density limits, item number six . Madam clerk . Awe caller yes. I am a district 8 resident. I have not heard about this. I dont think supervisor mandelman has done enough outreach on this or his legislative aid has provided the information and there are plenty of things to say about it, but i support the continuance so we can learn more about it and be able to comment intelligently. Thank you. Next speaker please. Caller i am milo and i live in district eight. I actually did hear about this from mandelman about six or eight months ago and it is now moving and i am really supportive and a great idea and a good, creative way to find more space to get people into homes which is what the city needs. Clearry we dont have enough places for people to live. I am not the purpose of the city is we have jobs and people are coming here for opportunities and we must build houses or otherwise accommodate people who are coming here for opportunities and for a better life. So i think this achieves that goal. Market rate and Affordable Housing grade school and on that unified enemy that we can all be against is exclusionary housing policies that favor above all else quote, unquote character and small architecture styles and with density and i hope to get to the next one as well. Thank you. Next speaker please. Caller hello. I support this legislation. Please get it through. I think that planning i have been living in sir, we are speaking to a continuance. Caller yes. I think planning code 207 is obsolete and it was obsolete 30 years ago because i basically always living in unpermitted a. D. U. S my entire life. And we should abolish the density limit. In addition, after we get this law through, i think we should start to look at how to increase the density how to relax some of the Building Code requiremen requirements that sb such as ceiling heights and things like that. Last week at the Planning Commission t Planning Commission voted to destroy an illegal a. D. U. Because it would not be able to meet the Building Code requirements. So even with this law, it wont stop all demolitions that destr destroy existing or legal a. D. U. S and we can work to do more. Thank you. Probably why less people burn to death in that you are houses in our society. New other members of the public who would like to speak to this item . Caller good evening, supervisors. This is gordon in support of the legislation and it need to be continued. That is and removing density controls is a good step in that direction. I would like to expand this legislation with the density controls across the board that were created for racist reasons and if it was rawsist when it was kree yachted, and just beyond the opportunities we could have and somebody in a mansion and like the one that supervisor peskin luvs in and wants to split up the home to three or four more units to rent out some below argument rate and remove the density controls throughout the city. This is a good first step and no reason not to take more steps as well. Legalizing and no reason they should be kicked out. If there are serious concerns about an a. D. U. That is built illegally, le sfie and natural Affordable Housing in the city. One last point and i hear that generally referring to people who advocate for market housing as libber theian. Ien am i am a democrat and have been knocking on doors six i was 16 and to engage with the name calling like a child. Thank you. Please pass this legislation. Mr. Gordon, your personal attacks are noted and unwarranted. And unfortunate and do not help your position which if you watched this committee relative to proposition e and the housing balance report, you will realize are quite unfortunate and unproductive statements. Next speaker please. Caller good evening, supervisors. Robert from district five. I want i know this item is going to be continued, but i would like to say that density controls were originally enacted as part of red lining throughout the west side in neighborhoods like Mount Davidson manor and Saint Frances wood and others near balboa park in particular. I found a planning document from 1970 that shows the distribution of existing and planned Public Housing and virtually all of it was planned for would be currently districts five, 8, 9, 10, 111 and 12 with virtually no Public Housingen and density controls are not an original idea from the fact that its been San Francisco policy to put all density in the east side explicitly in normally Industrial Areas for the last 50, 60 years. Thank you. Next speaker. Mr. Chair, that completes the queue. Okay. Public comment is closed. At the request of supervisor mandelman, i will continue this item to the call of the chair. And hopefully schedule it to august. On that motion, roll call please. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor safai. Aye. Supervisor peskin . Aye. You have three ayes. Could you please read item seven and eight together . Item 7 is an ordinance amending the general plan to revise the balboa park station area plan and the recreation and open stays element and amending the Housing Element in with regard to the design of families with children and adopting property findings. Item eight is an ordinance joining the planning code and zoning map to rezone the balboa reservoir basin site generally bounded by the city college of San Francisco. And numbers can call that number at 4156550001. The system prompts will indicate that you have raised your hand. Please wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted when Public Comment begins and you may begin your comments. You will only need press star 3 once to stay in the queue. Thank you. Thank you, madam clerk. We are joined by our board president and district seven supervisor, supervisor yee. The floor is yours. Okay. Thank you, chair peskin and supervisors preston and safai for and thank you for the robust discussion and i was listening to to the whole discussion and there is a good connection between those items four and five and these items. The balboa reservoir project started in 2015 as a proposed site and this has been a long journey. One that i want to reflect upon as we consider the project as a whole. The funny thing about this sprojt as a student during the 60s and talking about housing that is not a new concept. Tirm initial meetings years ago and there wasnt a real Engagement Community process and to see the discussion dissolve and a few times i looked to create what ended up to be the balboa Reservoir Community advisory xhiet and College Trustee and Business Owner and along portion avenue and Area Plan Committee and representative from the p. U. C. Community Advisory Committee and representative of one of the high schools and and to make sure we had voices from all the elements around the neighborhood. They spent two years Gathering Community input and to create principles and parameters to inform the developer selection roars and ultimately the process that is. You today. It seems common sense now but to be hon and the city had a deep level of participation before a project was even proposed. Members of the public have contributed significant time to help shape this project. And this is located on p. U. C. Land and would propose a project of 50 of the 1,100 units and total of 550 affordable units and with the huge take for the community and 150 units and the city First College of preference. Nearly four acres of publicly assessed space and with the development of the Child Care Center. I am most proud that what a child friendly San Francisco could look like and to attend the Housing Development for housing with children. And also the child friendly San Francisco sort of element that we would like to put in there. Several years ago we tasked the Planning Department to work on a policy paper and recommendations on how housing and even those in multiunit buildings could be more child friendly. Today you will be bordering on what defines housing and that will send a strange signal and Family Friendly for families with children in San Francisco. It is about shifting our entire worldview and culture. And with what the spaces and neighborhoods look like designed with children in mind. And director rich hillis and many Planning Commissioners who supported this including commissioner moore and to where it is today. With quite a few city planning Staff Members that were involved in helping us define what it really meant and this includes sheila and others. And notice they are all women city planners. And maybe that is what it takes in the city and county department will also embrace this. So thankfully the balboa reservoir project heard us loud and clear from the Community Members and will be a reflection of the desire to retain, attract and nurture the next generation of san franciscans. The project will have two and three bedroom units and other amenities including open space play areas a child care facility and indoor and outdoor common areas for events. Overall i believe the project is thoughtful and includes many of the elements and that the community is able to see if two acre park that will be central to the project and pedestrian walkways and bike lanes connecting the neighborhoods to ocean avenue corridor. Complimentary design to reflect the existing neighborhoods and to promote existing businesses and with the commercial district and we are work on fine details of the neighborhood and Community Stakeholders to improve the project further and to have clarity. And the Transportation Management plans and management of the open space. This will be discussed in the budget and finance on wednesday and with regard to the special use and there is concern about the maximum height for the tallest building and the original parameters set at the maximum height of 65 feet and the possibility of going to 78 feet with additional height allowance from the other rooftop and with the closest to a high school and find out different opinions and highings and sections. And we dont have the exact amendments today as we are still revealing what we will have. And we will have them by the time we go to the full board. With that, colleagues, i want to extend my gratitude to the hundreds of hours comment members have spent to design this project. The staff at the office of economic work force development, the Planning Department and the City Attorneys team for all the work they have put into this. I hope that i can count on your support and hand it off to chair peskin to call up the presenters at this point. Thank you, president yee and with that, wee dont we turn this over, i think, to the office of economic and workforce development. And there are a number of individuals and i believe from city planning so we will start with you, lee. Yes. Thank you, chair peskin. Thank you for that introduction, president yee. Good evening, supervisors. I am leah and i am with the office of economic and workforce development. And we have staff cable from the Mayors Office of housing and sfmua to develop and answer questions. And to Bridge Housing and avalon bay is also present. I have a presentation that i will take you through. Please stop me if you can not see the slides. In todays community, we will be hearing two items from the balboa. Can you give me a sense of how long this presentation is . I am not in any way trying to truncate or compress, but i just i have to go get some food in the next room. It is about i would say 8 or 10 minutes in total. Perfect i will be back in about a minute and a half and the speaker is on and i will hear you from 15 feet away. Sound good. Thank you, chair peskin. In todays committee you will be hearing two items from the balboa package, the general plan amendment and the map amendment ordinance. Two items will be before the board and the project today is the proposed development of balboa reservoir. The site is owned through the city through the sfpuc and is in front of ocean avenue at the intersection of a number of residential neighborhoods including sunnyside, engleside and City College Main Campus is directly to the east and the balboa park bike station is about a half mile walk. There are a number of bus lines and lite right running nearby. Balboa reservoir site was the first identified through the public land. Policies and past proposition k and the Surplus Property ordinance. The si city to convey and redoppler an understood utilized site with housing that could be heavily affordable. In particular the balboa reservoir project will bring new housing to the site and provide new family of all incomes the opportunity to live in the transit and amenity rich neighborhood. The reservoir is currently 1 spaces and a portion of which is leased to city college as overflow space. It implements keys a peck of the citywide equity approach in a transit richard among longstanding with Great Schools and driving business corridor. And it allows you to go to a neighborhood that is not a community of concern and on a site with no displacement of housing or businesses. And enables the provision of the high level of for a wide range of households. This project is unique in that the package of community benefits, namely the 50 Affordable Housing, originated with the community process. As supervisor yee mentioned in 2015, he and which has held over 50 meetings and has been the key forum for Ongoing Community feedback and have continued to be active during covid. The p. U. C. In 2017 created the development, principles and parameters document attached to the developer r. F. P. The parameters outlined the Key Community priorities for the site and whether it be 15 affordable, that the new housing was geared to families at a ang and that it was created to form a new neighborhood among other topic. They collected the Developer Team, Reservoir Community partners and joint second which you are of Bridge Housing and avalon bay community. The Developer Team has worked in concert to shape the communitys priorities into a successful project. The proposed project builds 1100 new homes across the range of building types both for renters and homeowners. 550 units or 50 will be affordable at a range of incomes. This approach creates broad opportunity for diversity of new residents. The new neighborhoods mixes thoughtfully into the surrounding community and supports children and families with large usable open spaces with play areas and 100 seat Child Care Center a Public Community room, a new connection to city, college, and ocean avenue. To contribute to the nearby open transit improvements. The project key benefit is 550 units of Affordable Housing on site. The housing will be available for households earning between 30 and 120 of a. M. I. Meaning for house holds who work in health care, the service industry, education, public safety, and all of the people that complete a neighborhood. The units are family sized. 150 of the units will be designated for affordable educator housing, among the first in the city. The affordable educator building will have a first preference for city college which will allow the college to attract and retain diverse faculty and staff. The developer is obligated to contribute gap funding for 43 of Affordable Housing and will contribute gap funding to reach 50 affordability. And it is expected that the city funding will be al activated to affordable buildings e, a, and b for low income house holds and the sources of city Gap Financing will be identified and appropriated by the board closer to construction start to make feasible 5050 units and and turn it to the colleagues and to continue the presentation, i turn to my colleague. Good evening, supervisors. One of the concerns that we heard expressed from the new project is how residents would get to the site. The community was concerned with increased traffic congestion, Pedestrian Access and the loss of parking. We have worked with colleagues at m. T. A. , city college and the sponsor to develop a comprehensive response to these concerns. First, with city college, we work to develop a transportation Land Management program and proposed improvements on the north side and to advance the q line quick build project to improve access and the intersection approval to ocean avenue. And lastly we work with the sponsor to contribute about 10 million in train station sustainability fees and mitigation measures and provide a Public Parking garage. Next. We wanted to reiterate the Family Features as outlined by supervisor yee. This product is centered on creating a neighborhood for families and all address the needs of families. The housing there have 30 two bedroom and 10 three bedrooms including town homes and living alleys and indoor space in the multifamily buildings for gathering and birthday parties and initial space in the garage for oversize cargo bikes and bikes with child seats to encourage biking and waub walking to insure these are safe modes of travel. And another was the child care facility at 50 of those 100 feet to be reserved for low income families. As outlined in the c. A. C. Principles and parameters, the design site was intended to insure that the surrounding context and scale of the neighborhoods is respected. The developer is lower and increases in height as the site slopes up to meet the Institutional Uses of city college. Next. Supervisors, before you today, there are planning code and map amendments from p and public zoning to a special use district. And to reck late the height in bulk and open space and the guidelines and documents and to be used for minor and major modifications. And to discuss the detail of the buildings and the open space. Next. Also before you today are the general plan amendment. The amendments to the general plan are in keeping with the existing general plan and update it to reflect the specifics of the project. And note that the project is generally consistent and the balboa park stationary plant calls for a mixed use development. There are changes to introductory text and there are changes to some maps in the general plan. And finally we want to outline the stages of construction. You will see here in purple phase one is anticipated to begin in late 2021 and phase two in yellow is anticipated to begin in 2025. And the project received unanimous approval at the Planning Commission, the m. T. A. And the sfpuc and today the land use and the general plan amendments and on wednesday the Budget Committee is scheduled to hear the Development Agreement and the sfpuc purchase and sale agreement. Staff are here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. I guess who is the vice chair . I am back. So mr. President , supervisor preston, should we open this up to Public Comment . Mr. Chair, we have an economic Impact Report first. We do. Okay. Lets get the economic Impact Report. Good afternoon, supervisors. Can you hear me . Yes, we can. Okay. Good evening. This is at the Controllers Office for Economic Analysis and the balboa project released on friday. And some of the key details of the project and some of the key items in our report. About 15 points and does not contain any permanent structures right now. And 1,007 parking spaces. And the main goal of the project is the underutilized reports and as supervisor yee mentioned, identified among the first slide slated for the San Francisco Public Housing awareness. And despite existing zoning and which is public and most of us are on the project side and existing and except for the small force which is 2. 2 acres on the eastern portion which has 65 height limit. And depending on that block and to go to seven stories. And 1. 8 million square feet. And the majority of the use and about 1. 3 million and to propose 1100 units and for public use and 7500 square foot of neighborhood with retail. And as mentioned and in several spaces. 50 of the units will be affordable and as speakers mention and approximately two acres of a reservoir park. This slide will show you the development o. Buildout and there is nothing on the site and no boundary structure. We need to see your slide. Share your screen. It is not showing . Hold on. We dont see your slide. You dont see my slides. Hold on. I apologize. I thought i shared them. Let me try one more time. I apologize for that. Can you see it now . No. We will pull it up for you. Can you let us know what slide number you are on . Slide six right now. Okay. We will pull it up. I apologize. I dont know why i am having the technical issue. I thought you guys were seeing it. You can see now . Yes. So my apologies and as i was mentioning as a difference in the Development Capacity at buildout, the total will be 1. 3 million square feet of space. Which is mostly residential. I am not in 1. 3 million square feet and roughly about 400,000 square foot. And next slide please. And i will go with the key economic factors and the proposed development. And from the prices in terms of the city and there will be a modest increase about 30 jobs in labor and child care based on the size of the proposed development. And an increase in the number of subsidized development and modern system household with high housing burden and high income household in the city. And 550 additional affordable units by as much as 3. 8 million for the household to occupy the units. This is roughly 6900 subsidies from the units on an annual basis. Next slide please. These are some of the simulations and propose zoning and the development of the agreement and with that area and go down 5. 4 and from the values and with the size of the development. Yes please . Do you want to go back to the last side where there is a note at the bottom with regard to the overestimate. Yes please. And may be 3. 8 million and what we are estimating and based on the subsidy and the housing bound and modern and the income and with the project and 20 a. M. I. And as we know about 36 of the housing affordable units will be low income unit and 30 of the affordable units will be low income units and will occupy between 50 percent of a. M. I. And the remaining 30 now. And the reason i put that note there was to to consider the subsidy a little bit and every estimate and the upper limit. And to take into account with the a. M. I. And that subsidy may be lower. That was the point that i hope to answer your question. Thank you. Do you have any modelling as to how much lower . At this point i cant comment on that and that involves land and go to all the units and how they will be distributed. I dont have that distribution and i cant estimate that. In terms of the modelling that subsidy wouldnt change the Economic Impact as easily. That is not one of the biggest factors to drive that simulation. With the please advance two slides forward. Result of the random simulation with the employment population and the g. D. P. And the annual change is 556 jobs. And you would expect from the goal of the project. And the population change is 892 people. And that impact is 100 million and housing prices will change 4. 5 . That is what we are around roughly 1. 4 million house and average house. With about 6,000 to put this in perspective. Next slide. I guess that next slide. And this is basically the project has quite a bit of positive impact on the local economy and add parking and jobs and to the local g. D. P. That concludes my presentation. I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Member preston or president yee, do you have any questions for mr. Kahn . I just want to see you clarify when you say retail space which is a little space. We assume based on maybe i apologize. Based on my understanding of the draft of the Development Agreement, there was 10,000 square feet retail space was mentioned. we wouldnt have any retail. So we could support businesses. We need some clarification on that. yes i mean, that was my understanding, that was part of the. the Economic Impact was minute mouse. Its an economic land use matter ill refer to the district supervisor. In reality that is a handful of spaces at the most. If the instrumentsthe range of instruments before us, mr. President what is your will. it was just for clarification. I didnt think it would have that much impact in terms of economic a sisment. thats not a huge impact. Its a very small space, you know. That was mentioned, it may or may not be benefit. It wont change anything. thank you. okay. Seeing no more questions. Mr. President , do you mind if we open this up to Public Comment or do you have any additional things you would like to say . Seeing none. Why dont we open this up to Public Comment for items seven and eight. thank you. mr. Chair, im try to go see if theres any callers in queue. there are certain items for this committee relative to the land use and other items that are in agreement for the budget and finance board of supervisors. I do have some suggestions relative to the Development Agreement particularly as it relates to making sure that where this happened in other large scale developments such as this, that we know these exist, the levels of affordability at least not in a downward way. I do believe the developer is willing to stimulate in the Development Agreement that they will not come back and retrade to lower levels of affordability in the case of treasure island, as happened in the case of ship yard as it relates to ownership and mix, that will be coming in the Development Agreement. That is not before this committee. Im also interested in what we cloacolloquially refer to as ust or lose it. Thats not before us today. I just want to say that before we open it up to Public Comment. First speaker, please. thank you. We have thirty eight listeners and twenty in queue. please proceed. hello. Im a long term resident of district 11. Opposing dpreup groups should be allowed equal time to approve a plan. This is long lease plan of eeo c. It should be wu 100 affordable development. Not at all a market rate project. What private developers are proposing is inconsiderate, corrupt and i inconsciousable especially for my African American community. These plans forare not 100 affordable. They should remain Public Domain ownership by providing access for students, faculty, African Americans and other minority communities. Please reconsider these plans. There is Much Community opposition. thank you. Next speaker, please. You have two minute it speak. Youll be notifies that your line is unmuted and you may begin. good afternoon, chair, and supervisors. My name is stewart, i represent the appellants on the eir certification. Thats not what im speaking about today. I sent a letter to you folks earlier today. Its a short letter. Basically what the letter is really im ised dispr what youro with Affordable Housing is not working. Youre trying to piggy back on market rate housing. Not all of that is being paid for by the developers. Once its given away, you cant ever build on it. Youll do far better to do a phase 100 a fortable project a. Thats a far better deal for the people of San Francisco. Thank you. thank you. Next speaker. Youll be notified that your line is unmuted and you may begin your comments. good evening. My name is jane. Im urging you not to privatize the reservoir. In view of the proceeding present aigs its itsironic the before you today to ask you to continue to use the ocean campus to grow and thrive. The economic benefits youve just heard say we cannot allow voters to make our housing decision. When the need for Affordable Housing is so desire theres so much enthes enthusiasm for thisl guided project thats designed to line the pockets of the developer. It will allow city college to use part of the lan. This is a win for the city which we desperately need for the city. thank you. We have forty listeners and twenty four in queue. San Francisco wants to address the Affordable Housing crisis the same way it addresses the climate crisis. Its located close to bart even during the pandemic and ocea mie auto use. Five hundred fifty units will be below market rate. It will make a major contribution to addressing the citys Affordable Housing needs. Provides desperately needed child care Housing Needs for low income children. The low income market helps to benefit the project. The site is under use use underd areas. The failure of the bay area governments housing such as this is a major disparity to San Francisco as well as the bay area. hello. Im a d1 resident, parent, and former commuter student to the ocean campus. Depending on my car to be able to work and attend school at night. That said, the reservoir is public land and should be kept publicly owned. The city should see that this land stay in public hands so Nonprofit Developers can build 100 Affordable Housing through a land leap. The way its structured the for Profit Developers get ownership to build anything. They can sell all or portions of the property. Therefore the lands should be sold to the p c to see the land is publicly accountable and guaranteed to serve those most in need in our city in the long term. As this property sits right next to city college one of the most important institutions in the city for achieving equity, we must have a different deal. One that supports students, future students like my son. As we are in a time of awareness of inequalities in our city and country, selling this land to a private developer is not a solution. Its part of a system problem. Thank you. Please build in the future with equity and fairness and keep this land in public hands. Thank you. thank you. Next speaker, please. hi im speaking in strong support of this strong. Our region desperately Needs Housing in all market levels. That means both affordable and market rate. This adds much needed density to an area that hasnt seen that much development. It will be god knows how long before development actually breaks ground much less have People Living in these inhabitable units. Please approve this project now. thank you. Neevmennext speaker, please. this is jennifer. There are many positive components of this development. However, Student Access will be broken by the current time line of simultaneous construction. Both developments are planned from 2021 to 2024. This massive amount of simultaneous construction risks sutting up thriskscutting up pae college. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety havent even been approved. It will be greater than after the City Developments are operational. In combination to cuts Community Lines planning simultaneous with serious reduction of e educatiol opportunity during the pandemic and beyond. The very Diverse Community around the reservoir including my neighborhood is nothing something we can ignore. We must recognize the Economic Impacts. Air quality means fixing, not allowing sig simultaneous construction. An issue that was not addressed in the feir. As we emerge from pandemic, we need to bring large numbers of people back to work. At this critical time put city colleges first in the pipeline. Let city college complete its long awaited construction to complete buildings that have been long awaiting completion for decades. thank you. Next speaker, please. good afternoon supervisors. Im president of the west ward park association. West wood park has submitted its written comments and im sure you all have read them. I want to thank president ethese are not given as a member but as president of west wood park. We metaphor four o met for four. The real problem is the Purchase Agreement. The Purchase Agreement was submitted a few days before they met and never submitted to the c a c. The c a c never review logos thied thisPurchase Agreement. West wood park requested a copy of the appraisal to determine how it was possible that the fair market value was only four Million Dollars. We assumed that the valuation was accomplished by one of the three methods of valuation and devoting some value to what the developer was contributing. The developer is not contributing all they thought it would contribute. When it has to, under the law, pay for two hundred twenty units. Its seeking public money not its own money. Therefore, the infrastructure and parks are being paid by the public not by the developer. An the contractual terms are really advantageous to the developer and have to be changed. For the first five years they have no obligation to do anything. The bottom line is, this has to be changed. Our Home Owners Association and we support 100 Affordable Housing. Thats the illusion. Thatthe solution. Thats what s. We submit that this should not be approved. They should look for a better deal for the city. Thank you for your time. thank you for your comments. Next speaker please. supersizors, good evening. My name is frank. I first moved into the neighborhood about thirty nine years ago in district seven. I am in support of this propos proposal. The committee was in support of housing and homes for the site. Politics killed those homes. Here we are again with the great housing design. Its been a long long time. Building housing is tough in San Francisco. Please help by approving these homes. Back then it was a majority black neighborhood. It resulted in the depopulation of black families. The more barriers and desegregation we create. Theres always a reason to delay. Theres always a request for a better deal. This is a Family Friendly design. As the father of an educator myself and father of two kids in the School District please build these homes. The public parks and Community Center is perfect for kids. No more delays. Please get this done. Thank you to all of you. Thanks. thank you. Next speaker, please. thank you. Earlier on today, supervisor talked about the el frant in the room. That was the powers of the developers. Thats the Big Marketing staff. Theyve been very successful in marketing the reservoir project as Affordable Housing. In reality whats really happening is that its actually a privatization exam. Back in 2018 the bos budget and anlist report assumed that the sixty three developer responsibility for affordable units out of the five hundred fifty with the quote funned by developer equity and project revenues. Now this is the assumption, however, it is not true. Eps did a feasibility memo for the developers and it shows that they are expecting to get seventy nine point five million in state grants. Why the cost for the Developers Share of three hundred sixty three affordable units will cost one hundred twelve point five Million Dollars. Essentiallythey are only paying for a small proportion of the affordable units. Once again its privatization exam. Far from the market rate units subsidizing units. Public zoning needs to be retained. The only thing that public zoning needs to be changed to an sud is deprivatization. send it along so developers wont develop it at all or negotiate the deal. The city applies for state grants to cover the cost for infrastructure. 5 more on average for the low income units and 10 on the moderate income units. It sets up segregation in terms of the development. So the developer can maximize its profits. Pupublic land should stay in public control. This creates a guarantee that the Affordable Housing stays affordable. We shouldnt be privatizing public land for Housing Developers. If we sell our public landswe need to keep public lands in public control. We need to make sure that were building 100 Affordable Housing especially utilizing our resources such as public land thank you. Your time expired. Thank you. Next speaker, please. You have two minutes to speak. Youll be notified when your line is unmuted and you may begin your comments. hi. Im a San Francisco resident. I strongly urge you to adopt te Housing Development project p. It. Its lobinged next to bart d surrounded b by Single Family homes. Were in a housing crisis today. People are getting priced out of San Francisco. The developer give aways and muspublic land should be public. Affordable use that comes in five or ten years. It places all states inthe best time is today. The best time to house our residents was twenty years ago but the second best time is today. Housing delayed is housing denied. Thank you very much. thank you. Next speaker please. Youll have two minutes. good evening, supervisors. On behalf of the housing coalition. I want to thank all of the ea c members. What you have in front of you is a consensus project. thank you. Next speaker please. Youll have two minutes to speak p. Youll be notified when your line is unmuted and you may begin. good evening. My name is john ring and i live just a few blocks away from the proposed development. Mim descented from irish immigrants. My youngest son currently attends city college. Im sure many of them have taken that same depressing walk. As a fifty two year resident of the city i also want my grand kids to call San Francisco home. They wont be able to do it without more Affordable Housing. Developments like the ones being considered can make neighborhoods safer. It it it will be good surrounding the college. The open space thats being considered is surely more attractive, safer and Family Friendly than the reservoirs i described earlier. Eve seen the successful thf sucs developer elsewhere. The area near whole foods and in closing we need more housing for people of all backgrounds and incomes. This will help solve that problem. The status quo is an empty reservoir. Please get this done. Thank you. thank you. Next speaker, please. good evening supervisors. I live in district seven. I applaud and support the bal bothe rez reservoir development. Its 50 affordable. Five hundred fifty units. I support building more homes to help San Francisco to remain an acceptable place for our current ricountry. I support building more homes to continue the extensive work needed for people in our city experiencing homelessness. I support more neighbors. I urge you to approve this project. Thank you. thank you. Next speaker, please. Youll have two minutes. supervisors, i respectfully your committee not approve these files. They are created to facilitate the proposal of the project. I have a tenned man attended maf the project. This is public land. It was very much on the fast tract and im grateful for requesting that this be fr formd for more transparency. Some parameters have not been followed. I disagree that it was a total consensus. It was not a total consensus. I was disappointed that they didnt bring up the city college element and the parking still has not been addressed in the development plan. Even though the Development Process has been going on for way too long, several years, the most important use of this public land has not been consideration. The most important fact in the project question is, i believe, that this is publicly owned property. As a long time San Francisco resident, public property is too precious to be told thank you for your comment. May we have the next speaker please. i support this rezoning. Its a good idea. This has been decades in the making. Its been a huge missed opportunity. Were getting five hundred fifty Affordable Homes which is huge. People keep talking about they only want Affordable Homes. They only want social housing but most of the housing in San Francisco, most of us live in housing that was built by developers who are making money. Building houses is not easy and someone has to do it. I dont really care who does it. Were going to have five hundred fifty people paying below market rate and five hundred fifty at market rate is fine. The stity stil city still has ty some of these homesim all for creating more space for people to live. Doing it in a smart way thats kind of friendly. Attacking our homeless problem p. This is a long time coming. Thank you supersizo supervisor g this. I doan know the density number on this but its not anywhere near on the east side of the city. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for listening for everybody. Im looking forward to seeing this come to fruition. thank you. Your times expired. Thank you for your comments. May we have the next speaker, please. supervisors, let me tell you something that nobody has said before. Before the accreditation of city college was planned. The plan was to take the entire city college for housing. Please stop it. The City Attorney stop it. City college was saved. A lot of effort went into that fight. This project has been shady. Anyone canif this has been on the market for eleven point four Million Dollars. This is public land. First and foremost housing should be built for city. How about the physically chal challenged who have difficulty attending city college. Teachers, students, some mentioned about classes linked to work for at city college, supervisors, wake up. This private developer should go to hell. This is racis racist city. Dont rubber stamp this project. Thank you very much. aim a renter in district one. I think this is a comprehensively well thought out project. I think its a really considerately planned. It presents a lot of affordable eupts iaffordableunits in a pri. A lot of services that help build a sense of neighborhood. Im in support of this project. Thank you for listening to these comments. I hope it encourages more Affordable Houses a encloses the city. thank you. Next speaker, please. good evening. My name is steve. I live in district seven. Ive live right across the street from the proposed development. Im calling in support of this project. When i first learned about the development of the re reservoir reservoir,[indiscernible]. id like to express support for this project. I wanted to talk more about the impact of these units. Theres a lot of talk about whatthe developer who owns the land. Lets not lose sight of the fact that more than five hundred low income families will soon have a place to live. The kids who grow up in the units will get to live steps from Public Transit and the ocean. Lets think about the maximum number of people who can oan joy living ienjoyliving in the new. Five hundred low income families who have an amazing opportunity at a new life in San Francisco. Lets focus on how to make it bigger. Instead of have it be five hundred out of a thousand lets have it be a thousand out of two thousand. The people who grow up in these units dont care about where the funding came from they care they have a home. Lets make the funding happen. Thank you. thank you. Next speaker, you have two minutes. thank you for taking my comments. Im calling in strong support of rezoning. Im looking forward to welcoming new neighbors to the affordable neighbors that will be replacing this empty parking lot. Close to transit access and safety. Weve had a model Community Engagement process and we should respect that process. I want to thank supervisor lee for extending this to ensure the Community Gets all the benefits that have been proposed here. We need to continue the transparency and Community Engagement that brought us this far. Please amend the general plan and move this forward. Thank you. thank you. Next speaker. This is item number seven and eight on the agenda. hi. Im an engineering professor at city college. It serves communities that would otherwise not have access to higher education. In the environment consent report consider the impact of these students access to education. I think not. The current proposal re removes access to education. I think its important to note that this project began when city college was under political attack under the guise ofis the city of st. Fran sis public land should stay in public hands. The price of the land is one of the biggest hurdles to building Affordable Housing. It makes no sense to sell this to a private developer. Any housing bistlethank you. next speaker. You have two minutes to speak. good evening. Thank you supersiz supervisors. The public demands more housing. One of my long time friends left the city last week. Families live in Housing Units and not percentages. I urge you to think big and think about the small people who cant afford to live in San Francisco. thank you. Next speaker, please. good evening, supersizors. I am in support of the project. When i here people talk about the low price that San Franciscohow much would it cost if we were to develop all of the housing that is proposed instead. I believe the cost would be around five hundred Million Dollars all in. Which i believe we do not have considering we now have a deficit of similar north of one billion dollars. I koant think were going t dono come up with 500 ow 500 billio. Most housing that comes with 30 affordable or above is office space. Office space is generally not going to go on thethis is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Once in a decade opportunity. We should not wait another decade. Thank you. thank you. Next speaker, please. supervisors, this is jesse calling from district eleven. It has taken some time to get to this point. We would be remiss to not take the necessary action to get it right. Make sure the publicly owned seventeen acre becomes a Development Project that responds to the community needs. In 2016 we urged publicly owned land through the development of Affordable Housing. The Public Utilities commission passed up to 100 affordable. A council of Community Housing organizations also developed a proposal to reach 100 affordability. It would set the parameters froi noted on my comment comments hos already out of reach, this project makes these units more expensive. Instead of being priced at sixty and 80 ami. They are eighty and 100 ami respectively. One of our most important public institutionsthere was little recourse for community to address central concerns to maintain Public Ownership at the site. thank you. Next speaker, please. Youll have two minutes to speak. good evening commissioners. Thank you. My name is sarah. Im a d9 resident. Im in strong support of the balboa reservoir housing project. There will be accessible child care. Parents will be able to drop of their children to affordable child care. 50 of the spots are reserved for low and middle income families. The economic infrastructure and recovery here. This will bring much needed housing and jobs. We need to approve projects like these to push us through the economic crisis period. thank you for your comments. May we have the next speaker, please. hi. My name is sam. Good evening. I live in d8 in San Francisco. Im in strong support of the