One of the issues. Im curious because what i think in terms of one project. And im adding 17 for middle income. Then that is 170 units in just one project. So when you look at the funding that could be available for suggesting milling income i think it says 35 . Which means about 25 million a year. What are you going to do with the 25 million . You can explain exactly how its going to work . Is it to help bill or help to buy . Or what is it . [ please stand by ] type of building and the land value. We think we can negotiate pricing for the mixeduse development because the developers are working with us already and the purchase will allow inclusionary at a good price and the price point for the units which would be affordable serving generations of people at affordable rents is it can be a good price point and at least equal to or sometimes less than just building new. Its certainly faster. If you were to do a combination in terms of approximately 25 million a year, how many units can you purchase in a year . We think we can preserve and build 1400 unit its and with turnover thats close to 200 units over the 10 to 12year period. Its a good number of units and again it will remain permanently affordable. So about 140 units a year . You said 1400 in ten years . Yes. So 140 per year. Okay. Thanks. Jeff director kazinski. So i see a big percentage of this initiative will be helping with homeless issues which is a good thing. Im curious, in terms of was it last year we had a sales tax and if had not failed how much was that going to provide for our efforts in addressing homelessness . That would have provided approximately 50 million in new funding so a little bit more than whats being proposed in the measure. And with some of the services proposed for this initiative similar to the one that was proposed for the one that the sales tax one . Very much so. We have identified what we think the gaps in the system are so anytime were asked the question where do you need to spend the money its split between temporary shelter and other innovation are appropriate in our homelessness response system. Thats helpful because i wasnt sure it was a whole new set of things you want to do. Great. Supervisor stefani. Thank you because we have a crisis around homelessness and housing and its what i hear in my direct and we need a strong and vibrant middle class. What i like is how it will help homeless families and a didnt hear stats of how many families are on the streets and homeless. One of the why i like this is i was on the board of director for the Homeless Program for six years and the Mission Statement is to break the cycle of childhood poverty and you do that by investing in them and housing them and you have wrap around services but if we want to break the cycle of poverty we need to invest in our very young and our families and invest in families so that their children dont grow up to be on the streets and we dont have this cycle. So what im really interested in is how many families do we have on our streets that are homeless and what are the provisions that would help those families . Theres two ways we count the numbers. Hud in point in time counts families literally homeless living in our streets or shelter or transitional housing and there were 600 individual in families that counted by the hud measure. However, the u. S. Department of education counts families doubled up or living in sros as homeless as well. So if you included that number i would estimate theres somewhere between 1,000 and 1500 families who are experiencing homelessness or house instability in the city at any given time. We are very fortunate in that mayor lee ed investments around family homelessness significantly during his tenure as such. During the past year we saw a 13 reduction in family homelessness and we also have engaged with Hamilton Family center an initiative called heading home and in the next year and a half well be placing an additional 600 families into what we call rapid rehousing and we have 500 units of house for permanent support of housing for families in the pipeline. So we do have a pretty robust pipeline of services coming up for families experiencing homelessness under this measure. We havent determined if wed be using the funding for families. We know well be using about 6. 5 million for transitionaged youth and that population is under funded regarding the size of the population and this will help balance that and the remaini remaining funds will be for families or some other rapid rehousing. But i think we have quite a bit coming up in the pipeline in the next few years to serve that population. Great. I dont see any other questions from colleagues. I want to end with a couple key points. I think supervisor safai brought up a good point. We have projects in the city that have been negotiate and will continue to be negotiated on the larger scale. Theres a certain developer operation based on our inclusionary numbers and the ability to expand that to increase the number of incomerestricted units. Think balboa reservoir and pier rock and if it might start around 25, 30 but it will continue to grow. On the middleclass side same with the transitional age youth in year one it may be 1 million but the reason were talking about 2030 and 1 million by 2030 is thats when were going to take our first pause with this and have a relook at the percentages. We might, hopefully, not have as much a need for transitionalaged youth in 2030 or need to buy sros but i think lowincome seniors is going to be a consistent number well continue to fund but in 2030 the Charter Amendment allows us to come back as board of supervisors and work with the mayor and adjust the percentages. This tax will remain in perpetuity. Because it will remain in perpetuity, this measure is the largest housing measure in the history of this city. Let me say that one more time, this is the largest Affordable Housing, housing measure in the history of the city. We make an impact on the homeless and growing homeless and middleclass families. The Housing Trust fund has a sunset date about 100 million a year. This is equal to that but will go on in perpetuity and continue to grow. In the first year its 70 million and by 2030 it will continue to grow. As supervisor safai said, we exempted Small Business retail. Theres no tax on retail or nonprofit. Theres no tax on businesses making gross resets less than 1 million receipts less than 1 million a year and we included a small amount of money which will go to the general fund to offset business license for those businesses as well. We tried to be very thoughtful in the conversation and had a conversation with the Small Business community and had a lot of conversation with those in the nonprofit House Development and those that deal with the homeless and Affordable Housing and i want to commend those who came out in the labor and housing advocate community. I want to commend director kate hartley for her hard work on this. I want to particularly commend director jeff kazinski for his hard work on this. Though some of this was talked about in the sales tax measure and in the past, in our accelerated conversations with the Business Community and after the death of mayor lee, we were faced with a deadline that we had to have this done by. Supervisor sheehy and i were talking about this seven minutes before deadline and we made it by 30 seconds. He was a very strong advocate for the category for transitional age youth. Now thank you for push being us. I will end by saying we hope this is something the voters of San Francisco and we believe the voters of San Francisco are going to respond to in a positive way and we believe this in the great tradition of going back to and very honored to have him here today, the mayor, mayor brown and mayors ending with mayor lee and want it to be a step forward. Thank you. Ill entertain a motion to sorry, i didnt see you. You opened your remarks in not wanting to rob peter to pay paul as a said up front, the initiative is the concept i think its necessary and im supportive and as you know theres many needs in the city. Its good were having this conversation because we start with the housing first. Ive supported housing for low and middle income and theres Early Education i have supported all my life and something the Business Community said we need more of and so forth. Ill have more about that later. I hope both initiatives will be supported by the voters. And the question that bothers me is why did you put a poison pill on this to kill the Early Education initiative . I think its a false premise and wouldnt negotiate it that way. It became aware to us the ball at measure had a poison pill in it and we respond to that a week later. Unfortunately it is what it is. The measure that receives the most atheir affirmative votes and this with us part of the negligences its curreny at. 9 and a double tax would go to 5. 5 . It would almost be 100 certain to have both categories against were at a 67 threshold. Tell everybody what it is. Theres one on the 9th with a poison pill and one by you and other colleagues that is not. The one that is not with 18,000 signatures with your name on it that is going to be removed would not have a poison pill and the one in front of us on item 2000 but the one submitted january 9, from speaking with attorneys its right there, the last part of the measure i can read it into the record if youd like but i can wait until item number 2 comes up but it did. The Business Community brought it to our attention and made a strong point of saying we cant a double tax in the same category. We could do it in public or offline but the language that is in that other one is not identical to what you put in and when you read it carefully it didnt do what you think it does. I can read it if thats okay as the author of that measure. Ill recognize you in a moment. Supervisor kim, thank you for joining us. Not to go back and forth but ill end by saying we saw that measure and had multiple attorneys look at that language and advise had was a direct poison pill. Thank you, kim, thank you for joining us. Thank you, chair, safai. I want to be clear. Theres three pending measures on childcare before the board and voters. Nor the signature or the ordinance that would six votes the board have any type of poison pill measure on any other type of gross receipts for childcare measure. What is in the measure supervisor safais referring to and the one with the 18,500 signatures say type of poison pill but specifically says, if you read the language if another measure of a similar subject matter passes than our measure wins. That would mean if theres a competing childcare measure on the ballot and we got more votes than that childcare measure, our measure would win but it does not provide a poison pill on this measure which say different subject matter that has to do with Affordable Housing. I think its great to say people will be running a positive campaign but when youre running a positive campaign for a measure, it explicitly has language that kills another measure, you have to run a negative campaign because of the language in the ordinance. Cant hide behind what the ordinance says. It says if their pressure gets more than the childcare measure, the childcare measure is defeated. Now a couple things a high task on building owners, it would be a high tax but not exceed the rates in new york city which range between 4 to 6 . Wed be happy if both measures passes. And the sponsor picked the exact same measure. We began the discussion around the universal childcare measure in september and came out saying wed be using commercial gross receipts in november and this came out in january. And theres Revenue Sources the measure could have gone to and we have a list that details other revenue measures like residential gross receipts like gig economy and the cannabis tax they could have included as their Revenue Source but after introducing our measure the author decided this revenue measure as well and thats the point of contention between us today. We never want to see a fight between childcare and Affordable Housing. In fact id see a larger revenue measure to supported homelessness measures we can come behind the mayor and us can come behind. I think if we had time to have the discussion we could have done that. Supervisor peskin introduced a measure using commercial gross receipts for transportation. So it was transparent, full disclosure, after we saw that come in, supervisor norm anyee and i came together and we saw a minimum compensation ordinance bep met four to six times in december and came to a compromise on how all three groups would come together for childcare and mcl and supervisor peskin would wait until november for another measure and that did not happen second that is whats dispointing. Its not the cause. No one on this board can challenge my record on Affordable Housing and the immense amount of force ive provided over the last seven years to win Affordable Housing. The issue here is the poison pill means there will be negative campaigning against childcare simply because its in the ordinance. If you vote for the measure, the childcare measure cannot pass. Thank you. We do not allow clapping in the chamber to show your support. We have waving of hand. We can agree to disagree. We have had multiple attorneys look at this conflicting measures clause. There obviously is a disagreement in terms of what youre interpretation is and other attorneys interpretations is and it sound like youre prepared to go forward with your ballot to the measure with 18,500 that has a poison pill and makes no sense why you would have that if theres no other things youre trying to work against. We can disagree on that and have the attorneys look at that. At the end of the day, just to be clear, we were in conversation withes the Business Community prior to december. We were talking about additional revenue. We were talking about gross receipts among other things and one day there was an announcement for transportation gross receipts and the next day there was another announcement of childcare. We had conversations and said our priority was housing. Wed go forward with that conversation. I think the Business Community, when faced with multiple measures, transportation, housing, childcare. They said its clear to our membership and our prospective tenant and those in the city that housing is the crisis of the day. This is not to diminish. As you said no one can question your record on middleclass housing and no one can question my record on childcare. The first thing we did was work with the city to purchase the largest childcare sitter in the city. Over 224 children, over 5 million. Ive dedicated years of my work not as many as supervisor yee, hes dedicated almost his entire professional career for that and a respect him for that. I also feel unfortunate were in the position were in, but i will say this, if people cant live in the city, they wont have a place or a need to put children in childcare. Its not one or the other but if people cannot live in this city, they will not have a need or desire for childcare. So i am 100 commit to that. I told supervisor yee, we had a few conversations before that and had the respect to reach out to me multiple times and we had a conversation and an appreciate he did that, but i will say what i said to him was its not a matter of if i support Going Forward for universal childcare, its a matter of when and how we do it. In the Business Community they expressed clearly they had no conversations about childcare and they were concerned about moving forward on a topic and an item they and their members could support particularly if they were going to be taxed from. 3 to over 5 if you had the 2 in one category and 3. 5 in another. Its not comfortable for any of us. Theyre issues we care about and we have to make tough decision and move forward on the issues the voters of San Francisco want to prioritize. Supervisor kim. The City Attorneys him so i feel theres no reason to say we can agree to disagree, id like the City Attorney to answer the question on what our measure says. Which measure . The one we submit. Theres a discussion on what our measure says so i think we should just ask the City Attorney and get an answer. I dont hes not going to be answer fully but Deputy Attorney can you answer on the ballot measure. A little maybe. Deputy City Attorney john gibner. Theres three versions as supervisor kim said as the childcare related measure. One pending on the board and one on todays agenda. Neither of those have any provision you would describe as a poison pill. There is one that was circulated for signatures, i believe the department of elections has concluded it qualified for the ballot and would be on the ballot. That has a provision in it that says it conflicts with any other measure on the same ballot that will affect the same subject matter. Doesnt specifically speak to child chair or specifically speak to gross receipts or commercial rents taxes. My offices policy is not to advise on interpretations of measures that are circulating for the ballot. I understand the disagreement between the supervisor. If the bottom line though in terms of the ultimate impact is that if that measure, the measure that has been placed on the ballot through signatures and the measure that is item 1 today, the gross receipts tax dedicated housing, if both of those are placed on the ballot and both pass, the one with the highest number of votes will win, and the other will not go into effect so if the childcare ballot gets forevotmore votes ts into effect and if the other gets more votes that goes into effect and we dont have to get into the language of the circulating measure because the measure basically sets those parameters in itself. I just want to repeat that last part because im also aware of that. This initiative before the board right now