100,000 more per unit because we cant access federal and state funds for those apartments, and so we have those cost constraints that really are important to consider. If were putting 100,000 extra to put an apartment that is affordable to somebody at 100 of a. M. I. Or 120 of a. M. I. Then that means less Affordable Housing to other groups of people who are desperately in need, like people experiencing homelessness. What we have by increasing the definition of middleIncome Housing, it does two things. It reaches more middleincome houses, and for a household of three, looking at for a twobedroom apartment on the market, if instead of paying the market rent, which is about 4600 a month if youre out there on your own, looking for an apartment, you would save 1,000 a month at that 40 a. M. I. Rent. 1,000 a month for a working family. That is significant. That makes a difference, and that could be the decisifactor family deciding to stay in San Francisco or not. This is simply an additive tool. It is not in any way diminishing of the other very important programs that mohcd is focused on. In fact, by bringing in another tool, more financial resources, it frees us up and provides it preserves resources we have to build the housing that cannot in any way benefit from a cross subsidy like housing for seniors and housing for extremely lowincome howusehols and housing for homeless. So those are our plans, to bring another tool into the toolkit, and to address the fact that we are not serving our middleincome households well. Obviously, teacher housing is so important to our city, and we are really, really excited about Francis Scott key. That as people have already noted, that Development Timeline is very long because of the need to rezone, and by the by the length of that timeline, the costs are going to go up, and that means more mohcd money needs to go into that development. Right now, weve reserved about 40 million for that development, so if we were to replicate Francis Scott key and theres nothing wrong with that. Its going to be a great project, its just putting another educator Housing Development in the cue, and having to make choices, should we build another educator housing projector should we build housing for lowincome working households or Senior Housing . Again, by using cross subsidies as is done very routinely across the country, across the world, we add a financing tool that will allow us to build more teacher housing faster, and thats its as simple as that, it just provides more resources to meet our goals. Supervisor peskin madam chair, if i can just in for just a second. Chair ronen absolutely. Supervisor peskin much is being made of and the word teacher is being bantied about, and the word educator housing is being bantied about. Was this discussed with uesf . We did meet with uesf, and we have benefited from the relationship of working closely with the city and uesf on Francis Scott key. Supervisor peskin im not talking about Francis Scott key. This is a piece of Global Policy that one particular development is being used to justify this definition of what constitutes educator housing and lock its in the charter. Locks it in the charter. How come the uesf does not support this plan . Their name is being used in the charter, and they do not support it. We have worked extensively with uesf at Francis Scott key. We know what it takes to build affordable teacher housing, and we know what the cost is, and we know what the other competing goals of Affordable HousingDevelopment Goals are in this city, and they are many and theyre deep. Supervisor peskin and today i dont want to be argumentative, but in todays San Francisco examiner, the president of uesf actually authored a piece that supports the measure that supervisor fewer and two other former board of education president s and this supervisor introduced and does not support the Charter Amendment that being done in our name. And with all due respect to the president of the board, the Initiative Ordinance recommended by the afford and put forward by the board also will not help Francis Scott key accelerate its development, and so there has not been in my view a careful analysis of what we actually need to accelerate Affordable Housing. Supervisor peskin i am happy to have a hearing on Francis Scott key to determine what is true and not true, but i know there was an exchange earlier between yourself and staff to supervisor fewers office where there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether or not that project is an sb 35 project or not. We believe it is. It currently doesnt qualify for sb 35 because the project had to be rezoned, and the unit mix of the initiative proposed by the board would require redesign in order to take advantage of it at Francis Scott key. Supervisor fewer im so sorry, miss hartley, but what i just clarified with my question before, the boards initiative actually allows for the unit mix to be amended by the board. In fact, the board could introduce legislation now pending the passing of this initiative, so that would actually allow the the unit mix to be flexible on this. And actually, the board has it within its power to do that. So actually what youre saying is not actually necessarily 100 truthful because you can amend actually the unit mix if the boards initiative were to pass. It gives them the flexibility to do that. So really your statement isnt quite true, and it with all due respect because it is true that under sb 35, we would have to change the configuration of the units and have not so many threebedroom units. But however u the boa, the boa to do that with a board twothird vote. So thats not to say this is what would completely eliminate it for being eligible for sb 35. We could actually amend the board the board could amend it so that it would fit within the parameters of sb 35, isnt that correct . Well, in the veracity of my statement, the initiative can not include Francis Scott key. If the board chooses to amend that and bring Francis Scott key in, yes. But as originally drafted, it did not. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Chair ronen miss hartley, i just wanted to pick up on supervisor peskins point because for me something thats very much influencing my opinion on these pieces of legislation is the voice of teachers. This is being done in their name, and the voice of teachers and teachers themselves are saying they dont agree with the approach that the mayor has taken. And you havent answered supervisors peskins question, and thats an incredibly important part and piece of this puzzle that were all trying to work out together. So i actually want you to actually answer that question. Have you had conversations with a teacher, and why what is the divide there . Why are the very people that that thats name is being invoked not in support of it . I cant speak for them, but what i can tell you is this. The city has come in in partnership with uesf and sfusd to provide a huge amount of financing for educator housing. The School District has not stepped forward with the tens of millions of dollars to build educator housing, and so uesfs concern has not been on how do we how do we finance this . How do we make educator housing feasible . It just hasnt been part of their analysis because they havent had to take responsibility for actually paying for the housing, the city has and so just, if i could just finish. Chair ronen sure, sure. And so thats, i think, the disconnect here. As we approach this, weve been trying to figure out how could we build more Affordable Housing faster knowing what the cost needs are . And uesf and i respect every member of uesf. This is not in any way meant as a criticism, but that has not had to be their concern, and that is the disconnect. Chair ronen well, if thats how you perceive the disconnect, i would disagree because it was uesf that worked with this board of supervisors to ensure that some of the bond money, should the bond hopefully pass in november, be particularly reserved for those projects. And given whether theyll be 44 teacher housing, these projects that are built or 100 teacher housing is a big question. Im very much looking forward to hearing i see the teachers themselves in the audience. Im looking forward to hearing from them myself since you cant speak for them, obviously, but as the director of the Mayors Office of housing, it is a little disappointing not to hear from you that there was serious engagement and an effort to reach consensus with the teachers. If youre going to have ballot measures in their name, youd think that they would be supporting the ballot measure, and thats a real big problem here. Its glaringly a glaring problem in your proposal. Supervisor peskin if i can just jump in for a second, Charter Amendments are very different than Initiative Ordinances, policy declarations, ordinances that we pass here at the board of supervisors. The reason Charter Amendments have to sit in committee and have to sit at the full board is because it is our constitution. It is a sacrosanct document. And since 1932 or maybe charters before 1932, its really the province of the legislative branch of government to put them on the ballot. Theres of course another way to do it, which is you can go out and get tens of thousands of signatures which is rarely done and is very expensive and timeconsuming. The reason im saying that is because when you go to the ballot with the Charter Amendment, it requires broad consensus. So i want to take this out of the realm that this is board v. Mayor. The fact of getting consensus of the community whose name is invoked is a sign to this body that its not ready for prime time. Without splitting hairs over Francis Scott key and rezoning and ossifying parts of the charter. It doesnt pass the smell test when you need to have consensus, and that is what this represents. This is the peoples house, and when you havent gotten together with the united educators of San Francisco, that should be a very clear signal to this board that its not ready to mess with this sacrosanct thing that is our constitution. Just to reiterate, we did meet with uesf, and our goal is very simple. That is to provide more educator housing more quickly. If we replicate Francis Scott key, its just put transgendti the key at a 40 million cost and competing it with other pressing needs, like affordability housing, and bringing in a modest tool that is proven successful with cross subsidies, so thats its really been our simple goal to accelerate more Affordable Housing. Chair ronen thank you. Thank you. Chair ronen oh, im sorry. Supervisor walton has a question . Miss hartley . Thanks. Supervisor walton my apologies. I didnt know if you were done with your presentation. So the first thing i just want to say and then, i have two questions. But of course, we are responsible for stepping up to fund teacher housing. Its our job to do that as a city. Our teachers live here, they work here, so thats our job. So whether its educator housing, housing for city employees, housing for lowincome communities, of course its our job to fund that housing, and it should not be the burden of those people to provide those jobs. Its our job. I hope were not saying that because the educators or School District did not put up any money for housing, that its their fault, because its our job to put up money for housing. My first question and thank you, director hartley, for the presentation. Wheres the bulk of all housing being built in San Francisco. Well, the bulk of housing being built in San Francisco is d6 and d10. Since 2008, there was about 28,000 homes added, so thats about 2800 homes a year. The bulk of all housing is d6, d10. Supervisor walton my last question is just who holds up the rezoning timeline for Francis Scott key . Its who holds it up . Its the e. I. R. , its the environmental review. Supervisor walton thank you. Cha and in the interests of time, to let the public respond, ill be very, very brief. When we first introduced this Charter Amendment, we worked immediately with the School District, with uesf. We asked them to come meet, we asked them for comment. It was very challenging to work with them let me just qualify what i said. They came to the at the same, we worked together. They wanted us to work with the board of supervisors to come up with a deal. So that was the message, it was a fair message, we acknowledge that message. From that point forward, i tried to work with many members of this board and their staff, and there was not really a desire really, to be honest, to really engage on the contest. I was happy to try to strike a deal on the on the definition of teacher housing. We should. Theres no reason why we shouldnt. Our definitions are not that far apart, so i just think it was an unfortunate sort of conflict of events, but it was my desire to try to come up with a compromise, but with that said, i would just like to request a couple of amendments to our Charter Amendment for the amendment for the committee to consider. As it relates specifically to teacher housing, a lot of the conversation has been on teacher housing, and thats fair. So i would suggest in the amendment, we delete the definition of teacher housing. And the way that we can ensure that teacher housing can come back in, theres a provision late in the charter that allows for amendability for other type housing. I think supervisor ronen menti mentioned that in her opening remarks. So by having that provision in there, it would allow for the board at a later date to create a definition for future housing, so thats how we can solve for that. So in that handout that ive given you that reflected item number 1 and number 2, number 3 is just a basically sort of clarifying action to update the definition of 100 affordable to reflect the mayors version in the Initiative Ordinance which had the time to think through. Everyone agrees we want housing above and neighborhood serving uses on the ground floor, so we just wanted to make that clarification to the amendment. Supervisor peskin has raised this issue, and its a fair one. Were suggesting that projects that are frankly a small portion of the total volume of projects, projects that today fall under the purview of the Historic Preservation commission, were suggesting that those projects continue to fall under the jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation commission, so there would be an amend that strike does out that amendment that strikes out that provision, and then, the rest are conforming amendments. Thank you. Chair ronen thank you. Is there anymore comments from my colleagues . Supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer so mr. Powers, i just want to emphasize that the Charter Amendments reflect 140 of a. M. I. And high school also, in housiu exclude the ability for us to include marketrate housing on that. So you, again, another ability for marketrate housing by right. No. To be clear, its the opposite. So the amendment that im proposing would be housing types that are market rate housing to be amended in. [please stand by] o an i think we work. Krer responsibility of the legislative branch of the city and county of San Francisco. You trying to regulate human greed so that everybody has a chance here. So i just wanted to make sure and on comment that this is not personal, and i know that the mayor wants also to build more housing as we do, too. And as you know, the board is the one that actually put forth a steady funding stream for Affordable Housing because we so desperately need it. I wanted to emphasize, and i know you work for the mayor, i wanted to tell you and also miss hartly this is not personal, this is ideology, our responsibility as legislators and this is what this branch does. It actually has only within its power to legislate in order to regulate human greed and at this time i think what we are looking at is, although i appreciate the amendments coming forward, i just have to ask ourselves once again who are we leaving behind. Thank you, mr. Powers. I would go into public comment, i would say this is not about human greed, this is about all of these units with the amendments i just suggested are below market rate units, so this is not market rate units we are talking about. This is housing for people who live in San Francisco, staff, for nonprofit workers that make above the amount of that currently qualifies them, above the amount we are producing housing for. So, this is about real people in San Francisco who cant find housing, the market is not producing housing for. Mr. Powers, i would remind you real people in San Francisco cant find housing are also making 60,000 a year. When you, when you are asking that if the 140 of a. M. I. Without requiring any other building at lower levels, yes, this is about him and greed. This is about not mandating what actually lower income people also need to be able to live here. So, im so sorry that we have a disagreement about how this would manifest itself into an issue of greed. It is