Affordable Housing Development so the more Affordable Housing the better. We have also seen deals and in your District Supervisor recently after a very lengthy community iterative process and the expenditure of millions of dollars, two developments trying to go forward could not in fact. And so that is thats what sometimes happens when the risks are great, the costs are high, and we get these Great Community benefits that then tip those particular parcels and i think you know the two that im thinking of. I do know the two you are thinking of, and one has been purchased by the city and 100 Affordable Housing. I dont know if its the worst outcome from that project. I dont think we need to belabor this point, i dont think you can point to one example and thats what worries me, right . I mean aside from little excellent arguments made by my colleagues around, you know, sort of putting a definition of Affordable Housing that includes one individual who earns 128,000 a year, which is very problematic, i dont think it would work anyway because what developer who whats the 1956, you get like an additional few months, you know, extra and you earn profits at a much lower rate. It doesnt even make sense to me. Supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin i was going to add one thing. I think the whole d. R. Conversation is a red herring. But that process, im always fond of saying i would much rather have a fender bender than a headon collision, and that process actually allows people to be heard, when you bottle that up, the only place those people can be heard is in the court of last resort across the street. Superior court which does bring financing and a project to its knees. So, when people cant come in and make a project better and participate in that as members of the community which is why San Francisco actually is unique and is better, then they end up in the superior court because they have not been able to be heard at all. And that leads to real delay and real cost escalation, not 100 days as a matter of fact, if you think about the project in supervisor ronens district, the province sponsor said they appreciated the 90day delay and the Community Input and that was what they said in the San Francisco chronicle article, thats what meta said. So, whatever. Thats right. Im so sorry i missed supervisor waltons name. Supervisor walton. And also unique and better but also building, actually. Director hartly, a quick question, what happens in the rare occasion that developments dont go forward . Sometimes people go bankrupt, they lose a lot of money, we did have the benefit of, 1515 south van ness of being able to buy that for Affordable Housing. Sell the property, sell the land, somebody still makes money, correct . Usually somebody loses a lot of money and someone has a chance to make money, yes. Bigger pockets. Yes. Cycle continues, developers still make money. I guess i the cycle that we have created has also created a city with the most expensive rents in the country. We are building at levels higher than most municipalities in the state. I dont understand highest serious displacement project and no, no middle income production, and thats really thats really a a shame. It is building middle Income Housing and your statement just now is no middle Income Housing. No, if i could clarify. The most amount of production is in d6 and d10. Between 2014 and 2018, only 710 units of middle Income Housing produced. So, thats 20,000 units and 710, some of those units of the 20,000 are affordable, and we can build those by, with the benefit of what the city, the board and the mayor put forward in resources but also state and federal resources that we leverage, but no state and federal resources for middle Income Housing. I want to clarify there are resources in the ordinance my colleagues and i are putting forward to allow us to go up to 160 a. M. I. Addressed as well. Teacher housing definition of one fifth of units reserved up to 160, you really cant, and this is a little technical wonky, but you really cant finance that development in a way that wont require significant amounts of money and ill tell you why. Because between one if you are restricting teacher housing 100 of the units to teacher housing, and i understand the ideological desire to do that, but what you are saying is we are going to get additional financial benefit because we are going to go all the way up to 160 of a. M. I. For teachers at that higher income. But when you get when you so restrict the pool of potential applicants to only teachers and only teachers who make up to 160 a. M. I. Which is the purpose, which is the purpose, strictly for that population. Which is great, on its face. But when you try to go when you go to the bank and you say im going to finance this development with affordable teacher housing from 50 a. M. I. To 140 a. M. I. For 80 of the units and borrow money based upon 20 of the units of people paying, who can afford rents, because they are at 160. The bank is going to do, require whats called a demand study and look at that and go you know that pool of people is so low. Thats the pot of city dollars. Back to where we are at Francis Scott key model. I would like to clarify one thing, yes, that 140 a. M. I. For one person household is 120,700, and i think that the boards Initiative Ordinance has a good provision, and that is if you have a studio or one bedroom at that rent level, it should be occupied by two people, and that is that means that you are serving two people who earn 60,000 a year. For a twoperson household, its 137,900. So, really, at 140 of a. M. I. , with multiple people in the household, which is who we would serve in a Development Like this, you are serving people who earn between 60,000 a year and 70, 75,000 a year. Thats two teachers, thats those are most c. D. Loan administrators, those are administrative assistants. So, its that its that cohort of middle income households that are, they make too much to qualify for our low Income Housing but dont make enough to be able to rent or buy market rate housing. I would like to also say that you know, 140 of a. M. I. Would mean the cheapest units, studio, would be over 3,000 a month. And from what you just said is that two people should live in the studio, and then it would hit the lower levels. Ok. So also, i just want to say that the idea that you say well then two people should live in the studio. How sustainable is that . I i just think currently the idea really, when we are looking at the rental rates, you know, a studio would be the cheapest, and that would be at 3,000 a month rent. I i just dont understand sort of the reasoning, and then to say oh, thats really affordable because then two people can live in a studio for, you know, 3,000 a month. Anyway, i just wanted to make that point. I dont need a response. I just wanted to make that point. I would if i could, through the chair, i would like to respond because what i was trying to get at is that sort of housing that we are we are building, Affordable Housing, yes, there are some studios but mostly ones, most by two bedrooms and some three bedrooms and so when a household of three can save 1,000 a month, a household of three at 140 a. M. I. Can save 1,000 a month in their rent and they would at 140 a. M. I. Rent, that makes a difference. And developers dont build 100 studios, thats not marketable. What they build are mostly twos and ones, some threes and some studios, and so that i think its important to think more holistically, i agree the studio rent and the oneperson a. M. I. Is problematic and ways to address that. But in no way am i suggesting that this is great because two people can live in a studio and pay 3,000 a month. Im thinking about the three the couple and their kid who can save 1,000 a month. And stay in San Francisco. I want to say 140 of medium for a two bedroom is almost 3,900 a month. I just dont see that at affordable level. Its 3,900, almost 4,000 a month. I guess whats affordable to some is unaffordable to others. So anyway, i wanted to emphasize that. I, you know, i think we are building for all types of households here. We are building for people, single people, maybe are and we are building for people who have just a partner, we are building i just think when you say its all at 140 , this is what you allow that. This is what we are looking at. We are looking at one bedroom being almost 3,500 a month, two bedrooms almost 3900 a month. Thank you. Thank you so much. And i want to thank the public for your patience in waiting to speak. If theres no more comments from my colleagues, then i will now open this item up for public comment. If you could line up behind mr. Wright on this side well just take people in the order that they line up and each member of the public will have two minutes. Mr. Wright. First of all, im not surprised about her demonstration and everybody elses demonstration coming from the Mayors Office. Shes a biggot, pathological liar and corrupt and organized enterprise and pricefixing and gouging, listen to her, like americas dumbest criminal, justfies and tells on herself. And 15 of the Apartment Building complexes is supposed to be for very low and low income bracket people, stated in the charter section 410 pertaining to the rehabilitation act. Redevelopment act. Sf viewer, please. Now, you talk about ive shown you well over several times the cheapest rate for buying an Apartment Building complex, demonstrate the two towers you pay 56 million for 144 Apartment Unit complex is the best rate by a nonprofit developer that you can get. Stop dealing with profit developers. Thats why we keep having this problem. Ive said that over and over again and i think you are going to catch on this time. Now, sf viewer, please. Here is an 87 unit Apartment Building complex thats being built, ok, 64 million. What i demonstrated before you in the past, but this developer here is 100 nonprofit, low income Housing Development. Thats the kind of people you need to build Apartment Building complex in the city and county of San Francisco, is that clear . God damn a. M. I. , 140 of a. M. I. Is for Affordable Housing, thats 120,700 an year. Then you go to 80 , thats 68,950 a year. Thats not Affordable Housing. You are not including income thats very low and low income brackets, so every income below that point is a plaintiff in a class action. Speaker time has elapsed. Thank you, mr. Wright. Next speaker, please. Next speaker, please. Next speaker, please. Hello, supervisors. My name is rosa maria covala. Many of you know me as my work as a housing rights advocate as tenderloin housing clinic. Im here on my nonwork lunchtime, very important to state that, to speak in favor of the boards Affordable Homes for educators and families now Initiative Ordinance. Thank you very much for this Initiative Ordinance. As a resident of district 5 now, myself, a low income tenants rights advocate and having been low income myself for most of my life, i have seen individuals attempt to corrupt the definition of Affordable Housing for low income individuals. I am pleased the boards initiative was initiated in collaborators with educators, a. F. T. And others in San Francisco and does not attempt to corrupt Affordable Housing to increase income levels. Thank you very much, supervisors. Good morning, supervisors, james tracy, adjunct instructor at city college of San Francisco and also serve as a political director for a. F. T. 2121. Thank you both the supervisors and the mayor for pushing forward this vital issue around housing. Not just for teachers because we really believe that every single last person who works in Public Schools, whether they be janitors, para professionals, adjuncts, can also double as lyft drivers and uber drivers, we are all educators and we want to make sure that whatever policies are put forward, take that into consideration and build housing for school staff. We have not had a chance to take a position on either one of the of those, of the proposals yet. Painly because our code has not met this summer but do embrace the idea of income averaging. Embrace the idea of Affordable Housing in all neighborhoods, including especially those that have been resistant towards Affordable Housing in the past and we think there is definitely room for dialogue around streamlining because we do know we are in middle of one of the worst crisises in housing the city has ever seen. Thank you very much for your work on this. And see how it works out. Hello, supervisors. My name is bot akafariman. Grow the richmond, 300 odd neighbors and businesses advocating for more housing, better transit and helping homelessness, among other things. Im here because im very frustrated in part with some of the statements i heard today, i am not going to nitpick them all today, time for that later on twitter. Frankly, frankly, who we are leaving behind are the 10,000 people who were stuck on the wait list every time some 80 or 60 units get built. Income restricted, the city puts up money for it. Frankly, we all know no matter what the definition is, the Charter Amendment tries to put forward, most of these proposals need federal money and that money is restricted at 60 or less. So, its a little disingenuous. A year and a half ago in january of 2018, there was communities, and supervisor fewers office was there, a lot of folks were in a Community Meeting about housing and the future housing in the Richmond District. In that meeting people dont quibble about the things you are all quibbling about today. They are not quibbling about the percentages, the incomes, they know when they go to the system and apply they see 0 results, they see delays, years and years of delays. My question is who are you trying to protect with keeping discretionary review in the charter. Who are you trying to protect, when they are trying to appeal below market rate, subsidized housing, financed by the city, the state and the feds. Who are you trying to protect . Because its not the people who need it the most. Thank you. Hello, claudia terato, teacher, third grade teacher. Im here because i rise, i have been rising and fighting for my stay here in San Francisco for years and ive taught 19 years in the Unified School District. Ive seen many of my children, my students graduate, go to college, come and talk to me and say hi to me and my own son. Finally, i have my own baby. And i want to raise him in my school, raise him in my city, raise him in my School District, and i get an eviction notice while im breastfeeding him. Two years i waited and then im like ok, we are learning to walk, guess what, well walk the streets and we are going to protest because this is wrong. Its wrong for teachers to be taken advantage because they are busy teaching. That is wrong for the city to not include us in the discussion of what to do with this free property, public money, public land that was given to developers not for them to like just starve us out and not include all of the teachers, all the educators, in the School District. Im talking from the para professional who has, like the most difficult students sidebyside telling them they can love them and they can do the work, from all the teachers that spent hours there, from 7 to 5 30 at night and come to find out that this is happening behind our backs, that we are not even included in the discussion and then you want 10 million more . You already have the land, like how much money do you want . This is public, public, this is our public forum, public tax money, Public Schools, Public School teachers. We should be not working with the greedy developers, we need our own developers, we need to groom our own developers so we can have Affordable Housing for everyone here. Hello, im here in support of the Affordable Homes for educators and families now initiative. Im katy waller oconnor, born and raised in San Francisco. Im a counselor at Hoover Middle School in the sunset district. One day in hoover one student was sent to my office she was crying in class. She shared with me about how her favorite brother was just murdered that past weekend in mexico. She describes in detail how the gangsters had slashed his face to the point he was unrecognize ablg. After lunch the fire alarm was set off, didnt know why, we ran into the halls to see our assistant principal covered in fire extinguisher white powder after one of the students ripped it out of the wall and continued to spray him down. Needless to say, it was a challenging day at work. That day i came home to an eviction notice on my front door of my rent controlled apartment in the Marina District in San Francisco. Im not sure that day could ha