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 about money. Lets just face it. When developers are looking to develop a building, if they can develop everything at 140 of a. M. I. , this is what they build unless we mandate it. Anything we do for poor people in this country, frankly, must always be mandated because people dont willingly give up their profits for this. So, i just want to say that im sorry that we disagree on the view of this and how i understand that there are people trying to live here in San Francisco and we, and i get that. However, i just wanted to emphasize that if we redefine what Affordable Housing is, 140 of a. M. I. And they can build up to that and we dont require any averaging at all, which would allow also to build at 160 of a. M. I. , but an averaging that quite frankly i have to ask you and i have to ask everybody else who are we leaving behind and have we thought about who we are leaving behind. Im sorry that we have a difference of opinion in this. Again, this is not personal. Its completely ideology. I appreciate that and i agree with you, it is not personal and i would just say this is additive, not about leaving anybody behind, this is adding on top of the great work the city is already doing around Affordable Housing, thank you. Did you have i will comment later, ok. I did have one followup question and then we really will open this up to public comment. Given that, and this could be either for kate hartly, maybe the best person to answer this question. Given that is there any example anywhere in the United States of america of a private developer who has a choice of either, you know, building a market rate project where they could get wild profits or for being tapped out at 140, that they would choose the other . What we are getting in return isnt that much time, and the cost to go through discretionary review, and the examples we have had where there are Affordable Housing projects, we are talking about 100 days for something, the majority of the projects and there has not been that many of them. The few of them at least in my district, delay has been 100 days around there. Is 100 days really worth it to a private developer who has profit as their motive to choose this option as opposed to a market rate project . I think the question is really about certainty. When a developer goes to, into San Francisco, theres no certainty that after investing millions of dollars in the site acquisition and architectural work and soils testing and those sorts of things, that in fact that building will actually get built because the discretionary review process is so broad and the standard to bring d. R. Is so low. Do you have examples of anywhere else in the country where lets say buy right exists and they have chosen to build a project thats going to garner them less profits over one that would produce more . Do you have one example . I want to hear about one example. We do do things differently than other places in the country. So, for example, in new york city, 90 its not discretionary review so 90 of all buildings developed never see the inside of a Planning Commission hearing room. Its if you are code conforming you can build. Now, i mean, clearly a market rate developer will want to maximize their profits. But if the risk is low, and you are in a neighborhood where, you know, theres working class people you have, you know, you build in a way that you approximate the rents because theres going to be competition. So, what we have done is make buildings so risky and so, take so long that it costs more. Can i ask you about that that claim that its so risky . I mean, between 2014 and 2018, planning has approved 195 projects and has denied six. Is it really that risky . Well, what we have created is a system where developers go out to the community and theres Community Discussion and theres Community Agreements and theres a lot of back and forth, and that takes a long time and drives costs up. Now, like in many cases thats great, you know. I have devoted my career to an 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 bui