Housing authority nightmare where you dont know if youre ever going to get into that type of housing. So, i believe in both, but im also thinking youve got a lot of empty vacant houses in San Francisco and you should consider that as well. And in my mind im thinking of some type of, like, squatter law where people could actually live in a place as long as its not violating the law. Thank you, mr. Pitt. Any other members of the public . Can you hear me . My name is kay griffin, former member of the west Soma Citizens Planning Task force. I was a disabled chair, and i think the disabled have language, of course, which means a lot of lowincome. Its been a disaster. So, were building toxic buildings. We cant go in. And theres some problems of housing not being able to use the first floor for somebody to be able to go in with a wheelchair. Thats most of the shorter buildings have no elevator. So, weve got a situation [speaker not understood], one of the planning is eliminating disabled people. And i agree actually with a lot of the stuff that otto said a little earlier, a lot of transit has become a laundromat for police money. Transit keeps getting worse and keeps eating more money. And i just dont even know what to say. Stealing Affordable Housing money out of it after a process has been done and just completely ignoring the process is not all right. Thank you. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item . Seeing no other member that would like to speak, chair wiener, if we could close Public Comment on this item. Public comment is closed. Thank you. I know that not everyone is still here, but i really do want to thank all the members of the public, particularly our constituents who came out to speak today on behalf of the plan. Again, want to acknowledge again that this plan went through very long process and its really great to see it finally come to fruition today at the Land Use Committee. I know there are still a number of things that we want to tie up at todays committee meeting, but i think the one issue that obviously came up during Public Comments was the importance of Affordable Housing in the western soma plan and how this was really something that was designed and was prioritized, the community being that this is where the vast majority of development is currently happening in the city and county of San Francisco. And because of that pressure, of course, there is on the other side pressure to help stabilize this community by ensuring that we are building, if we can, higher level of Affordable Housing in the district to help protect generations of residents that have always lived in the south of market so that they can continue to live there. And not just in soma, but, of course, all around the city we know that lowincome residents apply for lowincome housing here in district 6 and often move and become district 6 residents. And, so, this is an important pipeline that we really want to protect. I think through the discussions last week that supervisor wiener had brought up about the importance of transit costs, i think that first the conversation in terms of us seeing whether we could do both so that were not taking away from Affordable Housing to benefit transit or vice versa. And i think the initial, the history that i heard in terms of what was proposed in the original legislation was based off of our Real Estate Market that was very different a couple years ago. And, so, there was a design or thought we need to help incentivize Affordable Development by reducing residential impact fees. That doesnt just include transit, but open space and child care. But after doing some number crunching and working with members of the western soma task force and our Affordable Housing advocates and our residents, the amendment that im proposing today is to keep, actually, a portion of supervisor wieners original amendment which is the crossout that the residential portions of such projects shall be also subject to tier 1 of the eastern neighborhoods infrastructure impact fees. So, taking out that lower fee, but actually maintaining the residential impact fee regardless of whether they take the height bonus or not, but allow them to go to a tier a, Affordable Housing requirement if they do choose to build up. So, this would hopefully, you know, benefit all of our interests in our community. So, that is the amendment that i am proposing today and i have handed out to committee members. Here is a copy for the clerk as well. And, so, its merely changing striking out tier b and putting back a for the Affordable Housing requirement. So, that is the one amendment that i want to introduce today. And i want to give a special shout out to angelica cabanda, fernando and [speaker not understood] who actually worked with us and brought this idea to us and we were able to run the numbers and get some consensus throughout the community on this. Mr. Cory teague. Just want to be clear. The amendment last week was to increase the residential impact fee tier up to tier 2 or essentially remove the reference to tier 1 which would revert it back to tier 2 and decrease the affordability from tier b to tier a. I want to yeah, i want to clarify. I think youre saying tier c. Is to move back to tier b where its was originally, or are you wanting to go higher . Tier b is what was originally exposed in the western soma plan with the residential impact fees bound to tier 1. Okay. So, im not sure thank you for that clarification. I wasnt sure if you were poi posing to keep tier b and pull the residential impact fees back up to tier 2 as well, what they would be otherwise. ~ no, no, no, im sorry. I think we typed it in wrong. We want to strikeout a and return it to b. And Everything Else would stay the same. Thank you for that clarification. That would be moving in the wrong direction. So, that is the amendment that im proposing. President chiu . Thank you, colleague. And i want to also take a moment to thank members of the community who have been working for many years on this. And i also want to thank the community for your patience as we go through the legislative process. Last week both of my colleagues offered a number of amendments which we received during committee and frankly minutes before the vote. And because as i think folks know of the brown act, the three of us actually cannot have communications with each other about our thinking about the legislation until were right in front of you. What you saw last week was a discussion about this, but this was also why i had asked for a little bit of time and data to inform where it is were going. And i want to take a moment to address some of the comments that there was a suggestion of somehow stealing money from housing to transit. I think based on the facts in the data, i want to just be very clear about why is it that i think some of us had concerns about these numbers. The numbers that we were presented today by planning showed that the total fees under the plan, if you add up all the fees, housing, transit, child care, open space, et cetera, was going to increase by about 26 million from 58 to 84 million. Now, to get to a 26 million increase, what was originally proposed was that housing be increased, the housing number be increased 281 2 million. And that fees for Everything Else be cut by 21 2 million dollars. And thats was frankly what i was reacting to and i think what supervisor wiener was also reacting to, we wanted to write that just a little bit. ~ right that the reason i was interested in supporting a proposal was, again, to think about how we significantly help housing, but we also made sure that some of the other needs are dealt with. And, frankly, i have heard too many stories about pedestrian accidents and deaths, cycling accidents and deaths, other issues around transit and transportation in the west soma area that gave me a lot of concern that made me feel that it was important to address that. Now, that being said, i think the conversations that have happened over the last few days within the community is that we do not want to pit housing against transit against child care against open space. And, so, i think that the suggestion that has been made that we increase the level that we are spending on nonhousing needs back to what was originally proposed make a lot of sense. And because of that im happy to support supervisor kims amendment on this issue. And i just want to again ask the community, as we move forward, i think this is a good lesson for us to think about, how we try to create win win situations, how we understand that all of these needs need to fit, and to understand that its important to look at facts and data. Its not just about trying to gut one interest to the other. I think those of us who are looking at this legislation, we really want to make sure there is a community that works on all fronts. That works on the housing front, on the jobs front, on the transit front. Thats how were going to create a thriving and Successful Community that is economically diverse that meets the needs of all of our constituents. Again, happy to support supervisor kim. I also want to thank supervisor wiener for having raised this issue and want to thank all of you in the community for your advocacy on this. Thank you. I just want to make a brief comment. Ill be supporting this amendment today. You know, and thank you, president chiu, for acknowledging the importance of raising this issue, which is what i did last week. I know, and there was some unfortunate statements during Public Comment that i questioned motive. I can say i know its true of every member of this committee and beyond in the board there is a strong commitment to Affordable Housing. Thats why we all worked very hard to pass prop c in addition to supporting a lot of other Affordable Housing projects in the city and in various neighborhoods in the city. So, i think that for anyone to suggest that because there is a concern about level of transit impact fees, that that somehow makes you hostile to Affordable Housing i think is simply inaccurate, although i understand that in politics black and white kind of rhetoric can be useful. [speaker not understood] the facts here. This isnt about pitting transit and housing against each other. We all support both. But what happened in the western soma process and whether it was intentional or unintentional, was that there was decision made that as a project got bigger that Affordable Housing fees would go up, transit the largest and other impact fees would go down. That decision was made. I cant say why it was made particularly the part about transit impact fees going down. But that was not a good decision to say as a project gets bigger were going to reduce transit impact fees. The reason one went up and the other went down is my understanding is so the overall fee level would not change specifically as supervisor kim mentioned because of the bad economy at the time, and the challenges to getting developments to move forward. So, the amendment last week was simply to say that transit impact fees would not go down and that there would be a corresponding adjustment to return it to the previous status quo. Now, i want to thank supervisor kim and her amendment for maintaining those transit impact fees and i think weve seen with a lot of acknowledgment from some of the public testifiers as well as on this committee that there was that it was a good thing to return transit impact fees to the prereduction levels. There were some comments made during Public Comment about how , how Affordable Housing and housing stability is incredibly important. I completely agree with those comments. But in a way, almost reducing the importance of transit. While people can figure outweighs to get around, transportation is just fine in the city. And to be very clear, transportation is not fine in San Francisco. And the people who are most likely to be hurt by our problem Transportation System are lowincome and working class people. If you have money, youre going to find a way to get around, whether youre driving your own car, whether youre taking uber, whether youre doing all the things of people who have means are able to do. If you are a working class person living in the outer sunset, working at a job downtown, good luck having a consistent way of getting to work. Good luck of maybe getting there consistently on time and avoiding getting in trouble for being late for work. And i know and we all know people who sometimes struggle to get to work on time, and these are people who cant afford to be late to work. And we know about people struggling to get to school, struggling to get to their doctors appointments. Transportation is a big challenge to a lot of people in this city, and particularly to lowincome and working class people. I also know, and i know that this is a huge priority for supervisor kim and im very supportive of her efforts in this area, that transit is not just about muni. Its also about Pedestrian Safety and we all know that soma is one of the worst neighborhoods in the city for pedestrians, with very wide streets and very fast traffic and way too many pedestrian accidents. And it is critical that we resolve that. And these impact fees help to pay for Pedestrian Safety upgrades in soma and elsewhere. And i think we need to move aggressively in that direction. So, i think that this is a good solution that supervisor kim put forward and i do support it. And supervisor kim, i want to thank you for your work on this issue. Colleagues, are there any other comments on this particular amendment . Great. Seeing none, can we take that amendment without objection . That will be the order. applause supervisor kim, do you have additional items . I do not have any other amendments to present to the committee. Okay. [speaker not understood]. I do have one other issue that i would like to raise and this has to do with the academy of art university. So, colleagues, as you know, last week we considered essentially a tentative amendment to grandfather the zoning controls for the property owned by au and i understood that we did it last week to protect the ability to consider this amendment this week without considering delaying this item so we can get it sent to the full board. But as i mentioned last week, i am not completely comfortable with this amendment. We all know that au has involved significant issues. There has been quite a bit of controversy. There have been allegations of numerous code violations, planning code and zoning code violations. Both the City Attorney and the Planning Commission took the position that we not do anything in this legislation to move aau toward additional approvals because the idea was hopefully some point in the near future there will be a global settlement of these issues and at that time it would be appropriate forever us to consider zoning code changes to move what they have proposed along. As we have been advised by our City Attorney, we do not need to make that change here. We can do that at the appropriate time. So, what i would like to suggest and at this time i would like to motion to amend the legislation back to the original legislation that we received from the Planning Commission that i also know are from the City Attorneys office would ensure we discuss all these issues at the same time as opposed to taking a piecemeal approach to how we consider the academy art university. President chiu has made a motion. So were all very clear on what that procedural posture is now, last week the committee excuse me. The Planning Commission recommended against grandfathering the brannan Street Property and last week the committee inserted we made an amendment to include a grandfathering of the brannan Street Property and president chiu has just made a motion to remove the grandfathering of the brannan Street Property. Am i right about that . Umhm. All right. Supervisor kim, did you have any comments on this issue . Yes. I think academy is one of those issues that rears its head over and over again. And there are a number of kind of parallel discussions that are going on. Those with planning and aau and the mayors office. I think either way this negotiation is going to continue. I think to allow the greatest flexibility to planning and this negotiation and not kind of constrict or restrict their dialogue, it probably gives them additional leverage and other kind of pieces to work with if we keep this grandfathered in. Again, this does not legitimatize aau on 301 brannan site. It merely allows them a pathway and that decision would still go before the Planning Commission. And then to the board of supervisors in the end. So, i feel comfortable leaving this in as is just to give the greatest flexibility and leverage to Planning Department [speaker not understood]. Thats where i am today. If i could just ask a question of planning. My understanding is the legislation we received did not include this. And, so, again, that was what was provided to us from planning and what was what we did last week was simply to keep the option of taking it out. But that was not exactly where the [speaker not understood] was or the commission was. Thats correct, supervisor. John ram with the Planning Department. The Planning Commission vote today remove the grandfathering of that particular property so it conbe legalized.