tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 13, 2019 9:00am-10:01am PDT
are in a neighborhood where, you know, there's working class people you have, you know, you build in a way that you approximate the rents because there's 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 it's 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 there's community discussion and there's community agreements and there's a lot of back and forth, and that takes a long time and drives costs up. now, like in many cases that's 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 -- that's 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 i'm thinking of. >> i do know the two you are thinking of, and one has been purchased by the city and 100% affordable housing. i don't know if it's the worst outcome from that project. i don't think we need to belabor this point, i don't think you can point to one example and that's 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 don't think it would work anyway because what developer who -- what's the -- 195-6, you get like an additional few months, you know, extra and you earn profits at a much lower rate. it doesn't 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, i'm always fond of saying i would much rather have a fender bender than a head-on 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 can't 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 ronen's district, the province sponsor said they appreciated the 90-day delay and the community input and that was what they said in the san francisco chronicle article, that's what meta said. so, whatever. >> that's right. i'm so sorry i missed supervisor walton's 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 don't 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 don't understand -- >> highest -- serious
displacement project and no, no middle income production, and that's really -- that's 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, that's 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 can't, and this is a little technical wonky, but you really can't finance that development in a way that won't require significant amounts of money and i'll 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 i'm 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 what's called a demand study and look at that and go you know that pool of people is so low. >> that's 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 board's 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 two-person household, it's 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. that's two teachers, that's -- those are most c.d. loan administrators, those are administrative assistants. so, it's that -- it's that cohort of middle income
households that are, they make too much to qualify for our low income housing but don't 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 don't understand sort of the reasoning, and then to say oh, that's 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 don't 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 don't build 100% studios, that's not marketable. what they build are mostly twos and ones, some threes and some studios, and so that -- i think it's important to think more holistically, i agree the studio rent and the one-person 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. i'm 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 don't see that at affordable level. it's $3,900, almost $4,000 a
month. i guess what's 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 it's 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 there's 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 we'll 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, i'm not surprised about her demonstration and everybody else's demonstration coming from the mayor's office. she's a biggot, pathological liar and corrupt and organized enterprise and price-fixing and gouging, listen to her, like america's 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 i've 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 non-profit developer that you can get. stop dealing with profit developers. that's why we keep having this problem. i've 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 that's being built, ok, 64 million. what i demonstrated before you in the past, but this developer here is 100% non-profit, low income housing development. that's 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, that's $120,700 an year. then you go to 80%, that's $68,950 a year. that's not affordable housing. you are not including income that's 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. i'm here on my nonwork lunchtime, very important to state that, to speak in favor of the board's 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 board's 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. i'm here because i'm 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, it's a little disingenuous. a year and a half ago in january of 2018, there was communities, and supervisor fewer's 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 don't 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 it's not the people who need it the most. thank you. >> hello, claudia terato, teacher, third grade teacher. i'm here because i rise, i have been rising and fighting for my stay here in san francisco for years and i've taught 19 years in the unified school district.
i've 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 i'm breastfeeding him. two years i waited and then i'm like ok, we are learning to walk, guess what, we'll walk the streets and we are going to protest because this is wrong. it's 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. i'm talking from the para professional who has, like the most difficult students
side-by-side 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, i'm here in support of the affordable homes for educators and families now initiative. i'm katy waller o'connor, born and raised in san francisco.
i'm 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, didn't 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. i'm not sure that day could have been any more overwhelming. however, the next day i received an email that i had won a lottery for affordable studio
condo in the shipyard, hunters point, true story. the next year i moved into the condo, got engaged, ecstatic. the next year i got married, wonderful. the next year i had a baby, magical. that brings us to this year. the three of us crammed into a 500 square foot studio. not feeling so ecstatic, wonderful and/or magical. we need a bigger space. when i inquired with the city to qualify for a larger unit i was told i would have to sell the condo, a process that takes about a year, move out, and then rent another place for three years, and then reapply for a larger unit. four-year process, no thank you. this is who you are leaving behind. i am a graduate from u.c. berkeley -->> thank you so much, appreciate it.
thank you. thank you so much, we hear you. thank you so much. >> i would like to note the speaker time has lapsed and the microphones are off. before you begin, i would like to note that supervisor haney has joined us and now a special meeting of the board of supervisors. address your comments to the members of the committee and not to the audience.
thank you. >> hi, my name is jenny, and i'm here supporting the ordinance. within the past few years, two family members who have worked for the san francisco unified school district had to quit and move, and my boyfriend is a special ed teacher, pays $1,000 a month to rent a room with no proper kitchen. our school district is losing teachers who want to help our kids. i hope this program is considered. >> good morning. my name is annabelle, representing over 200 -- over 6200 para educators and teachers that are very difficult to work with because what we want is to ensure that the city implements a policy that not only includes middle income families but it also includes low income members
of this community. united educators of san francisco is uniquely positioned because our members are directly impacted as are the families of the students we serve as a result of the housing crisis in san francisco. when there was a survey of educator sz we were stunned to find spending roughly 64% of their salary on housing. for those creative educators who choose to live in san francisco because they share the values of our city, it is hard to choose another district because the cost of -- because the housing costs are excessive. educators are supporting the affordable homes for educators and families now initiative. we were provided an opportunity to share the development of this initiative, to ensure that no educator would be left behind because of the make-up of their families. affordable homes for educators now and families initiative as a
critical aspect to ensure that our educators and working families are thrown a lifeline as they do what they love, educating students of san francisco. we see this process as a model for the ways in which government entities, public service entities like the school district, uasf, community based organizations to work together towards solutions that can help field healthy communities. we are glad that through this initiative we can increase affordable housing and remove the barriers, but also flexible to make adjustments as we evaluate the process. i hope the board continues to support this initiative -- [microphone off] >> hi. i'm wind kaufman from aft2121. teacher at the college of san francisco and vice president of the faculty union.
as my colleague james tracey previously said, our union has not officially come to positions on either the charter amendment or the initiatives because we are in summer mode and it's hard to get our members together to come to consensus. however, we have agreed upon basic principles and i can speak to those. one is that we have passed a resolution that says public land should be kept in public hands for the public good. and i find it very concerning that the charter amendment institutional izes -- not necessarily affordable and built on public land and built by private developers and as supervisor ronen observed, they are driven by profit. so, that's very concerning. the idea of making the
definitions so we really don't leave people behind is something that of course aft2121 is behind and can support. given that, i think any development by a private developer should be seriously, you know, seen with concern. 30 more seconds. so, i guess i ask you to think out of the box and not go to private developers to develop these projects because you know, when you have something like that's going on in the balboa reservoir, a private developer whose c.e.o. makes $7 million a year, it's just -- motivation is not going to be for the people who can't afford san francisco. thank you. >> hello, board of supervisors, my name is cory monroe, i work
at every middle school and been working for 20 years and over the past 20 years i have seen so many co-workers have to leave and so many students and it's to the point to where so many co-workers have left our school i barely know my co-workers, and it's just sad that they can't afford to live in san francisco, so i'm totally for supporting affordable housing and something has to happen soon because sooner or later people won't look to teach in san francisco and it could really get that serious and something we need to look into and even with me like i live in berkeley, grew up in hunters point, used to always get a place in hunters point but i'm affected with the community when i'm there, and when you have teachers and educators there, they could talk to teenagers and stop a lot of violence, so it was really important that we are in the
city of san francisco that i love. i've been canvasings the neighborhood and the mission for uesf and it's just sad and the mission that it's barely any students or parents that live in the mission district, and we have to find a way to bring and keep our students and teachers back in san francisco. thank you. >> good morning. my name is claire merced, a spanish teacher here in san francisco. i had a speech written and then i started listening to the $3,000 studio that people are expected to live and it brought me to what my conditions were when i actually got divorced. this is a story that most of my colleagues don't know. i couldn't afford anywhere to live, and i had a studio.
i had two teenagers. i could only have one teenager at a time living with me. one of my children, here in san francisco, could live with me because i didn't have enough space for the two of them to live with me. this is what is happening. i am speaking on behalf of the affordable home for educators and families, and families. because it's not just us going to school every day to teach, we have children. we had children, we can barely afford anything to do in the city. i would like to go to the opera, i would like to go to the symphony, i would like to go to the shows that are performed here, and i cannot afford it. and i know that my young colleagues can't afford living here. they don't make the money to live here. so, please, please, please listen to what we have here.
and listen to educators, thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. susan kitchel. i've served as a pediatric and school practitioner almost 40 years. hospitals and clinics, and the last 23 years as a school nurse in the san francisco public schools. i'm here in support of the affordable housing for educators and families now initiative. i've lived in various rental apartments in district 1, richmond district since 1982. two years ago i was evicted from a more than 20-year tenancy under the ellis act. it seems as though being a long-term excellent tenant is now a liability when seeking housings. landlords want turnover to take advantage of the vacancy rent increase control. after a long and anxiety laden
search i was able to secure an apartment and remain in the city and continue to live in the richmond district. however, the apartment i secured was half the space for 50% more money, resulting in a rent payment of greater than 40% of my salary and i am at the top of the salary schedule. i'm planning to retire at the end of this calendar year, i will be leaving san francisco because i simply cannot afford to stay here. it is, i take with me my years of experience and activism. our city and schools lose my long time commitment activism for the children, youth and families of san francisco. it is too late for me and many other educators, i urge you to support this commitment to educators, which in turn benefit students and families of the city. as my very own supervisor, sandra fewer said earlier, it is time to stop the greed. i would go a touch further. it is past time to stop the
greed. initiative of the board of supervisors in conjunction with the educators is just the measure we need. thank you. >> good morning. my name is steven o'reilly, i live in the sunset, district 4. i also teach in district 4 at jefferson elementary. i've lived in san francisco 29 years. my wife and i live in a rent controlled two unit building, in the sunset for 12 years. although i'm committed to teaching for the next school year, my wife and i cannot wait to see if and when our unit is sold. the first weekend in august we are meeting with a realtor in portland, oregon to look at condos to purchase. this will not happen soon, may happen sooner or later. but we can't wait. and as regards to the francis scott key, i've looked at the proposal, looked at the unit sizes, and the cost. it will be a smaller unit for nearly twice the price we
currently pay. i love living in san francisco, lived here 29 years, i feel like i'm a sense of the community in my neighborhood, my families i serve are my neighbors, and i don't -- i walk to work. i consider myself very fortunate in my situation right now. we can't wait for the other shoe to drop, we are looking elsewhere. thank you for your time. >> hi, my name is tom ashby, p.e. teacher in a middle school, and how i got the position, late september of last year, my first year teaching, the only way i got the position, educator before me tried to make a commute from all the way from sacramento because he tried to save some money and pay for his rent and obviously did not work out for him. so i had to take his spot.
i was fortunate enough to take his spot but quickly we learned, me and my girlfriend, both educators, struggling to pay rent and i converted garage in-law, and so it's always been a struggle. we are not sure where we are going to move next. i had to move in the last five years, had to move seven times. so it's questionable whether the amount of stability we are going to be seeing with our housing situation the over the years, whether we are going to stay in san francisco or not. we are making all sorts of different plans whether we want to move to the east bay where i came from, or even move out of state, so it's always been questionable. i want to also point out from what's said on the podium before about sfusd collaborating with the mayor's office about this
initiative. i feel like it was kind of -- i just think that you know, for us who are trying to struggle to fight for our raises, prop g fought in court, to also ask that we are fighting for our housing as well. it's a little bit ridiculous to me. thank you very much. >> good morning. my name is jordan davis. speaking only for myself, i didn't have to be nice. i didn't want to come here today, i have a bit of a headache, but that headache is due in part to another potential duelling ballot initiatives gunk up the ballot and designed to confuse voters. i support item 1, the board proposal and oppose the mayor's
[bleep] amendment. i'm not a land use wonk, but it's supported by the dot dot dot, the teachers, the people who know what they need, who the board members work with, and who are the board members who support the board proposal, supervisor and former school commissioner fewer, walton, and my supervisor, matt haney. that means because they were on the school board, they know what's going on here. and i've tried to hear all these stories and reminds me of why this is so important. and the disability rights community we have a term, self-advocacy. i ask you to respect self-advocacy of teachers and school board alumni and not yimbis and respect the [bleep] charter amendment, basically the
mayor working in a smoke filled back room and presenting to stakeholders like the kool-aid man busting through a wall. listen to the teachers, the educators, reject the [bleep], and anyone who votes yes on the charter amendment and on the ballot for us to vote on, needs to surrender their progressive card. if this initiative comes on the ballot, i'm sure pretty they are going to come out swinging against it. thank you. >> good morning, sumzs. jeff rego, a citizen of the city since 1976 in the outer sunset since 1984. my comments are that the housing market is already significantly skewed in favor of developers, maximizing profits, glut of luxury housing in san francisco. mayor's charter amendment based on affordable homes for educators and families now act,
streamlining housing for teachers and support staff but less than half the building for the purpose. it continues the policies contributed to the housing problems we are experiencing and now asked to streamline them by removing other things community input. particularly troubling, inclusion of the charter amendment component, changing without taking it back to the voters. i support the supervisors' initiative and strongly oppose the mayor's legislation and charter amendment and i agree with you all, stop the greed. >> my name is erica, 45-year resident of the outer sunset. i live within feet of the francis scott key project and right from the beginning all of our neighbors supported that
project and we support affordable housing in the outer sunset, extremely strongly. and i want that to go on the record. the charter amendment is a work around in the same way that trump comes out with his work arounds. and we don't need a charter amendment, we need our legislators to think through and correct affordable housing in our neighborhood, with some voice talking to big developers putting up -- getting all the give-aways from all the new legislation statewide and locally. and i'm extremely against the idea of giving any public property to private investors. that needs to not happen, whether it's in -- whatever the initiative or the charter amendment. thank you very much.
>> good afternoon, supervisors. thanks for having us here today for the lovely conversation. sam moss, executive director of mission housing development corporation. i'm here to speak in favor of the charter amendment number 3. i bring that up specifically because i want to say it's impressive the way we have managed to conflate all three issues when the charter amendment is saying we should make it illegal to appeal affordable housing, hard stop. definition of what is affordable, a.m.i., that is trailing and i have the naive hope the body can work with the executive branch to come to that agreement. nothing is stopping you from saying it should be impossible from san francisco's perspective. not from the state of california perspective in sb35, but san francisco's charters, perspective. to appeal affordable housing. you could just do that.
nothing is stopping you. and i hope that in the end that's why you all ran to represent all of us. so i look forward to that coming about. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. shell medina. thanks for having me this morning, or afternoon. hi, supervisors. out of curiosity, does anybody know salary as of a teacher in san francisco? do you know how much they make a year? ok. cool. well, how much does a public teacher make in san francisco. the average public teacher salary in san francisco is $71,854 as of june 27, 2019. the rates stability between 62,731 and 82,954. salaries can range depending on many important factors, including education,
certification, additional skills and the number of years the teacher has spent in class. i'm in support of the mayor, i think we need to get housing as soon as possible, eliminate the time frame, more money, construction is more expensive, pay teachers more money. if we are living in one of the most expensive parts of the cities in the world, if you had to pay $3,000 for a studio, that's a mortgage in somebody else's cities or country. you know, we need to figure something out. we need housing. i'm in support of the mayor. thank you so much. >> hi. my name is dana, and i'm here to speak in support of the charter amendment. we are the only city that has a thing called discretionary review, anybody can file to block any project for any reason or no reason. i read the d.r.s and every
planning commission packet and interesting to see how people are explicit about their greed. i have seen neighbors try to block housing because tenants might live there, because tenants would not live there but the building looks like the tenants might live there. personal favorite, landlord worried that new housing would block shadows and he might have to do something crazy like lower the rent. why are we needling people's worst instincts? discretionary review is an embarrassment to our city. abolishing d.r. for affordable housing should be a no brainer. it's going to be a lot more important as we start building affordable housing in exclusionnary neighborhoods, people are going to get mad. we have a massive shortage of affordable housing with 8,000 applicants for every unit. we can't afford to waste time and money on frivolous appeals. i hope you guys can work with the mayor's office to come up
with a way to eliminate these terrible appeals for affordable housing. thank you. >> hi, my name did ira kaplan, a renter, live in district 3. i want you to support the mayor's charter amendment. some concerns from supervisors today about the high rents that some of the streamline projects would have. that's what it's like out here for those of us who are not housing secure, who did not have the opportunity to purchase a home in san francisco 10, 20, 30 years ago. that's what this process has done to us and the rents you are concerned about are the below market rate rents. discount from the private market where most people are forced to seek housing in san francisco. just near my apartment every day i see people sleeping on the
streets every night and breaks my heart we don't have enough housing for them. it's a moral failure. the mayor's amendment does what you all say you want. it streamlines 100% affordable housing and if you oppose it, because it also streamlines other housing, that's playing politics with people's housing. please don't play politics with people's housing. please let the mayor's charter amendment go to a vote of the people. thank you. >> my name is gabe. i've heard stories from teachers that are just heart wrenching, i'm sure they are to you as well. i'm in support of the mayor's charter amendment. great if we lived in a world we didn't have to -- we could put rents at a place teachers could afford them and housing prices to a place teachers could afford
to buy in san francisco. that's not realistic and i think that if you want to help the teachers and people of all walks of life to afford to live here, you have to be realistic how to accomplish that, you can't do it by stricting or protecting the institutional blo kadz to prevent housing from being something affordable. he's that the mayor is trying to address. a pretty courageous stand and said we are not going to do it the easy way by just bashing developers and talking about greed, but the hard way about taking on the institutional blockages contained in the charter right now. i understand this is not politically the easiest thing to do, but i think it's the right thing to do. we need to help these people and one of the ways we do that is by addressing the systemic problems, not a little piecemeal work here and there, frankly how we characterize the supervisor's proposal. but rather to make the hard
choices and that includes market rate housing. now, the mayor has done her part, i think the voters will back her, and what's in the middle right now is you guys. so, please vote to put her charter amendment on the ballot and let the voters decide. thank you. >> hi, jennifer fever with the san francisco tenants union, 8,000 members strong. i'm here to support the board's measure for affordable housing on public lands. we are very much opposed to the charter amendment, everybody is opposed to the charter amendment. i want to commend you all for working with the community stakeholders on this, and rather than just dreaming up tools for developers behind closed doors. we work very closely uasf and 2121 during elections so i thought it was very important to show up and support their ideas today. i have appreciated their
sensitivity and always considerable vulnerable tenants and essential workers of the city, whether they are school teachers or not. and so they always work to come up with the best possible plans. so, thank you for all your work on this ballot measure. another thing i noticed, i thought the mayor's office of housing and staff was supposed to be neutral like the planning staff. so my mind was blown today by the very bias presentation and that's not how i want my taxpayer dollars to be spent. >> hi, laura foote, mb action. two quick technical points. the first one is about the two competing ordinances. both of them rezone, and the worst outcome would be for neither to reach the ballot. if neither reaches the ballot, if we pursue a legislative way
of doing this, a city-wide e.i.r., set back literally years, thousands and thousands of city dollars would have to go into this city-wide e.i.r. and just like you are seeing with the navigation center, subject to a lawsuit. we are making it more high risk to do upzoning. so, while i have a slight preference for the mayor's upzoning, please make sure that either, both, or one of them makes it to the ballot. we need to do this at the ballot in order to make sure the e.i.r. is not subject to all the nonsense. and broadening affordability, more projects as federal and local funding is limited, growing it, more complicated projects that use a variety of income types. and the mayor's proposal allows for more of those cross subsidies so we can spend less.
i was middle income when i lived on my friend's couch for months. and i was middle income when i lived in a bug-bite in fested warehouse apartment that had sort of been converted into something habitable. middle income people need housing. when i was facing being a single income person in san francisco who was middle income, where was i supposed to live? i run a non-profit. we have so much tech money, i make $75,000 a year. it sucks. thanks. >> hi. my name is julian pressman, i have been in non-profit my whole life. and i wanted to voice my support for the charter amendment. in particular, i want to speak to the question of who we would be leaving behind. we don't get this amendment from
the ballot. one is, so i live in district 6, i volunteer in the tenderloin working with the very poor and very sick people of the city who live in undignified and inhumane life because they cannot afford rent or barely squeeze by, they don't have enough for food and medicine on top of that. we need to move much much much faster when it comes to building. we have been way too slow. we have not moved the homeless population in the city has swelled. by 14% in the last two years. and i appreciate the assurances could approve one by one, but the people suffering outside this building can't wait for all of that process and we have to move more swiftly. second, leaving behind middle income, non-profit workers. again, been in the sector my whole life again and again, entry level employees who come in, try to live here, can't live here, work for two hours and work the grueling and intense job and commute two hours back
and leave the sector and decide i'm going to go work at a bank because i can't do this. and our sector in the services that your communities and our most vulnerable in san francisco really depend on are not able to get fully staffed because we can't, these people can't live here. so, really encourage you to put this on the ballot and thank you so much. >> hi. my name is jessica hernandez, i am a teacher at paul revere. we are one of the lowest 5% performing schools and all though a lot of contributing factors to that, having a really vital school community is one of the biggest problems that affects all of our schools. and i would like for all of our staff to, that are passionate, our staff is passionate. they love our kids, to stay together and build something there. and so i appreciate the board,
sorry, the, sorry -- afford and homes for educators and families initiative now. i would like to let you know that in the last five years i've been teaching i've tried everything. living in san jose, commuting 1 to 2 hours, living in the east bay, living in liver rooms, considered living in my car. until i was one week from being due, i lived in hayward, and commuting on bart and that was hard. it's like people know that when you are pregnant you want to start taking time off and taking care of yourself. you can't do that if you know you are not going to be able to afford rent next month. and taking time off for my child, i can't because we have rents to pay, our rent is as much as our daycare, so we are paying what some people are paying for a full house right now, and it's both of us are
teachers, so -- again thank for your support and i would like you to support the affordable homes for educators and families initiative. thank you. >> my name is harry mudd, born and raised in san francisco, 45 years, fillmore district. homeless all my life, could not read and write. i think that this needs to pass, a lot of homeless people on the street, women and ladies standing in cars and sleeping in parks and on busses and sleeping in hotels, and late on rent one time and kicked out with a newborn baby. city is claiming they need money and funding but if you have
7,000 people that are homeless in one city and you get everybody together and put the money together, you wouldn't need the city's money, just -- someone to trust, san francisco, stockton, where there is land and i think a lot of these companies might, a lot of the schools and target and stuff that have people working for them, that dedicated that comes to work every day, and sleep in their cars with their kids and children, i think a lot of the schools and companies should start building housing for them, you know, so therefore you can help the people working for you and not turn your back on them. peace to my son, kareem malcom shakur. >> i'm here to support the mayor's charter amendment and ordinance. i want to say i'm thrilled that
there are two ordinances that countenance, upzoning the rest of the city, 80% of the city's subsidized housing in the last ten years has been built in two supervisor districts, which means nine supervisor districts split the other 20% and that's wrong. it's economic segregation, it is wrong. so i cannot tell you how thrilled and proud i am that this body is competing to move forward with something that will facilitate integrating all the rest of the neighborhoods. and echo what laura said, keep your eyes on the prize. if we mess this up and can't get this before the voters, something a real goal for everybody here will be lost. i have noticed that supervisor peskin will characterize the fighting as fighting between the board and the mayor and i think the public is going to