as a consensus package, there are things that we talked about and we will talk about the hollywood create something that would bring back the redevelopment money we have lost, $50 million a year. we would create incentives for builders and we would bring new revenue. and there are things that will not be on the table. a condo conversions are not going to be part. it comes together in what is a very important package. supervisor campos raise questions on if this is large enough and it is not. in the findings of the legislation, you will hear that there are 45,000 projects in the pipeline. 9000 of the projects are affordable housing. if the rest of those are market rate housing, had our incentives

work, there will be 3000 or 4000 units of moderate income housing that comes out of that. he is nowhere close to creating the below market rates that we needed that you will hear peter and calvin and i coming back. we need 60% of what gets built as affordable housing. this is huge. we need this $1 billion for housing. >> first of all, i want to thank you and the general for spending an infinite number of hours and days and weeks and portions of your life helping to negotiate this proposal. as i noted at the beginning,

this was one of those collaborative processes that results in approval. it was a compromise, would you agree with that? >> absolutely. th>> even though it is not befoe us today, in terms of the discussion earlier and the companion legislation, that is part of the package. >> that's right. there is a term sheet that we came to agreement on. >> it shows a support. another aspect of the term sheet requires a to supervisors to reject a proposal.

>> you're talking about the future -- >> significant increase in residential development potential. >> that is the agreement that was protected. >> the questions raised before you are how to strengthen this and how to make this better. the agreement that we came to is what you have before you. >> it is ultimately up to the board of supervisors of what goes on the ballot, and wanted to clarify the support of the term sheet. >> if i ask, are they and the change of the majority? >> what we came in with his an

agreement that we, of facilitating the process, and arrived at. it is of you will as legislators that there is an understanding, a package that came in that we discussed. >> peter cohen. i wanted to step back. we had an affordable housing crisis in this city for a long time. what redevelopment did is exacerbate the problem and make the urgency of this solution more imminent. i wanted to point to the lao which demonstrated that as much as we have done for affordable housing, we have had a real trouble keeping up with the housing and development needs.

we had just under 50% of the low-income housing needs in the last cycle. one of the recommendations was for a local permanent source. our timing here is excellent. this is a long-term need, and the certainty of our funding work is critical. we are in support of the overall package, the corps is the affordable housing, the core and lion's share of needs. the homeownership program is important, as well as the housing stabilization program. it will address some of the issues in the southeast. and the stimulus is something

that makes sense. how much are we not getting by doing this. the end result is that it should produce on the ground units. there are things in here that should test our comfort level. this has been six months of a very difficult conversation. i cannot elaborate if you like, but it has been a tough time, but here we are. >> i have called of the speaker cards, so light up if you would like to speak. >> among my volunteer activities, i am on the board for the community housing partnership that advocates for measures like this. i wanted to respond that the devil is in the details. when you look at this, it looks like there may be some problems

that were ahead have an inclusion their requirement, the yearly allocation is not that large. but still, we need this. it doesn't mean the whole meeting, but we need this. i applaud the mayor's office for doing this. i hope you won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. that if it is not perfect, you won't stop it. i hope you will consider it and look at it on the ballot. >> good afternoon again. we were part of the working group. we met for the first time on january of 11, and we have been meeting for quite awhile. we came to agreement on the term sheet that we all supported.

there is the housing and a stabilization program. i am not sure what the amendments are or how significant they are. i hope it doesn't break up the group and it is something we can support. it does provide permanent funding for affordable housing. and it did have a stimulus to get projects to move forward. what i intended to ask is to support the original proposal, the term sheet agreed to by many different groups. i rise builders, committee rise, small builders, a nonprofit housing developers. again, i would ask you to report a proposal to the board. thanks.

>> any other public comment on this item? >> midafternoon, supervisors. -- good afternoon, supervisors. in terms of rent control, i would never be able to stay here. this is a very important factor for me as a senior and a disabled woman that we take care of some people that need them most. affordable housing is very important to me. i represent several organizations, i am a very advocate volunteer. mental health association, a senior action network. i appreciate you getting this on the ballot. hav a nice -- have a nice day. >> public comment is now closed.

i want to thank everyone that came today. they waited a tremendous amount of time, i appreciate your patience. we have several motions and i want to take the technical amendments first. is there any comment on this motion? >> these are the amendments in the certified document? >> without objection, they passed without objection. the next motion we have a before us is supervisedfarrel - -suepr -- supervisor farrell's motion. i did have a question. i am not sure if this is to the mayor's office or the mayor's office on housing. do we have a range of the first responders? the second is, do we have any thoughts around a limit of that

for first responders? we want to encourage our first responders to be in the city. we want the police officers and firefighters to live here. i just want to get a sense that it does take into account family. isn't under 150%? i want to make sure that we are giving out these loans to the first responders that needed. >> we don't have a specific income limit. this is something that we were going to do end our manual, we would have to amend the down payment assist in the future. we wanted to leave if they so

that we could work on the question of what the levels would be and what the definition of first responders would be. at this point, we don't have a sense of what the appropriate cap would be in terms of basically encouraging this large group of individuals to relocate or stay in the city as opposed to moving outside of the city's. -- of the city. >> there is a definition of the first responder in the amendment, that is not something that i think you have to define. i am not sure how you would hope that that in your guidelines. >> we have a loan program manual. we would make the adjustments in that program based upon review of what the extent of

the salaries might be for the first responders. the question is looking at making sure what we do for the first responders actually works. >> even at 150%, you have an affordability gap at 112,000. i would like to set something. >> if we adopt the amendment as written today, in the interim, we could ask supervisor farrell what he thinks. if on monday the committee and an ami could cap -- committee could include an ami cap for

first responders, the question to the city attorney. if we adopt the amendment saying that the program would apply to all first responders, and continued to monday as it requires us to do. and on monday, clarify that the first responders up to x percentage of ami, would that require a further continuance? >> it would. any amendment or any change to a charter amendment requires public comment no matter how insignificant it is. looking at the calendar, i think you still have some options. if this is going to be a late measure, it can be submitted until the 31st. or the 24th, there are

options as well. >> perhaps we can put this amendment off. supervisor kim: supervisor campos. to provide campos -- supervisor campos: i propose we bring it back to the board at a future date. >> the question is the charter amendment , if it allows flexibility to do that. it is not apparent that it does but i might not be reading it correctly. supervisor campos: i am wondering if we can have language that says subject to any income restrictions, first responders should mean -- it allows the board of supervisors to make changes. if we decide not to make those changes, so be it.

>> or subject to the mayor's office of housing. supervisor kim: i will allow some discussion to happen amongst staff. again, i want to make sure that we are benefiting the first responders that have needs and have a gap in terms of their ability to buy a home. i am happy to do that above the average family of san francisco given how important it is to have those types of workers here in the city. i want to recognize that sometimes you are a first responder, but you have other types of income. i want to benefit those that have some sort of gasp. why don't we move on to the next motion to amend? supervisor campos had made a motion on threshhold? supervisor campos: to lower

the threshold from 2/3 to a simple majority with respect to one of the suggestions to the cap on fees for area planning. supervisor kim: we do have that motion. i am actually going to be supporting that amendment. i read that last night, it was something that really struck me. i can't think of land use decisions where we require a high threshold. i think that i would like to retain a simple majority. essentially, that is going through a housing review authority. seeing that the members are not elected legislators and they are members of our branch. supervisor wiener: i don't support the amendment and i want

to explain why. there are other situations where, under the charter, the mayor has the authority to do something and the board with eight votes has the power to reject. i don't think this will be unprecedented. i want to go back to the negotiations and the dialogue to give rise to consensus term sheet charter amendment that was a very open and transparent process. as i know, the board has the ultimate say. they are not handcuffed to the term sheet, but this particular provision resulted from a negotiation. th i will explai what happened and how we got here. -- i will explain what happened and how we got here. this was give-and-take to make sure that we have something that has broad support in the ballot.

initially, the definition of a significant increase in residential development potential of was to be defined in the charter. it was proven to be too cumbersome. it would have given the board 0 discretion to changes in the charter. and so, the compromise, because of the inability to reach consensus on language is to allow the committee to do it and it will be difficult for the board to reject that. it will be a 2/3 majority. reducing it to 6 votes is inconsistent with the spirit and the terms of this complicated and protracted negotiation. i will not be supporting this. supervisor campos: if i may. i appreciate the comments by supervisor wiener. i understand what happens in the

negotiations, a lot of give and take. we have to put this provision in context. we are talking about going forward and capping fees for 30 years. capping what city officials can do in the next three decades, and it is a pretty significant change, a pretty significant thing to do. it is part of the legislative process that as a general rule, a simple majority governs what happens. i don't think that making it a simple majority changes the fact that it still has to be a process in place. i think it is pretty significant for us to limit what happens in the next 30 years, for that reason. having a more democratic approach follows a simple majority and makes sense. supervisor wiener: on to the

city attorney, based on the amendment, the process would be the committee proposing the ordinance. if the board with the six supervisors or more reject it, it would go back to the committee to propose something else, is that correct? >> tom owen, a city attorney's office. the way the amendment is drafted is that the housing review committee, at the executive officers, would submit a proposal. the board would have the option of rejecting it through a majority vote or 2/3 vote. if it did so, the proposal will go back to the housing review committee and will have to keep coming back with something until the board of supervisors except if -- accepted it. supervisor wiener: thank you. supervisor kim: roll call on this motion.

supervisor wiener: no. supervisor kicampbell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. >> towo aye's, one no. supervisor kim:we hav we have a second motion from supervisor campos. supervisor campos: i still feel that as a matter of public policy, we need to make sure that whatever changes are made to our policy, that those changes are perspective. the second amendment, but eliminate the grandfathering of the project that would be previously entitled. >> i wanted to comment on this amendment. i had questions on the grandfathering in. i understand there were precedents, some of which were addressed by staff already. several members of the public spoke on how this was important

to the production of all housing. i think the reason why production of housing slow down the last couple of years was not because of fees imposed by the city, but because of the economy. recognizing that this came forward as a compromise because you want as many people under the tent as possible to pass revenue. recognizing that give-and-take in the process of the measure that we want to bring as many people to support in order to pass the november -- i will not be supporting this amendment but i wanted to acknowledge the concerns that supervisor campos has brought up among this limited set of projects. i don't believe the projects did not move forward because of the fees imposed, but because of the economic downturn. acknowledging that this is part of a compromise that is going to

allow us to bring forward a larger coalition. that motion is before us. if there is no further comment, we will take roll call. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor campbell: aye. supervisor kim: no. the motion fails. >> i detected - -tex -- texte d supervisor farrell h, he agreed to an ami limit. i propose in section d2 after it states "households included a first responder," insert subjects to area median income limits subject to the mayor's office of housing. supervisor kim: we have that

motion before us. an amendment to the motion. i will second that and i think there is no opposition to that. the motion will pass. we have now entertain the several motions to amend, which will trigger rules committee on this item for monday, july 16. are there any further comments from committee members? supervisor campos: i know that there are a couple of other issues that i am hoping we can get more information on as the matter comes back to the rules committee. for folks, the issue of local hiring is important. i hope that we have an opportunity to have a discussion about those issues.

supervisor kim: i had one more question on the infrastructure grant program, they brought of the need -- being that we were able to use infrastructure grants, i am curious if a grocery store would be considered something that would be eligible under this program under neighborhoods that are considered food deserts'. >> of the rules have yet to be created, but in terms of my personal opinion, i think that it would qualify. supervisor wiener: i did have to step out briefly, so if this happened already, i want to acknowledge the mayor's office of housing. mr. adams, mr. buckley that did enormous work. we will call them y-squared. they played a huge role and both

left. i know they continue to be involved. they're workaholics like us and they can't let their baby go. this has been a really collaborative effort. supervisor kim: ditto on supervisor wiener's comments. i'd not heard y-squared before. tremendous amount of work again. -- i appreciate the tremendous amount of work again. it will continue to make members of our board uncomfortable because there are things that we have fought for as ways to create more diverse housing in san francisco. i wanted to stress the importance of us passing a revenue measure that comes out of the board that really kind of fulfills a lot of people's concerns. if there is a give in terms of what we are doing for all

housing production, i want to ensure that there is additional permanent revenue streams coming to both affordable housing and the city in general. i look forward to that discussion tomorrow. there are pairs and partners that will be going forward tomorrow. that is key for members to go forward as we move these measures forward. thank you to our mayor's office. staff that are here. supervisor campos: i want to, again, thank the staff and members of the community and all of the folks on all sides of the political spectrum that worked on the issue of housing. i know that this is very important and i am not looking for a perfect measure. i don't think that any such thing will ever exist.

it is really about trying to find the right approach to right solutions. i really want to support this measure going forward and i hope that we can get to a point where i can do that. in the larger scheme of things, this is a modest measure and there are many things that are not going to be addressed, and i hope that you continue to work this effort. the thing about the legislative process at the board of supervisors is the fact that we go through if and ask these questions does not mean that we are not respectful of the negotiations that took place. it really is a give-and-take. i look forward to continuing this discussion. i hope the end result will be a much better product. supervisor kim: may i entertain a motion to continue to july 16? we can do that without opposition. are there any other items before us?