gained because of a tier 1 tier 2 difference. i did some quick math. if you took that $6 and divided it through by the 1700 some odd units that would be produced under the plan, that's about $3500 per unit. so, if you were in fact -- and i think what you've heard is to just simply allow that impact fee to go up from tier 1 to tier 2, recouping that $6 million, it's about $3500 per additional market rate unit that would be incurred. ~ 3500 bucks whether that's substantial we can discuss. i want to mention market octavia had a similar situation but inverted. 9 market octavia plan had see zero mechanisms and fees when it was introduced. [speaker not understood]. in fact, we added an affordable housing fee. so, in a similar way, supervisors, we're doing the opposite, but rather than pulling from one for the other, we simply added. i would suggest you do that here. thank you. >> thank you, mr. cohen.

good afternoon, supervisors. my name is [speaker not understood]. i work also as a community organizer with tenderloin neighborhood development corporation. and we have couple of family housing and studios and folks who are mostly families and people living in western soma. and i wanted to say i believe western soma community plan is such a beautiful example of how seven years of community planning, sometimes these things are really technical and it's a lot of times done very top, top to bottom approach. but this was really a grassroots effort and i really want to commend the people who stuck through it for so long and i want to say that as supervisors you guys want to respect the community process. and second is as an organization who is a member of the community, town council has [speaker not understood]. we support the idea that tier 1 mentioned, housing and

transportation should not be pitted against each other and there is a way that we can work together to bring comprehensive transit funding. the way prop c was, in the political world, folk to support affordable housing, i believe there is support, public transit which is used by folk who are living in affordable housing. if they're not going to be able to live here, who is going to ride the buses, right? so, i feel like there is a way we can work together to advance both goals and not have to pit against each other. thank you. >> thank you, ms. lee. thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. mark solomon. no one last week remembered to thank chris daly and it was supervisor daly whos was told 8 years ago it was not practicable to take western soma out of eastern neighborhoods. he was told [speaker not understood]. chris daly leveraged his power to tell the boards what was

practicable and that plan is here. now the planning department comes before us and says it is not practicable [speaker not understood]. the train pour thaition plan, pte capital plan, pts, [speaker not understood] and air why impact fees are not sufficient to support wear ask tear on our existing system. they can't talk about accounting for up zone growth. what we're seeing here is that we're being asked to cover the costs of development. i think the need for affordable housing has been explained great by folks before me. we're told it is never practicable to make housing whole. i think it is not practicable for your constituents to endure homelessness, endangerment, [speaker not understood] or unreliable slow and dirty transi. chris daly did something about that. he put himself on the line and said i'm not going to put my future first. i'm for my constituents here. what are you all going to do to put us first? we need solidarity here both from you all and from folks behind me to say that you can't

pit transportation and housing against one another. we as constituents, as residents here, we need both of them. we need a lot of them. and we need to just be sure that this city finds a way to balance new and title discretionary development with its responsibility to fully finance the needs that a city requires, or else all we're doing is giving money to developers and that's it. thank you. >> thank you, mr. solomon. (applause) >> seeing our last speaker, is there any other speaker that would like to speak? i did call a number of names that i haven't seen yet, but even if you have not submitted a speaker card, please do line up. mr. allen. good afternoon, [speaker not understood]. speaking on behalf of the [speaker not understood] representing the other 9:00 to 5:00 economy. in listening to this conversation, there are many things i want to say and i will be very quick. first, a thank you to supervisor kim for bringing together the stakeholders that represent the 11th street economy and helping forge a compromise that works for all.

i want to address the issue of this, what has been described as pitting one faction against another. if anything, night life has been seen as being pitted against neighborhoods and neighborhoods have been pitted against night life. however, when the two sit down together, typically what happens is a compromise that works for both. we had not displaced our night life. we've molded our night life. and we've amended and changed the process to control our night life and to manage our night life so that it is respectful of the environment that's growing in the residential community. i would think that that same logical approach could be applied to this impact fee discussion. i find it very hard to believe with the costs of housing on the market today that we can't find a way to increase an impact fee to replace and makeup for a transportation fee

so that we can have both. if you think about a worker in a night life establishment, they both have to have affordable housing and they have to have transportation or they won't be able to work. and we're talking now about 50,000 people in our work force in san francisco. so, it's a major impact to balance these and to bring them forward together. so, supervisors, thank you, and again, special thanks to supervisor kim for your extraordinary outreach and once again bringing people together. thank you. >> thank you, mr. allen. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is bernadette [speaker not understood], executive director of the philippine american foundation and [speaker not understood] which is located in the heart of soma [speaker not understood]. the mission of our organization is to provide advocacy and support to the filipino community in the bay in and around the south of market neighborhood. our organization works on

providing after school programs, betsy car michael school supporting the amenities in the neighborhood. we are happy that the western soma plan actually included the filipino -- the existence of the filipino social heritage district, which is part of the plan. ~ it's not going up for a vote, but i wanted to make a comment that our families that are part of the social heritage district are impacted by affordable housing. we as an organization look at different strategies for providing affordable housing to the residents of the neighborhood. i'm also part of the south of market stabilization plan cac and we'll be there to really make sure that more -- more investments are made towards affordable housing and [speaker not understood] obviously i'm here to support more affordable housing dollars to go towards supporting our commutes in san

francisco, not just the fill -- filipinos, but the others that captain afford it in the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you, ms. [speaker not understood]. madam chair, mr. president, scott. my name is [speaker not understood], north of market activist central city activist. what do you do in politics? you run something up the flag and see who salutes, right? i don't see any transportation activists here. i don't see a single one. the western soma plan [speaker not understood] blood sweat and tears to put together a great process. it's a huge list of considerations and compromises, very complicated. if you're going to change it, it's only fair and it only makes sense that you take the same amount of process to put into that. don't torpedo it. i was at the -- i was at the prop c victory party on election evening and it was a

weird mind culture on one hand, you have activists like fernando marty, james tracy and calvin welch on the other. [speaker not understood]. prop c lowers inclusionary housing, take resources away from the lowest income people and puts them towards the better off group of people. transfers resources particularly to the police department and the fire department which are already abundantly endowed. if the purpose is to extend a general subsidy to the middle class, then it's woefully underfunded. the only way it can be administered is with favoritism or, you know, the other word for favoritism is. it preserves a pattern of contra culture [speaker not understood] relationship between landlords and tenants, between banks and homeowners. there is nothing to do impact long term impact cost containment of housing so we're going to drill another nail into that. [speaker not understood] the last mayor's election [speaker not understood] brought more than a third of the vote and

it's true we don't control the agenda, but ask governor gavin newsom we can sure as hell block. >> thank you. are there any other members that would like to speak at public comment? mr. pitts? hi. for me i think part of the issue is we definitely need both. we need good transportation and we need, we need housing. my thing is if you leave the bay area, getting from one spot to another spot, it's -- without a car, it becomes excessively hard. it's like you have to walk or bicycle or drive everywhere. so, those things are important. but then the other thing, too, is i would like for you to think about san francisco and consider san francisco and its housing needs, is it like a bucket or like a tube? if you build enough housing you

won't need enough housing or is it just people continuously come and go. so, that's one scenario. but the other thing, too, is what i'm going to throw in there is just think about the other part. well, one, i'm going to say at the rate of the prices keep going up, you're going to have to start to import your labor from all of the other cities. you can already see it on your committees. you know, like some of these committees have one-third of their members coming from somewhere else. so, that, and then also just consider your homeless population. and then the families doubled up in these s-r-os and stuff, those are considered homeless as well. so, it's like 10 hours to get into a shelter. sick months to get into a family shelter, getting into housing can be two years. and then on top of that, you also have your whole -- the housing authority nightmare where you don't know if you're

ever going to get into that type of housing. so, i believe in both, but i'm also thinking you've got a lot of empty vacant houses in san francisco and you should consider that as well. and in my mind i'm thinking of some type of, like, squatter law where people could actually live in a place as long as it's 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 low-income. it's been a disaster. so, we're building toxic buildings. we can't go in.

and there's some problems of housing not being able to use the first floor for somebody to be able to go in with a wheelchair. that's most of the shorter buildings have no elevator. so, we've 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 don't 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 it's 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 today's 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 low-income residents apply for low-income 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 we're 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 doesn't 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 i'm proposing today is to keep, actually, a portion of supervisor wiener's original amendment which is the cross-out 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, it's 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 you're 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, i'm not sure -- >> thank you for that clarification. >> i wasn't 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, i'm 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 i'm 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 we're 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 we're 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 28-1/2 million. and that fees for everything else be cut by 2-1/2 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 i'm happy to support supervisor kim's 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 it's important to look at facts and data. it's 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. that's how we're 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. i'll 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 it's true of every member of this committee and beyond in the board there is a strong commitment to affordable housing. that's 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 isn't 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 can't 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 we're 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 we've 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 pre-reduction 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 low-income and working class people. if you have money, you're going to find a way to get around, whether you're driving your own car, whether you're taking uber, whether you're 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 can't afford to be late to work. and we know about people struggling to get to school, struggling to get to their doctor's appointments. transportation is a big challenge to a lot of people in this city, and particularly to low-income and working class

people. i also know, and i know that this is a huge priority for supervisor kim and i'm very supportive of her efforts in this area, that transit is not just about muni. it's 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 attorney's 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 we're 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? >> um-hm. >> 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 mayor's 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