designed was 17 excuse me - $14.7 million without the proposed ordinance and now the developer thinks that 17 point one million dollars so we have looked like. >> 18 point one. >> sorry 18. >> oh. >> so the developers is making x million dollars more bans this project and enthusiastic about this project but we have a funding shortfall in the project itself in the opportunity to pay for that to dip into he 9 fund in terms of delores that wouldn't be otherwise used why are we allowing the project knowing there is a funding gap and knowing the developer based on this ordinance a making millions of dollars more compared to the status quo look in my district as well we have

land use projects if we're going to have alternative projects based on the community needs addresses desires great to turn around and say to developer authoritative that is all get millions of dollars off the project is difficult to stomach so to me as long as it is newly costs to the developer we should explore the options we shouldn't be doing that. >> i agree with the premise as and the goals i will say that we and the planning department myself and my department worked worked to put that december 9th together in answer to the planning commission questions but for your benefits of analyzing the project and see

what makes sense how the transition should move forward the developer had a response to this and the projected market-rate unit revenue we are users based on a third party table was overly aggressive they said you are assuming an inflation rate to the sales revenue that will be available in 2019 but unrealistic they made a good point we know that interest rates are rising and the market is adopting to this kind of housing, however, we do know on the other hand, tax reform and possible that high income will have - people will have more money to spend it is an unknown that was their counter point to what we assumed and other localities to the financial analysis the costs of

funds for example, we have an interest rate on the construction and the construction loan money they contact and said exact their money was more expensive than what we projected we don't have access to all the underwriting assumptions but this is, you know, certainly can be a very legitimate correction we landed we have estimated there was a benefit conferred on the developer of $2.4 million for this ordinance they said, in fact, they're doing worse and their preference will be doing the onsite inclusionary but because of the community requests they have moved with the acquisition of one 80 jones i hate to not have a good answer

but have to say we don't know what their surplus or shortfall will be in 2019 so know exactly where sales prices will in 2019 from mohcd perspective we had to honor the community with 68 units of affordable housing and so this is where the transaction landed. >> i understand that i guess from our point of view now this is my first land use committee meeting but when the we had our budget analyst provide us with the data at the board of supervisors as a city so you know third party's whether the developers or others will dispute it we're here to rely on the data from the city departments this from our planning department so it is difficult to say that

that is a great idea we are doing going forward with the data that the city provided. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you chair farrell is there somebody here who can tell us how you came up with the t dr in the amount of one and $75,000 that's how many units of t dr. >> planning department staff that. >> that was based on the market-rate of t dr and the developer will pay the difference up to 9 bus there is an amount that is over $26,000 plus approximately that because the original project would have had that for it and exempted for

the bmr we calculated out how much that amount is based on the master for t dr. >> what and how many t dr. >> i believe we used calculation of about $25 per gross square feet and what zoning district are we in. >> c-3 g and how many t dr in the c-2 g. >> i'll have to get back with you. >> i thought the going rate was 35 bucks not 25 bucks. >> i'll have to get back with you. >> the documents indicate to the non-portable water cost credit that was based on the written estimate provided to the the project sponsor have you verified that. >> the planning department has

not. >> yeah. >> emery rogers. >> no the department of health are involved in the ordinance they're not developers and have no familiarity with the costs they can confirm the estimates. >> we've not gotten the third party consultant i consulted to look at that. >> no, sir that's the developments agreement the city has not had time we were rushing to bring to the planning commission. >> thank you. >> so can i ask you a follow-up to supervisor peskin question have we dispute this with our financial analysis have you seen the developers analysis as the city. >> no, i haven't seen this i've seen a summary they've response they're our summary and

the third party analysis which we relied on but then the developers said well, you relied on the most aggressive assumption san francisco analyst came up with we used what we had. >> okay supervisor kim. >> yeah. i the president to talk about certain components of the deal that with the land use committee we have those in the mid market this was the shoring seen on the parking lot you're aware of that faces golden gate and a frontage on market street and it was also on offsite land acquisition deal the former possessive and shorenstein committed to the majority of financing to fund 100 percent affordable housing

that site would actually be entitled to the market-rate housing but shorenstein purchased it from the prior you own and shorenstein san francisco would ever 100 percent we wanted to be consist or consistent and below-market-rate housing acknowledging that most tenderloin folks don't meet the income bracket with the bmr units will go to norman i prefer onsite but recognition those projects were in the neighborhood the ami is far lower than what the city requires for bmr unit to we divided this but have been consistent in the deals a third

o mment /* - so a history to how this offsite would arc and wouldn't have been possible without the the mayor's office of housing to work with us and their ability to include this in the project pipeline but i the president to give the developer an opportunity to speak to the the planning and the request for the green water exemption their project began early in 2014 and had taken you know over 3 years to come to an approval process due to the complexity and the and the size that's why we honored their requests but recaptured that value in the affordable housing gift to the city so i'm not sure it is the

gentleman would like to respond to some of the concerns chair farrell has brought forward >> thank you supervisor farrell a couple of things i do want to calling your attention to the december 15th letter to the clerk the board and to the response of december 8th memo and that does include our projections for the purchases and interest rates and construction costs going into 2019 i mean the bottom line here is that. >> i don't have that front of the me so i'll take our word that is there. >> i have a copy. >> great. >> you - the bottom line is that we started proposing 31 offsite unit with the affordable housing ordinance we when supervisor kim community came to us and said we'll put

that on as an alternative as a point when an alternative gets two costly that's where the balancing act is we think we're there and in fact, the balance includes the $2.7 million gift from the developer to the city. >> i get it as i'm sitting here in the land use committee the only document i should be relying on from our department the developer yourself is making million dollars dollars more and by the way, an identified funding gap that is getting worse so that's a challenge to sit here and say yes. that is a great project to move forward but some way to verify the urban design guidelines numbers and get everyone on board it is a

different scenario i get it, i can't rely on that. >> one other response to supervisor peskin request about the t dr an incredible wash if you don't onsite affordable housing you create the far with the affordable units so we have 23 square feet of inclusionary unit and not buy the t dr so you'll not have to buy t dr so no matter what the value of t dr is whether we got them free from inclusionary or whatever. >> what about the portable water number. >> non-portable i should say. >> part of the calculation as what it takes to make that worthwhile with the community

testifies an extremely expense not in our portfolio but a negative declaration that was withdrawn when the city decided not to pursue the mid market so there was a subsequent negative declaration that was issued in july and prior to that the staff didn't like the design and debate it to the commission for three or four months and the commission approved the design there was a year of delay with the developer when was decisions of the city so partly trying to get to a point that offsite deal. >> okay again, i wish i could is there is the first time i heard there was delays with the developer in

terms of the policy. >> either through planning or the mayor's office of housing or supervisor kim i appreciate the comments around the onsite versus the offsite and outlet projects that have moved either is my fault for not looking at closer but we're amending ordinances and budget shortfalls and to the analysis we have in front of us that amended ordinance grant a windfall with the developer that will cover the costs if there was a windfall of building new affordable housing so this is a conundrum i have in terms of the analysis i will take a look at your letter supervisor kim are you on open mike still.

>> all right. colleagues no other questions or comments from staff supervisor kim are you - >> actually, i have amendments ready to read but can read that after public comment based on our preference chair farrell. >> why not read them now. >> great we have a series of amendments to make to the ordinance that will one delete the offsite options, two changes to the affordable housing commitment if 18.8 to $18.1 million and create a district t lgbt stabilization fund at $18 million and for the prevention we're making an amendment that the conveyance of one 80 jones to the mayor's office of housing and community development is for a total of $10 and changes the number for

the commitment of $18.1 million we also want to - we have an amendment to reserves 13 percent at the one to 40 percent of area medium income and current residence of sro tenants to after the amendments ready for community members but the amendments largely state the numbers i've stated on the record. >> thank you supervisor tang. >> i think there was a couple of other amendments recommend by the planning department staff has to do with with the timeline with the delivery on ton 80 jones and the second one was the i'm level

commission planning was incorporated already or. >> through the chair emery rogers supervisor kim has made those they're concerned about the ami should the developer be building an ought and the city will be. >> at the lastly supervisor kim thank you for tightening up the lunge to make sure the contains didn't go through the pie there is a linkage back. >> ms. rogers given the discrepancies and their exterminates we're using as our estimates for the total water systems and why is - we pushing this forward without the analysis and everybody on the

same page here it feels to me rushed. >> it is certain the decision when is it fair to say before the planning department they appreciated the information on one 80 jones and understood the mohcd to come up with the funding but that same question is before you plus ailed information and also additional physique uncertainly it is in our hands commissioners. >> okay. thanks. >> move on to public comment please feel free to line up against the far wall we'll get going. >> i'm here representing the coalition that is made up of

transgender serving organization in the t l and a resident of the tenderloin we support this project and the legislation that will not only allow for the creation of units of affordable housing but creates the first transgender district in the world san francisco but in particular, the tenderloin has been a safe haven for transgender of people of color and lgbt people that are often overlooked and abused by people of the community we want to thank everyone that is involved in the building and out in the city that as has been working on the project and make that a historic integrity a reality we look forward to working with everyone in the this room to make that thriving historic and save neighborhood for the transgender community thank you. >> thank you very much

>> next speaker, please. >> ken stall with the central collaborative and helped to negotiate in communities benefit the first one for the record there was another member of the market collision that supervisor kim forgot was tndc was part of the group tenderloin neighborhood development corporation want to make sure that is on the record and part of market coalition we worked over a year and a half to make sure we got the affordable units out of that major project that effects the neighborhood hopefully for the better and we wanted to thank joel for really working with the community to make sure that we had a good benefit agreement to that make sure those unite are affordable for the residents off tenderloin

which are not abraham lincoln able to food a higher price in the city hopefully, this will go forward and the unit will make sure they'll make people's lives a lot better thank you very much. >> good afternoon committee members thank you. i'm with the central city sro collaborative before you the result of many years of negotiating process one the most communities informed community benefits agreement processes that any of the united states are our of in negotiation a compromise 3 of those stressed to weigh many values of different parts of the community we're celebrating the fact we've arrived to benefit many parts of the community and formally homeless and lgbt as well and the developers are iron to a lot

of our needs more importantly those needs more affordable housing generally tenderloin housing clinic where i work is open to supporting projects simply with their affordable housing that follows the city law but the tenderloin is a low income neighborhood in the community we felt it necessary to allow for much more deeply affordable housing in the tenderloin and so rather than having 80 percent ami we'll have twice as many unit constructed as much deeper affordable we feel there is concern the gray water exemption but necessary unlike to figure out a compromise that allows for affordable housing that was meaningful and this gray water exemption is a useful compromise that will allow affordable housing to be built and we feel the overall benefit worthwhile we reviewed the data

for months and i feel comfortable that is a major commitment and didn't feel consistent we're not here to support this so, please help us wrap up this processed and get going and shovels in the ground to build the 60 plus united in the tenderloin it is much needed thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> any other is there any public comment. >> david member the central city and part of negotiated in process for the last two years i remember a member of the market street coalition this development on 950 market and jones this is the first i've advocated for norm i'm against this this is 5 hundred unit

coming up on market street half a hotels and half condos in the tenderloin and i would have seen it as an affront to the tenderloin but when i looked at look out would the developer have finally delivered in terms of step up housing with a workforce development and magic theatre an opportunity for children to learn the theatre skills and the t lgbt $300,000 benefit when i look at the collection of the benefits i believe they justify the project i'm here to advocate so for and hope you'll pass is this supervisor jane kim's amendment unanimously i understand there is uncertainty about the value of gray water exemption we've struthd with that and it is true we don't actually know how much

profit the developer will make i don't think anyone can but given i hope you don't let the uncertainties keep you from voting i want to thank supervisor jane kim and wouldn't have been possible without the her and thank you for your time and attention. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> laura clark formally grow san francisco but now action you know i'm coming out to support this project but i think there are a lot of problems with that the developer has maxed out their contribution to certain politicians jane kim putting forward this - i appreciate that supervisor aaron peskin that trying to get the developers out of politics and trying to say that developers shouldn't be donating to the

campaigns we need a take the politics out of development and not case by case decisions a lot of people spoke about the multiple years that took to hammer out this negotiation that is 7, 8, 9 wasted that is time lost we're in a housing crisis the rules needs to be the rules if you follow the rules we get your permit awhile i think this housing desperately needs to be built and don't have time to draft this and renegotiate we need to make that process faster and fairer and not have cast a shadow on projects like this they have to make dpoopgsz to get the projects introduce the process if we have a fair and equitable system housing that is so desperately needed get built we need to follow our own rules

thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm sonya i support this project and look forward to it pga i'm here i did one of the original versions don't see why we didn't do that more profit and surplus to argue about and more community benefit with really no down side no down side to having increased height but nevertheless, here we are i support the project thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on items four or five. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor peskin. >> mc i'd like to move the amendments to 4 and 5 as presented by the sponsor supervisor kim. >> so a motion on the amendment and happy to support

that by supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor tang without objection so again, i'm excited about this project as well i have outlying problems with that to be blunt certainly i think we should be relying on the city's projections and come up with a convenience what was right right now i'll nobody the supporting this in its current form we're pga an ordinance according to the city's benefits giving multi million dollars benefits to the developer and with the shortfall to build the affordable housing that we need i'll be in favor of a continuance to support the numbers and colleagues up to our discretion for further comments. >> supervisor peskin.

>> thank you chair farrell first of all, let me express exemption to one the commenter relative to the comments made that are unfair now that i've gotten that off any chest i'll concur with chair farrell i think that is some unexplained issues relative to the gap and relative to how certain numbers particularly the non- portable water not been independently verified and arrived at i will respectfully join with supervisor farrell in having a short continuance and may be the parties can help us recess if not eliminate the gap and clearing in hearing testimony from the mayor's office of housing and planning there is a dynamic attention that needs to be resolved by what was said and not said so with that, i would

be supportive of i don't know two weeks a reasonable amount of time to get to the table. >> i'll put it back to the planning department and the mayor's office if you continue this to the - i'll defer if there is an opinion from the staff when the timing here and don't want to delay the affordable housing any more than it needs. >> chair farrell. >> i'd like to point out two weeks from now is a holiday. >> one week be enough. >> well, we'll have to sit down with the developer and review our numbers like i said, we received a summary that you have now of december 15th that was sent to the board but you know we had questions about that so we have to have

the opportunity to sit down with them and really kind of dig in and also in terms of pricing the non- portable water i can check with my colleagues to see if we have come a long ways but evidence of the pricing they've assumed that would help so - >> so only action more specifically. >> is one week enough if not three weeks i'm fine i want to do expeditiously but we're investigating questions the analysis was not done and needs to be done to go forward. >> one week we'll have to just - i'm not sure. >> because we're relying on the developer to provide their. >> i'd like tell you what i'll suggest that for one week and if

next monday it is not done we do it again. >> commissioner tang i understand a lot of time has gone into this i appreciate supervisor kim's office paerngsz to what the community needs and that delivers that i think in our financial hawk situation here i would support a continuance just because it is not the details behind the agreement are not transparent with the accountable agreement through the oewd so i want to explore to you to address the funding gap. >> to that end going forward search warrant the land use i'll ask the planning staff to have an agreement but situations like this unfortunate but working

with the staff i want to put us in at position to succeed and build it housing as quickly as possible and again my main concern ask the funding gallop how we'll get this knocked out on jones with that, do i have a motion to continue this for one week. >> can i make a comment. >> certainly and supervisor kim thank you obviously i think this is the last detail supervisor kim. >> i won wanted to have the clarity on terms of the impacts within the time for the one week continuance you've office has been working on this ordinance for several months and want to be sure that the land use committee take into account our other development agreement particularly with the martin luther king and sorensen it is

next door to make sure we are maxing the contribution in the market-rate developers i've been an advocate and the biggest fighter for housing in our district and you want to make sure that we are getting the maximum from the developers but want to be fair and consistent and not ask certain developers for more than others but despite the fact that the deal was similar in terms of what is being brought forward to the board of supervisors but if we can have a clear understanding of what answers are expected by next week i'll ask not not to continue it for more than one week because of details and specific about the clarifications like to have between the planning and see mayor's office of housing and the developer by next monday we'll work expeditiously with the partners to make sure the answers are provided. >>