of units are two and three bedrooms. and the affordable and the market right? >> they will have to match. >> supervisor tang: about 35%. can you give me an accurate number? >> there is about a split. >> supervisor tang: ok great. if we can confirm, that would be great. i feel very uncomfortable with this very flexible open menu of affordable housing. i do think they percentage is quite high, to be honest, particularly given the district that this development is going into and the a.m.i. percentages in this neighbourhood. not meeting 110% of rental home homeownership. i understand a higher a.m.i. is very concerned -- i am very concerned about the fact there is an in lieu option when they only committed to 25%. the goal is always that if you fee out to you have to do 33% and the way i calculated it, it looks like back at base, the

project sponsor has only committed, at minimum, to do 20% on site. which means the remaining five%, if it is feed out, should be higher off site. while the requirement is no more than 75 units off site, and this is my very rough mathematics, this is not my area of expertise , it should be no less than 110 units off site and we should have a mandate on what level of a.m.i. those off site units are. i have always supported off site but when we do off site, they have to be deeply subsidized. with the giants and seawall where they committed to 40% on site affordable and middle income, they were higher ranges of average median income rentals throughout. it was not on public land and this is a mix of public and private land. they committed to 40% on and off site but there off site commitments where super -- are

subsidized for formally -- formerly homeless. and then on site they were quite high average median incomes up to 150%. i think that without having a detailed understanding of what the developer is committing to, it is not clear to me whether we are getting a good end of our bar again on deal. especially if a -- a good end of our bargain on this deal. we should always have a higher expectation. i understand there is not an office development as part of this development agreement as there was on others. so they don't have a job at linkage fee to plough back into the land. i am not satisfied with this current agreement on site. >> i want to clarify one point. none of the land is currently public land except for the park space. so all of the land that is being built on his privately owned land and being privately funded. >> supervisor tang: that is

actually really important. looking at the language here. is a little confusing because it says 29.26 acres. >> the parks land -- at the edge of the property is existing recreation and park open space -- >> supervisor tang: that is separate. they own 8.9 acres of publicly owned parcels along the shoreline where they are building a publicly accessible network that you've talked about at at says that build would be developed approximately 29.26 acres of privately and publicly owned parcels. maybe i just need to better understand how that is broken apart. and if it is just parks on their portion, that is fine. >> they will be building parks on their land and dedicating it to the city at no cost. >> supervisor tang: ok. a great. >> since you are bringing up some housing issues, which i think are global and extendable beyond this project, i was going to say a couple of words about our thinking in terms of getting

back to the housing package. you will see a similar thinking coming to some of the future projects coming towards you. as you know we are getting into projects that we will be bringing it that are mostly private, and somewhat some office to continue to -- contribute to jobs. this one will not. we are having to be more conservative with her out jewish -- with our asks. and we did run numbers and look at the project performance and where we are with this project is at about a 5.2% return on cost. our experts tell us that at 5.5% and above you will get capital to build the project. below five, you will not get capital to build the project. we are in a great danger zone. so we certainly are aware that this section asked for it to be at 33%, the reason we didn't go that high is very simple.

because it probably wouldn't be affordable to the developer. so we have this dilemma where we said well, if you allow about $5 million to the total cost, with the 75 unit up, and because we wanted some funding, and we wanted the opportunity for the developer to do a little bit of ownership housing which is what they fee out of, we made the call. and it is your call as a decision-maker to stay at 25. we think it will produce that revenue. if we go to 33, the project would not produce any fee out revenue. that would be a perfectly good outcome. i'm not arguing that would be unsustainable or a catastrophe that we were trying to get a bit of that revenue. that is the thinking. >> supervisor tang: i understand that. i wasn't suggesting we go to 33% or 25%. essentially, the base minimum that the project sponsor committed to his 20% on site. what i'm suggesting is a remaining be at the 33% level.

does that make sense? roughly six and a half%. my mathematics is not spot on but what i am saying is fine, we will do the 20% on site. i would like to have an understanding of the a.m.i. the average on rentals is high. but what i am saying is to keep the 20% mark on site but the off site should move from 75 units to 110 units. so that remaining 5% it's really six or seven%. >> forgive me if i don't understand you. i think i do understand. that movement, to make the 75 units go to 110 and you are multiplying each of those by the fee that is still being discussed, $200,000 per unit. at my not getting it? my point is -- >> supervisor tang: yeah. the off site should be at the 33 % level.

it should somehow match. >> understood. >> supervisor tang: again, by the way, i support small state acquisition i understand how important that is and there are many needs in district ten. i am not suggesting it should be 25%. i'm sure community members want to see this feed out. especially for the home ownership units. but i think it should be slightly higher at i do think there should be a commitment on the a.m.i. level. even if it is just a limit that this off site units would be offered for. i guess with a range of 110% for rentals and 120% for homeownership, i'm curious what the prospective range would be. >> i'm sorry. the what range? >> supervisor kim: if they only have to meet an average of 110% rental, how high can it go

for rental? and homeownership? >> it is 20% below market rate in the area. my understanding is, for this neighborhood, that is 140 would be the maximum. >> supervisor kim: for rental and homeownership? >> for rental. and i believe it is 144 rental and 154 homeownership and that would be the limits. it could not go above that. >> supervisor kim: that is very high. >> part of the thinking on this, supervisor, is simply that these projects are usually where we can get our more moderate to middle income housing. as we are doing around the city, we are good at producing low income and still struggling with the moderate for a variety of reasons that you are aware of. we are subject to the board's ultimate decision on this. proposing on some of these d.a. projects to keep it higher. >> supervisor kim: i understand the need for middle

income and i definitely would like middle income units on this project. it feels like a very high average. and just given the a.m.i. levels in the bayview neighborhood, it doesn't seem like, even if you had a 40% local preference, that many of the residents are going to be eligible. local residents will be eligible for this housing. >> understood. >> supervisor kim: ok. i would like to keep having that discussion over the next 24 hours, if the plan is still to vote on this tomorrow. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor can. i don't know if colleagues have any other comments or questions. supervisor cohen? >> president cohen: i wanted to point the question to supervisor kim. what is your understanding about the average a.m.i. in the bayview? it sounds like you are working with a number already in your mind. >> supervisor kim: you are

correct. i don't know the average a.m.i. in the bayview and i would like to get that information. based on the numbers that i saw during the inclusionary housing ordinance discussion, and in 2017, they were not this high. in fact, the levels i saw were far below 55% of average median income. again, it would be good to have that data so i understand how that average was selected. >> president cohen: i have no other questions. >> supervisor tang: all right. at this point, i don't see any other questions or comments. we will go to public comment. >> all right. i want all of you to listen real carefully. this is an example of price-fixing. and about this developer, you have a developer that is in it for profit. you need to get a developer that is part of a nonprofit construction development

organization by means of going through the federal government in order to get a construction company that is not price-fixing like this. do you see -- you sit up there and tell on yourselves and you say that the median income in the bayview is about 140%. that is $119,000 a year. you deliberately go to the areas in the bayview of people who are in that income bracket and don't include the people who lived in the same area who are lower income brackets, that are on social security benefits, retirement benefits, and by the same response, you fail to exclude people in income brackets who are below this range, this target that you are price-fixing at. we have emergency housing, homeless situations on our hands what you are doing is criminal. seeing you sit up there and complain and sit up there and demonstrate that you started about 40% of the median, you

said that about mission rock. but you have a low income female hispanic beer pitch person and the lowest income to apply at mission rock is $32,000 a year. at 40% of that affordable housing was only 2% of that 40% pie. it is not included in the housing opportunity. those are the plaintiffs that i'm talking about that i will fire off a class action suit against pertaining to housing discrimination. now you have the giants caught up in it because they are financing it. what do you have to say about that? >> ace washington. i was coming through to speak about -- and the sheriff asked me to go out.

because they told them they didn't want me and their business going in there and they will remove me from city hall. that is why i call it silly hall i'm trying to tell you what goes on in these walls here. and about this contract of bills , i have problems with you and what you did in the fillmore you build buildings there and we can't get anyone working in there peerk i knew you would all have to come back around again just like all of you conniving developers in the city and county by the bay. let me say one thing. i am pissed off right now. when i leave, i'm going to the sheriff his office to find out why i can't go in my district office. i have been banned from going to the mayor's office. mi that kind of a character? or mi too much for you. one thing is for sure is there is a new organization that we will build. it is called case. community, assistance, service, enterprise.

you have these developers and everyone has a big team of ten or 12 people to answer questions but you have nobody on the community sights. we have no consultants and no liaison. that is simply unacceptable. let me tell you what it means right here. we call it silly hall. i am pissed off at you all. i will go to the sheriff's office and find out why i can't go in district five. and for the brother using that language, you can't stop them because they do it in the white house. so that is why i call this silly hall. i will tell a story about here. you get used to get cut off for saying the s. word. but now you can say what you want. i will go up to the sheriff's office and find out what the hell is going on that i can't go in district five to find out about the corruption in district five. i am appalled. that ain't all. i am just pissed right now at the city council. [applause]

>> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for the very in-depth questions about affordable housing. i am with the council of community housing organizations. so 25%. i remember being in a room with ken rich and supervisor kim and others when we worked out proposition k. the goal of the city and county of san francisco to make housing , going forward, 33% low and moderate income up to 50% for middle income. here we are at 25%. there is a few questions that were raised earlier and i heard answers that i couldn't find the answers in the d.a. that was presented in the package. so perhaps there could be some clarification on there peerk the d.a. explicitly says, up to three sites maximum of affordable housing on sight. i heard 180 units would be built on site. i could not find that anywhere

on the d.a. apparently, my reading, there is absolutely no obligation to provide a site within this development that will provide 100% affordable housing. there is no money dedicated and that is understandable. that is how a lot of these deals are. they provide the site but there is actually no guarantee that that housing will be there . and might be there but maybe i couldn't find it. the hundred and ten% a.m.i. average is very interesting. let say there was a site for low income housing at 55% a.m.i. let's say that occupied half of the units. that would mean the other half of the units could be at 170% a.m.i. with absolutely no range in between. and looking at supervisor safai, we have had this conversation about different income levels. where our teachers green they earn between 70 and 90% a.m.i. there could be no housing for somebody who you -- earns what a teacher earns.

one of the things that was a very important was creating a range of income. i want to see that here. thank you, very much. >> good afternoon respected supervisors. my name is michael. i am the founder will of community espana. it became a destination in san francisco and it serves 60,000 visitors during the year. it exists for around 70 years and it is totally ignored by this project. tomorrow, we have appeal hearing in regard to that. i will not discuss this issue at this moment, it is a little bit strange that this meeting is before the appeal. at this moment, i want to discuss only the use of land. it is a land use committee.

so the main part of 700 avenue property was the regent was zoned as light industrial for many reasons. it should be respected. if it is going to be converted to high density residential. why is it light industrial? number 1, it is not compacted landfill, which was created from the residuals of construction of hunter's point. it is not the free wait clock as it is claimed by the developers. and in my documents, i have reference to everything. so the story will is contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbon and lead and chromium. this is totally ignored by the planning department and everybody else. i have all the documents. i would like to show what happens with copper pipes when they are in the soil. you can see the holes they are.

this is rotten land. and when people want to eat, in the city needs housing, it does mean -- doesn't mean you eat rotten meat. you still need to think. you will kill the children that will be there. i would like to present my documents. just leave it here. thank you. >> dear supervisors, my name is james. i am a bayview resident and i have been one for 12 years. i oppose the development as it stands. i remind you that approach an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as the saying goes. i would like to make three points. first, there was no attempt

whatsoever to reach out to 400,000 people, 60,000 people a year, for five years. actually, it is seven years who have enjoyed the environment of our community. there was no attempt to reach out to any of those people whatsoever. there was no input taken from the people who live on the hill, behind the proposed project. this is a major flaw in the design methodology. this is a horrible precedent. second, i am ok with the development as prezoning which eliminates a four-story industrial. i would prefer a park there. there are eight huge of elements going on around the corner. this is too much growth too soon in the neighborhood. you're about to double the population of bayview already.

housing growth advocates should be quite satisfied with that, for now. i remind you, that radioactive material has still been found next-door. third, the tower of the catholic development rok. they should not be used, however as precedent to justify these towers. that towers are completely new in a completely new neighborhoods. they do not involve change in the currently built neighborhood and community. the project is different. in summary, we reject these reasons. >> good afternoon. i am a general manager. i have been working there for five years. i was involved in instruction. i go there every day. i smell the sewer at exactly

1030 am in the morning. we started this business with ten people. i lost blood and sweat over it. it took me six years to get from ten people to 90 people. this is a big project. it started with one word and now everything is changed. including the height, the zoning , the density, everything. i am not sure what will come up next. i have to say that i have 90 staff working from the neighborhood. and the building that is going on behind us, it is going to kill our business. it will not just kill our business but employment as well. a moment to go, you ask them a lot of questions and they were looking at each other and had no answers to give. when you guys were asking the questions and they have no answers for small folks like us, we have been crushed like ants over here. do something about it and protect our business that has been here for so many years. ninety staff working from the neighborhood.

that is about its. i hope you look onto this. thank you very much. >> supervisors, tim paulson. on the secretary-treasurer of the san francisco billing and construction trades council. as you all no kak the building and construction trades council has a relationship with every developer up and down the coast, public or private, starting with the bayview, hunter's point area where we have a project labor agreements that people are working under. we have an agreement with pier 70 and we have a great arrangement with the san francisco warriors who are building their arena and the work that is going on out there as well as the mission rock and all things that have been referenced in some regard today. i do want to state that we have entered into negotiations with built ink.

we are working very collaboratively. i don't want to say there's any animosity or anything going on, we are exchanging -- i just exchanged -- received a counterproposal as i was sitting here waiting to speak. the negotiations are going well. but they are not done and they are not inked. on behalf of the affiliates of the labor council, i cannot officially sit down and say we support this. we will get to where we will have to be, but as of right now, our official position is we're trying to get this relationship put together as we move forward. my instinct, besides the fact that the negotiations are going so well, is to ask for a continuance. that is what my affiliates would want me to say but we are doing some intense negotiations as we speak. i wanted to put that all in context to where we are. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor kim has a question for you. >> supervisor kim: i thank you actually just answered it. i feel very uncomfortable putting something out without something in writing. it is something i have always

gone through many years of negotiation is you have not gotten it until you have it. this is often the best time to be negotiating these agreements on behalf of our workers. i wanted to ask what the building trades official position was on whether we support this project -- well, there is an appeal, but whether we forward this project out of committee today. >> i think it is pretty simple. just because we have been negotiating, even over the weekend, we thought we would get to a place where we have what is known as a letter of intent. this is not the project labor agreement itself. it will be negotiated over the next course of time as to once everything gets penciled out with building and the planning department. and everything else. it is not a deal that we have yet and it is not inked. we don't have an epistle -- official position but i know if i went up you and i said support the project and i hope we go running forward right now, i would get my asses kicked by

some of the union affiliates union affiliates that are around i am just putting this into context. i hope we get there but you are right. does not done until we -- until it is done. thank you for the question. and the bulk of my comments will be based on your question earlier. >> supervisor kim: thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is kathy perry and i may bayview hunter's point resident and i am also a san francisco native. i have been active for many decades and lately, not as active as i used to be. only because i am older now. i am a grandmother taking care of my kids and grandchildren, in support of their parents. i want to remind you that this is a private plan and private funding. quietly appreciate the city's interest, there are some benefits that the city gets and we as residents. the park line, the shoreline, the beach, new taxpayers moving

into the community, bringing in more resources and revenue, these are positive and wonderful benefits for the city. i like -- the most favourite thing i have about it is the 394 affordable units. i realize the details have not been worked out. i like that the developer has been given three options. i also like that through these meetings, which are documented and recorded, that you have a record of what people intend to do. you already have something in the form of a record even though you don't have an actual signed an inked agreement but you have testimony. there are community partners that i believe in. a p.r.i. is one of them. i am singing and bringing that up because you have to hold -- and i know that you will, everyone accountable just like you have with the member of the city department how does the notice get out. everyone has to do their part. the builders have to do their

part, the department has to do their part and the community has to do their part. they work with small african-american subcontractors, which i appreciate. this was before they were applying for this project. i support the project and i support a p.r.i. and hold everyone, including myself, accountable for this project as it goes through. thank you. >> afternoon, supervisors. my name is janice hunter and i represent green action for health and environmental justice including our many members who are residents of bayview, hunter 's point. green action respectfully calls on the board of supervisors to reject build l.l.c.'s project, as that will result in irreparable harm to the people, community and environment of bayview, hunter's point. the project will gentrify the community, contributing to the displacement of a people of

color from bayview, hunter's point. the build project along the shoreline is directly at risk from rising sea levels due to climate change and the safety used outdated projection that underestimated the risk. the project is on toxic land, and testing has not been completed. and they refused to test for radiation even though they are next to the shipyard. but most importantly, the city's own e.i.r. concluded that the development project will result in significant, unhealthy unlikely illegal levels of air pollution during both construction and operations that would be unavoidable and cannot be mitigated. we ask you, the members of the board of supervisors, are you going to vote to add significant

and unhealthy levels of air pollution, likely above the quality standards to the already suffering community of bayview, hunter's point? the bay area quality management district and the state of california have both found that bayview, hunter's point residents are vulnerable and at risk to pollution. the last thing residents need is more pollution. if you vote for this project, you are voting to harm the health of bayview residents who are already suffering from too much pollution. please reject the project and protects people, not corporations. thank you, very much. >> i agree with everything she said. they have some good numbers. they have a whole lot of numbers , but how many certificate numbers do they have on actually, real people who are

real low income. people who have been living in bayview, hunter's point all their life. all of a sudden getting pushed out. how about -- it is toxic. what about the toxic area? it is already at a level where we can't stand it no more. people are dying on top of that hill. it is about lives, first. i just came here to express truly, i have been in bayview since 1966. i saw a lot of people die from cancer and stuff like that because we used to play in the shipyard when i was a kid and we use a climb over the fence and all that type of stuff. but then, you know, 30 or 40 years later, you see people pass away at a high rate, because it doesn't get you real quick. it takes years to come. and then when it comes, everybody that is affected starts dying. so i haven't seen my mother

passed away and a lot of other people. my twin brother passed away. my oldest brother passed away. i saw a lot of deaths. but it is about affordability. can we actually afford to live in this neighborhood when they rebuild? no. how will our health beat when they rebuild? is always straining. it is already a high rate of asthma, cancer, at all this other stuff. you have to take into proportion the community impact it will have. all these people, with these buildings, skyhigh buildings, all these cars and stuff that is bringing more pollution into our air. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. my name is michelle pierce. i may bayview, hunter's point community advocate. i had several things i wanted to bring up in this meeting and still need to be addressed.

i will save them until the hearing tomorrow because i want to commend supervisor kim for all of her questions. my biggest issue with this project is that the plan and the e.i.r. are half complete. how can we go forward on things that have not been addressed yet , that are the most critical aspects of this project? there is no doubt that we, in bayview, hunter's point need housing. we need green spaces, healthy spaces. the problem is this plan leaves so much out that we don't know what we will get and our assumption, when things are left in the hands of the corporation, is that we, the black community in san francisco, end up suffering. i am not just speaking to the black community in san francisco at this point. our neighborhood, since 2016, as

of 2016, is 42% asian at and 38% latino. we, the poor people of color in san francisco, need guarantees. we have already been shuttled all over the city. we need to know what the housing mix will look like. we need that cemented. we need to know what the soil quality is going to be in the end. we need that cemented now. we don't need -- when we get to a five years from now, we will decide. and that is no guarantee. it really gives away our agency and your agency in controlling a process that is so critical to this neighborhood. i want to close with a quote from marie harrison who cannot be here today, because her lungs are 60% scarred. basically, her message -- she is outraged that they --

>> supervisor tang: ok. thank you, very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is jeff welch. i am a resident of north beach and i am also a piledriver local 34. i am here today to voice my support for this project. i am all for it. there is over 2 million square feet of new construction and it will provide a local and future jobs in the area. i am also glad it is a local project because i will have the opportunity to work close to home so i don't have to travel. at least not that far. less travel, the better for me. i have been doing it for 32 years. it will provide jobs, at completion. 1500 units of housing opportunity for san francisco residents. san francisco has a housing shortage and these project contributes to the solution and not the problem. think about it.

these acts today and let's move forward with the india basin process. thank you. >> supervisor tang: next speaker, please. >> my name is francisco. i am a member of local 22 in san francisco. i'm standing in front of you to show support for the project. as a carpenter apprentice, this will give me an opportunity towards getting a good paying job and hands-on experience that is necessary for my profession. i am happy to hear the construction of this project is estimated to provide about 5300 jobs throughout the building. , alone. also, in addition to that, there will be 800 permanent jobs left behind in the community. when this project is complete, there will be more than 1500 housing units available. which is a great opportunity for the city. i am just asking you guys to act today and move forward with the

basin, the india basin project. thank you. >> supervisors, thank you for allowing me to speak today. i delete field representative for the carpenter's union representing 38 men and women here in san francisco. the carpenter's union has the full support of this project and the development team. the team at bild have done an extensive amount of outreach to the community, to the labor up including the carpenter's union. this project is a reflection of that extensive amount of outreach. to jane campus as comment on the agreement, there is a labor agreement in place with build inc. they are using eight union general contractor on all projects. by making that commitment, they

are making more than just a commitment to labor. they're making a to standards. -- they are making a commitment to standards. it will create opportunities for men, women, individuals who are incarcerated, to step into a career. not just a job. to provide for the families and continue to live in the city and county of san francisco. not to mention the 1500 units of housing that this will create for the already entitled housing units in the city of san francisco that we need. again, that we need in the city and county of san francisco, to ensure that individuals who are currently living here have housing and those who are looking to make san francisco their home, have the opportunity to look at. i will end with this. there plenty of developments within the city and county of san francisco that will remain sallow. let's make sure this is not one of them, by moving it forward to thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i apologize. i misread an agenda somehow. i'm speaking in support of the project. the city and the politics of everything really love to talk about percentages and numbers. some hard facts associated with the project specifically, 1500 homes that they think everybody in the city knows that we need to. the total fees that they will be paying, and it is a little bit on finalized, we are talking about around $270 million. somewhere in the ballpark. when you break that down, they are paying about $180,000 per door fees. we had recently conducted a survey with all of our members and one of the questions we ask, is what our construction cost looking like? they were coming back for apartment buildings at about $550,000 in hard costs alone. and 70% of the members expected

the cost to be going up. as we continue to see costs rise , at exactly the comment that mr rich made from o. e. w. d. we are in a very sketchy grey area right now. they recently described how a number of housing projects were not moving forward in san francisco. and ultimately people don't live in entitled or approved units. and when we have a 100% privately financed project that will build homes for people, it seems very risky to try to beat around the edges on that. risking nothing gets built at all. and ultimately, whether it is 25 , 26, 30, 15, all of those percentages of zero homes results and zero homes. zero market rate homes and zero subsidized homes for people in the neighborhood. we need to do everything we can. during the planning commission hearing someone asked me when this process started. it came out as a community process that was finalized in

2003. we are 15 years into it so far. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jackie flynn. we were mentioned a little earlier, the a p.r.i. what i can testify about is the actual community engagement that we do provide. i came very -- i came along very slowly after the task force was committed. we are on the steering committee for the park prior to the conversations about the development continued on. and even at that point, i saw that community members needed to be more engaged. retook on the task to go out and to -- we took on the task to go out into public housing to

engage folks around talking about a park and not only got them to participate in talking about a park but we began to talk to them about how that development was going to impact them moving forward. i also want to make a comment about, it is not just the folks that are homeowners right now packed but we really need to think about the next generation that is coming up. and one of the things we did is insure young people participated in many of these workshops and many of these meetings and got to meet many of the developers and staff, so they could see what is being created for them in their future. other things that i appreciate during these conversations, included having a conversation about climate change impacts and how we prepare for those moving forward, where as many of those conversations weren't held in the past and i think that, as opposed to just reacting to when stuff happens, we should prepare for it. the last thing i want to acknowledge, is that the last

speaker was right. zero houses, where we currently have nothing right now, include zero income, zero resources, and it is just sort of a black hole. i would like to see something done there there. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. i was here last week when you tabled the topics to this week. i hope that you have time to read the letter that i presented to you guys. i would love your undivided attention when i speak if it is possible. during the whole development, build has created the e.i.r. that we are trying to appeal tomorrow. and we should appeal it. the mitigation measures that were addressed for the air quality, the wind speed, as well as noise, and other emissions, were not properly stated to. even with mitigation measures with air quality, you will have unavoidable effects to the

community that you are involved in. i no kak as supervisors, you have tried to better the lives of your own district. that you try to represent the unprecedented. because many of them don't have a voice. many of them were not here today from the community. as was also stated, the notice of hearing was only presented in english. no updates were given or anything to the source about the project itself. if you are willing to amend these propositions today that you are trying to vote on, you are just trying to say it you are ok with endangering the health and lives of those in the community. i don't believe anyone from the company would want to live in that location, because of the soil samples that have been tested on before, because of the air quality, they will be causing a higher risk of cancer to those in the community. not just on site but off site as

well. you are voted by the people of san francisco to better the lives of everyone. not to endanger them and not to make it worse. just because a city will get money for it, doesn't mean you'll be better for everyone else. housing is not everything. the house for people is more important here. i hope you take that into consideration and do not amend to these amendments. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am with the san francisco electrical construction industry as far as the discussions around labor issues, i will follow tim paulson's lead to has been negotiating on our behalf to try to get a good labor agreement to make sure that we can put the promises that are contained in this development agreement into actual practice. specifically on the question of development agreements, this is less about this one and more about development agreements in

general, which you will be seeing, starting with this one but down the line. as the d.a. says right off the bat, the development agreement is an opportunity for the city to get far more than it could have through the regular regulatory process. the question you need to ask yourself is whether -- whether this is, in fact,, the case. what we have been seeing coming out of oe w. d. and which is surprising for projects this complex, is that they are incorporating waivers of things that we have on the books to ensure prevailing wages are applied to this project throughout and that local hiring apprentices are getting requirements as part of the land swaps on the public trust land swaps that are happening, as well as with the public financing that is underwriting the infrastructure program. what the board of supervisors really needs to consider is

establishing minimum standards so if we don't have situations like this where people come in on the day of the hearing, basically, maybe they've had a chance to see the d.a. for a month or so, and everyone tries to open these things up. it's untenable for members of the public and it certainly creates a whole range of uncertainty for the developers themselves. it doesn't put us in a good light because it does not strike our position to get the most that the public deserves. >> supervisor tang: thank you, very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is michael hammond. i am a longtime resident of india basin and i am here to speak in favour of this project. the salient point you need to

keep in mind is that this development is the result of a four-year collaboration with the community. many, many meetings, and during the course of that evolution of this project, it ended up. >> supervisor tang: my apologies. sorry. sorry about that. we will stop your time. hold on. one second. i think we need to rewind about ten seconds or so. ok. great. go ahead. >> ok. we ended up preserving the valuable essence of the wild india basin that we all love, and in return, we are getting 3500 units of housing. the essence of this project is to concentrate the developments in a fewer number of larger buildings, nestled up against the whole side.

not only does not create a 5- acre park -- the hillside. not only does not create a 5- acre park for the city and this region cracked what we have more space between the buildings preserving a few car doors and creating an open and spacious sense that is unlike any other place. our neighborhood welcomes this development. we lust after the retail that would come along with it and we certainly welcome the 3500 new residents into our community. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you, very much. i apologize. but because you already spoke, you cannot have more time to speak on this particular item. we have notes on the minutes that you have spoken on this item already. we are on item nine through 11 which we call together. i apologize, but we will not be able to allow you to speak again

we do call certain items as a package because it is about the same project. they are just different elements of the same project. unfortunately, you cannot speak again. i apologize. sir, you have to sit down. know this is the rule for every single person who comes up to speak. no kak we don't. i will have to ask you to sit down or the deputy sheriff can ask you to sit down, please. this is the role for everyone. please, all right. anyone else who hasn't spoken yet on items nine through 11 please come on up. if not, i close public comment. public comment is close. i know what there are a number of questions earlier around the affordable housing on the project and so forth. i just wonder if we can get some clarification from oewd about that. mr rich had something to offer there peerk -- there.

we will need that microphone on fort mr rich. >> i wanted to have a second try and explain the way the affordable housing program works this is just for clarification, obviously. it is in your purview to accept or reject this particular set of policies. but let's start by looking at the units. the project is at 25%. the 394 units. of those 394 units, at least 319 of those need to be on site. the developer of the 319 units may build up to 180 of those units on up to three standalone site his -- sites.

this is very important. no city money will pay for those units. the developer will fund the gap, other than freely available tax credits. we have 394, as a whole 25%. 319 is the amount, the minimum on site that is anywhere between zero and 180 that can be on separate parcels. what that leads to a 75 units that can be taken care of by feeing out. i don't know if i made you more concerned -- confused. if i did, let me try again. i want to make sure we have the right basis before we debate the merits of it. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> three separate parcels? >> correct. in other words, they can supply 319 units fully through inclusionary and scattering them or they can set aside three parcels within a site and make those 100% affordable. either way, in the site, there will be 319 units.

i hope i didn't make it worse. >> supervisor safai: and add the average a.m.i. range that was referenced. >> subject to the average a.m.i. range that was referenced. if they do go that way, which we expect them to, but there is no obligation. but they will take advantage of the three sites and bring in that tax credit and do it as low income because it makes more financial sense. what i wanted to reiterate is if we were to get more onerous here , either with lower a.m.i. or less on site or higher fee outs or whatever, the overall percentage would need to come down. we are really on the edge of what can be afforded by this project. i wish we could have asked them for more than this. we asked for it as much as we thought we could get and still have a good chance of getting the project built. i am worried this project will get built even at this requirement. >> supervisor tang: i apologized if i missed this

earlier, for the zero through 180 potential units that could be built in partnership with the 100% affordable housing developer partner, if you don't build any of those then you would just pay the city defeat? >> if you don't build those, you have to bill -- build 319 units on the site. you can do up to 180 on those parcels, but if that does not happen or they can't find a partner, whatever, they have to do all 319 on the site through inclusionary. the only units that can be feed out are the 75 to go from 319-2394 -- 3192 -- 3192394. we are not aware of any waivers. the advice that we have for the city attorney is that the horizontal project like this must be prevailing wage and it is required in the d.a. the areas that they are building

on that are in city ownership, a couple of the existing three rights-of-way, as well as a portion of the park that would be deeded to the city, will be prevailing wage plus local hire. the parts of the horizontal that are not going into public ownership will be just prevailing wage. the vertical is not, and never has been in a.d.a. on private land required for prevailing wage. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i know earlier, there was some expression of concern that all the affordable housing requirements were not memorialized in the document. and just pointing out, it is exhibit h which is starting on page 164 of the pdf of the d.a. that is in the registrar. >> it is a big document. >> supervisor tang: ok. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: by the way, thank you for clarifying all the prevailing wage agreement. on the housing, i was not confused at all about what is in this deal. what i merely brought up is when

with the developers be allowed to fee out? it is a higher percentage. i understand that the parameters of the project is different. all the development projects are apples to oranges. i am just pushing back, as i always do, on the affordability. it is hard to hear it when projects pencil out. it is really hard for me to evaluate what is true and not to and also what is frustrating for me, we are now in the boom. , and during the recession, developers reduce their affordability because financing has dried up. and in the boom we are asked to reduce affordability. it seems like either in the boom or recession, that affordable housing, by the way, it is not affordable housing. it is working-class and middle-class families that lose out. >> nobody is more frustrated than me. we started in at 33% on this project and when we ran the numbers, we said, we cannot ask

for that. the project will not pencil. and construction costs, i never remember these numbers, what they go up something like eight or ten a year. they are much higher than when you saw the last d.a. when you saw the mission rock, they were probably up ten or 20% it is incredibly frustrating that we can't get that into control. but that is what is driving the problem his. >> supervisor kim: i did find the exhibit. i just want to thank charles sullivan. i did not get to the exhibit portion but i just read the initial portion. i see where everything is put together. you did mention that the developer may do 100% affordable on the three sites and because of the tax credit and make sense for them to build at the lower a.m.i. but do they have to build an average of 120%? if you have one parcel at 55% of

average median income, those are tax credit eligible and you would need joe showed me the rest of the units would be way above what we have ever considered affordable housing for rental. >> that is correct with one important proviso. i will ask that staff to correct me. the mathematics you are doing is correct but you are prevented by the ultimate level -- limits. they can't do anything that rents for more than 80% of the prevailing market rent in the neighborhood. i don't know if it is defined as district ten. whatever the prevailing market rent in district ten is, there can be no units on this parcel that are renting for more than 80% of that number. that is all the units in district ten his. >> supervisor kim: what is that number currently? >> i don't know if we know it his. >> supervisor kim: that is a very scary number for us to go by. we are not actually looking at what people make in the neighborhood. there is confusion in the back and forth with president cohen.

it seems like we were talking about the average a.m.i. in the district and now you're telling me is the average market rate of rent which is based on what landlords are charging. >> no no no. it is the average rent. that includes all the rent-controlled rents. am i getting this right? his. >> supervisor kim: that is still a very scary number. that is not based on need to be based on what units are going for on the market which are high and unaffordable for residents. mi misunderstanding? >> i apologize. there is an important distinction. let me read the document his. >> supervisor kim: and can i hear someone say -- >> it is for market rate units. you are right. it has to be 80%. no more than 80% of the average market rate his. >> supervisor kim: with two bedrooms going for it 4,500, that is a very scary number. >> that would be far above the limit a.m.i. his. >> supervisor kim: i thought i heard it said earlier that all

the units would still have to fall 20% below the market rate of the area. >> whichever is lower. 140% of a.m.i. or 80% of the average market rate unit. >> 140 is still -- >> 140 is the absolute limits. i think it was 154 ownership. >> supervisor tang: ok. his. >> supervisor kim: it appears we will have some time for you to walk me through throughout the week. i look forward to continuing that discussion. >> supervisor tang: did you want to add something? >> i just wanted -- in the development agreement and in the affordable housing -- page 2 of exhibit h, under the definition, it does say an affordable housing costs will not exceed an amount that is 20% above the market rates within district ten the methodology for determining afford h