intent. and just to let you know what a letter of intent is, this is what biebnds us to sit down and negotiate an actual project labor agreement, which will be all talked about the same way you are talking about the exclusionary housing. we know we're not going to be breaking ground on this in the next six months or so. we're going to continue to negotiate in good faith. i want to thank building for becoming partners with us at two minutes to 1:30 today. >> president cohen: thank you for your diligences. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is michael ibanez. [inaudible] >> i'm strongly opposing the change of zoning which is happening in 700 innes avenue block, and i'm honestly surprised with the discussions which i hear, because today,

we're here for what's called land use and transportation committee. i don't think, you know, we discuss money or we discuss housing, or whatever. we need to discuss land use, and this land cannot be used for housing. and you're supposed to respect the zoning which happened before. this was light industrial which you want to convert to heavy residential, which some people supposed to think about this. what does it mean, light industrial? why? these people which created this landfill, they were sitting in your position, probably, and they believed in what they were doing. so it's contaminated landfill. i provided all the documents to the land committee. i provided documents, 35 documents to the supervisors. we have hearing tomorrow.

i demonstrated here the pipe, which we took from the foundation of our building, what happens with a copper pipe in -- in the contact with lead and salt water, which is inside. today, they didn't allow us to bring this pipe through their security system. so it is rotten company, within five years. we have a case where the police department of hunters point was using contaminated water. it was publicized everywhere. so you continue to ignore it? this is the wrong land, and this is the committee about using land. thank you very much. >> dear supervisors. my name is james fahey. i've lived in the bayview for 12 years now. i oppose the current plan. i would like to bring up three questions/points regarding the development.

first, when you go down evans and around where it turns into inez, and look up, what you will soon see is a monstrosity, an eye sore of nearly 20 floors that does not fit the neighborhood. has anyone considered this? second, the city should consider alternate tiff designs. there really instead should be a much shorter development. four stories, a gradation down to three stories, down to two, and then one. third, as you look down inez, all that public housing on the hill on the right will be blocked from its current views of the bay and the city. the value of the city's land comprising the public housing will be severely impacted. why is the city allowing the land to be devalued by the

developer? why isn't the developer being required to pay the city and the bnya. the bnya has these rights and uses them for business. the developer because compensate both for the usurpation of these rights. finally, i would like to finish by requesting who is the investor -- the name of the investor in this project? the individuals behind these india basin development l.l.c., and build, inc, please give us transparency. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you.

next speaker. >> a while ago, i heard about, like, you know, growing businesses around the neighborhood. hey, probably forget us. we've been there for about a good ten years. we have our own building. we started with five individuals, and we're about 90 of them. my question to you, if you're going to start a construction out there, what happens to my business and the 90 employees if you find something on the ground? think about the business that's already there. i understand you want new businesses and people to live around there, but it cannot be at the expense of the people that are already there. so yeah, i would really want you to consider the 90 employee that i have. >> president cohen: how long have you been the general manager? >> about five years now. >> president cohen: thank you. >> thank you. >> well, good afternoon, supervisors. my name is michelle pierce.

i am with the bayview-hunters point community advocates. i need to start by saying that we have much more community support for opposition against this project. they will be here tomorrow, but asking us to show up four days out of ten during business hours has been really difficult for families, for working people, for people with children. i want to get to the fact that my biggest issue with this project is that it seems like the planning is incomplete. we had some issues with the developers. the developers have put this problem back onto the planning department. it's a circular argument. we need some answers. i have specifically environmental issues. i will bring them up tomorrow, but thank you, again, supervisor kim for stressing the housing situation. we are talking about the neighborhood in this city that

is the most diverse, it is the most integrated ethnically and socioeconomically. this plan does not encourage that, and basically, the excuse for ruining the diversity of the neighborhood is that the planning department wanted to do that, any way, and it's already in the bayview-hunters point development -- redevelopment plan. please, can we have some responsibility, some skill in the planning department for doing these things responsibly? can we take this highly skilled position of planning, coordinating, engineering across all departments of the city to get something right on the eastern corridor of the city because all i'm seeing is failure right now. thank you guys very much. >> president cohen: just as a reminder, today we're hearing in this committee the general plan for india basin, and tomorrow,

we're hearing a seceqa appeal. >> -- because that's what we've got -- how would you like it even more if they didn't bother talking to you in the language that you speak? i'm not sure anybody would like it except for build, l.l.c. and the supervisors. it is illegal. it is a violation of civil rights. it's an insult to our sanctuary

city to even move beyond city with a project where the planning department knowingly, knowingly rejected our request for translation of the notice of preparation at the very start of this project. they didn't give a darn about the people in our community that don't speak english. that is illegal, and we will chlg the cif rights violation. secondly, we are all concerned -- we want real affordable housing, but real affordable housing because we need it for our people most in need, for people who need jobs to build those houses, absolutely. that's not what this is about. secondly, when build l.l.c. came to the task force, they put a picture of about 100 people who would live there. pretty much all white people. lastly, the city's e.i.r., the planning department's project that they supported, admitted, that this project would result in unhealthy, harmful,

unavoidable air quality problems that -- [inaudible] >> president cohen: thank you. thank you. again, you know, i want to be respectful of everyone's opportunity to speak, but i -- we're not dealing with the ceqa issues today, we're dealing with the plan -- i'm sure we will hear those same talking points tomorrow. mr. elberling. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this project is not proposed -- the housing part is an incredibly sweetheart deal for building and should not go forward. if they had started with 14% of the unit available to low and very low households, and another

4% to middle-income houses, and then added 7% to get to the 25% number, that would be a great program, but that is not what they did. they include out the inclusionary ordinance. all the rest is going to be basically 100% of median and above. it's very clear that this is intentional class discrimination against the poor people of the southeast of san francisco and in particular, it's going to make any homeless housing in this project highly unlikely. even worse when you look at the few calculations that they have inserted into the language, the actual amounts that they pay when they fee out somehow would only be about two thirds if they were complying with the inclusionary housing ordinance. even though they could give the city three sites for inclusionary housing, they don't have to. you have a developer who's going

to tell you who's going to live in this development in the future. i'm a developer going back to the early days, and they never let the developer decide in the future that okay, we don't want homeless housing here, the city doesn't get these sites. how can you do that? this project is a real scam. you need to turn it down, go back, and fix it. >> president cohen: mr. elberling, i assure you, the tail ain't wagging the dog here. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. my name is david rossla, i live in the shipyard with my wife and two children, and we've been in the district ten for about ten years, and the shipyard about three years. i don't think this project is appropriate at all for the neighborhood. i don't think that this set aside for housing is appropriate

for the neighborhood. it looks at 20% of the 25% that will be set aside will require an income of $100,000 for more to qualify for that housing. i don't think that's appropriate for the neighborhood at all. i -- i think back to geary street, embarcadero freeway, that cutoff the city from the water, and geary street, which cut fillmore in half, and that is what this project reminds me of. this is going to substantively change the nature of hunters point-bayview. where does the steel-glass wave end? where do we stop it? because this is not for the community and this is not why i moved to hunters point. we're doing a good job overall i think in the shipyard of inclusion, and i don't think this is positive towards that. i urge you to reconsider and make this a project that really does serve the community and brings more affordable housing.

i'm certainly not against housing, i'm prohousing, proaffordable housing. thank you. >> president cohen: next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jackie flynn. i'm the executive director. a. philip randolph institute san francisco, and i'm accompanied by kurt grimes as well as oaf tupola who are also employees but also bayview residents. i'm here in support of the india basin mixed use project, the largely neglected in indian basin is desperately in need of restoration. it's important that we find opportunities to retain bayview-hunters point culture as our city inevitably grows. we are all aware of historic challenges in our community to provide broad outreach. i'm sure you've heard residents across the city express concern

for not being able to be part of the project. for this project we were able to engage community leaders and organizations approximate participate. not just for this project, but remember, the ongoing projects that impact residents were ones that became more aware of and were empowered to participate as a result. more of our neighborhood folks actually got a chance to see how the city works. so i just wanted to make a point that this is a very important project, it's a special one that i think that should happen, and ultimately, what we're looking for is the future of the young people that live in the community that participated in the workshops that care about climate change adaptations along that shoreline and that care about protecting their community. so i appreciate your efforts,

supervisor cohen, and as well, you guys's efforts to make tain great projects in the city, and we'd love to see this go forward. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is francisco benitez, and i am a member of local 22 in san francisco. i am speaking to you in favor of this project. this will give me an opportunity towards a good paying job and hands-on experience that is necessary for my profession. i am glad to hear that the construction of this project is estimated to provide more than 5,000 jobs just throughout the buildout period. also, in addition, 800 jobs will be permanent here in the community. when this project is complete, it will provide more than 1500 units of housing in this area and to meet this is a great opportunity for the city. please act today and move forward with the india basin project. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you.

next speaker. >> hello. my name is dennis lumsey, and i am a resident, long time resident and carpenter. i'm here today to propose my support for the proposed india basin project. it is the workforce housing that interests me. this project is proposing over 2 million square feet of new construction. i'm excited that the project will provide local and future job opportunities in the area. personally, i am also excited about this local project because i will have the opportunity to work close to home, having to avoid traffic and spending less time on the road is always a plus. not only that this project will provide jobs, but also at the

completion, it will provide 1500 units of housing opportunities for san francisco residents. with san francisco having a housing shortage, this project provides a solution in that department. please act today and move forward with this india basin project. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, president cohen and fellow members of the land use committee. my name is timothy rife and i'm a field representative with carpenter's union local 22. we are here to support this and thrilled to be partners on such a project. with over 2 million gross square feet of new construction over the next 10 to 15 years, we are particularly excited about the future job opportunities for our members. the project will add 1,500 units of housing, including a substantial amount of workforce housing plus approximately 200,000 square feet of

commercial space. the construction of the project will provide opportunities to generate over 5,000 jobs through the build out and upon completion add about 800 permanent jobs to the community. the project sponsors have done a great job reaching out to the community and our union. we look forward to seeing this project move forward to the full board for approval. thank you for your time and have a great afternoon. >> president cohen: thank you for your presentation. next speaker, please. >> hello. good afternoon. chester meadows with green med owes janitorial service. i'm here to support this project for a lot of reasons, all the good reasons. i've been a small disadvantaged business in san francisco here for so many years, and i didn't witness so many developers get funded for projects, and i never got one contract, you know, growing up in hayes valley and bayview-hunters point. you know, building have done a

tremendous job of reaching back to the disadvantaged businesses. you look back, and you see all the people that today up, you know, looking to take advantage of opportunities working, and me myself, as a business owner, i'm looking to create opportunities for people to work with my company. so i just hope that -- you know, just do the right thing and support this project. thank you. >> news breaking, pow, pow. couple of things. i want to give hand to supervisor sophia maxwell who's in the audience tonight. also, there's somewhat of a coinciding situation where we have supervisor cohen. your auntie served on the co comigration, as well as yourself

truly, ace on the case. [inaudible] >> i mean, i'm appalled, but i'm glad i'm here. news breaking, ace on the case, back here at city hall, you all. i'm going to cover it like a blanket, like you never saw, you all. any way, news breaking, out there in the southeast, the toxic. you all looking at the city level, but it goes farther up to the federal, the navy, e.p.a., news breaking, ace on the case, dealing with over in the western addition, what they call fillmore, i call it the fill-no-more. we don't have this, we don't have that. ladies and gentlemen, your truly, ace washington will be back writing with the washington post. all the issues that i had to go through with the tears, here we are in 2018. what does this mean? we might have to wipe it clean. news breaking, right here in

city hall, you all. i'm trying to tell you all. sometimes, i call it silly hall. but i'm going to tell you why i call it silly hall. it's not because it's funny, it's because these issues is just like washington, d.c. this 2018, we've got to wipe it clean. my name is ace, and i'm on the case, and i'm working and hoping i can work with this administration; and i'm not naming no names. my name is ace. >> president cohen: good afternoon. next speaker. >> vice president, san francisco building trades. i stand here in support of the proposed general plan for india basin. for many reasons, i think that tim might have touched on early, but as we in the building trades, and ibew 6, as we move forward and continue to create

opportunities for our members that work in the city, it's projects just like this where we work with the developer on project labor agreements that provide local opportunities to local residents, both to residents and apprenticeships to journey level positions to those that live in the neighborhood. we've also had negotiates. we continue to have them related to an electrical facility related to this project. there's no deal signed yet, but they're very interested in having a training site, so on behalf of local six and as vice president of building trades, i strongly support approval of the general plan. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker. [please stand by]

>> works together to put together a plan that the city adopted and now it's not being moved. that's not fair. i am a full development. i come here every day. i want more housing. if you can equate 40% of the housing in that plant for affordable housing, i would support that. this plan does not support the goal for affordable housing. i want to make that clear. you need to go back to the drawing board. this is nothing. this is also going to change it. it's unfair. you need to send this for so we can look at all the points here. please, keep in mind, we are pro developing and we want more

housing. that's the bottom line. >> thank you, commissioner richardson. >> good afternoon, supervisors. corey smith from the san francisco housing coalition speaking in support here today. we often talk about the idea of creating housing at all level of affordability, it's a main talking point. we stretch that from homeless housing to low income, middle, moderate and market rate. basically the entire gamut. the economic opportunities we think are critical. we want to thank president cohen for leading on that and creating vibrant, mixed-income communities. we often think about all the additional fees and taxes that get associated with this housing. i realize some of the these numbers are getting worked out. right now, i believe it sits between 250 and $300 million associated with this project. a significant portion of that is obviously going to the subsidized affordable housing

itself. there's a significant chunk of money in this project for transportation improvements for the neighborhood. there's a significant chunk of money for schools within the community. significant chunk for childcare. general open space. streets, parks, and obviously when dealing with sea rise mitigation measures, this is elevated up a little bit. there are so many other things that these projects end up giving to the community. one of the things that is not highlighted enough with this projector any other project, is the idea of the neighborhood preference projection. we're talking 400b.m.r. units and they'll be going to people that live in the community that are already there. it's creating housing stability for people that live in the area and will continue to live in the area in a more housing-secure situation. so, we keep the high numbers and we think obviously the housing itself is great.

all the other domino effects make this project truthfully special. so we hope that you continue moving it forward here today. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> it's been a long time since i've been in this room. it's still beautiful. i'm here today because i think it is important for us to remember, there's a housing crisis in san francisco. the housing crisis is unaffordable housing. we have over 30,000 people that work for this city. i believe just last week, supervisor fewer, along and i believe that supervisor kim, is also sponsoring this legislation to up their income. so, where are these people going to live? we need to dig deep and affordable housing. we need to understand that people with less income eat too. and it's best not the reason safeway and all those other people have not come or have left. it's about racism. and it always has been.

they eat like everybody else. in fact, there's probably an obesity with poor people. that means they eat more than everybody else. they have to buy their food somewhere. so i think it's important that we understand that is not the reason. we need affordable housing. we like affordable housing. that means we have families and we have children and we have a community that sticks and stays and builds neighborhoods. so i think when we think about affordable housing, we need to dig deeper. that is where our crisis is in san francisco. and that is why a lot of people of color and other circumstances cannot live here is because affordability. they buy food. so i hope that you will consider digging a little bit deeper into affordable housing. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi name is marie sorenson. i was actually here a year or

two years ago when they were working on the hunters point project. the community came out and said that the clean up is making our kids sick. they're not doing a good enough job. they had figures from kids getting asthma and all the problems they were having. ever single one of the supervisors voted against them. to come to find out, the company that was hired to do the clean up was on suspension from the engineering society they were part of. look how hunters point has turned out. they say there's not a lot of toxicity. it brings me to this project. these projects that are coming through are not well thought

out. they're just pushed through as fast as they can get with no thought on the people. yeah, we've got the carpenters here. to me, a job is to a carpenter what a bone is to a dog. they're always going to jump. doesn't matter if the project is good or bad. they don't care. the fact is they're going to work anyway. who cares. these projects, particularly the one in hunters point needs to be much more well thought out. really, what the people who live there in mind and not all the rich people that will come in and displace the current community. thank you. >> do you live in bay view hunters point. >> i live in the mission but i was at the hearing. several hearings. >> thank you. >> let some bay view residents speak. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is michael hammond.

i'm a resident of india basin and a member of the neighborhood association. it's not news to anybody that there's a critical shortage of housing for all income strat aan san francisco. there are programs in place to support housing for those earning 50% below a.m.i. the d.a. provides for significant amounts of affordable housing for the missing middle. that is those residents who earn between 50 and 120% of a.m.i. that includes schoolteachers, cops and supervisors. these are the people who can no longer afford to live in our city and who we desperately need to retain. by providing middle-class housing, this project presents a unique opportunity to do just that. this neighborhood has a desperate need for the goods and services and folks use on a

daily basis. such as a grocery store. the bay view in general, and specifically india basin, is a notorious food desert with the nearest grocery store four miles away. the nearest store of any sort 1.3 miles away. redevelopment and the mayor's office have tried for many, many years to entice the store into our area. and the response has always been, we don't have the right economic profile. that means enough middle-class residents. this is an unfortunate and unfair but it is a reality. this development is committed to bring in a grocery store into the neighborhood and while this will benefit the new residents moving in, it will also have an impact on the people who live there now.

>> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, my name is jill fox. i have lived on ennis avenue for 26 years. raised a family there and i'm here representing the india basin neighborhood association. an organization of existing residents, businesses and friends of the community. over all, we support the india basin l.l.c. project. our neighborhood is beautiful but challenged. as you've heard, there is no food, there are no amenities, our infrastructure is weak, the telephone poles along ennis avenue were installed in 1941. they are the oldest in this city. they literally fall down. we have no sidewalks. we have no crosswalks. we've been told for years that we need development in order to

get these improvements. this development also greatly expands useable public low-owned open space. our organization led the charge to acquire 900 ennis and we believe that it will be the most beautiful park. it has been called by the recreation and park department the chrissy field of the south and we really believe that we won't be able to have this beautiful park unless we have this development. we have worked for four years with build inc to get this range of housing sizes and housing prices so that as we stated, we can accommodate the missing middle for city employees, people who work at the mission bay hospital. the full range of income levels are what we need in our

community. we look forward to having these new neighbors who can join us to live, work and play along the blue green way at india basin. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. any other speakers? anyone else that would like to speak? madam chair, we can close public comment. >> public comment for items 10-12 is closed. >> i feel like we're talking past each a there's other. we are going to bring before us, so everyone can see on the overhead -- this is a chart. i need you to flip it around. so, this is a chart. scroll it down a little bit. pull it down. we don't need to see 200a.m.i. so this chart is -- i have this one for you. this is a chart for maximum

income by household. it's been adjusted. it's to represent 2018. this is derived from the adjusted area median income, also known as a.m.i. for hud, metro fair market rent area that it contains san francisco. and the reason why this is important is because we're hearing a couple things. we're all in agreement about a housing crisis. when we're talking about a.m.i., could you point 55 a.m.i. for one person, 55 a.m.i. means that person is making $45,600 a year. that's just one person. if you wanted to get married or partner up with someone, that means that between the two of you, you would not be able to exceed the income at $45,600. often times, we use teachers as

an example. a former teach us, an educator malcolm x elementary school. teachers, when they come into the school district, they are earning 57 a.m.i. -- $57,000, excuse me. so that right there, this is just one teacher at $57,000. which means that would have to be at 70%. you see what i'm saying. what i'm trying to say is we do a lot of talk and we place a lot of creed anson the 55 level. i'm not here to argue that we don't need it. as a matter of fact, in my opening remarks i gave you statistics about how many units we have that are at 55,000 a.m.i. let me tell what you that is again. the report shows district 10, one district is carrying 40% of the new affordable housing ain't in the entire city's pipeline.

the argument you making is relevant in districts like 1, 2, 3, 4, with the exception of 11. with the exception of district 6 and 10. they're carrying the pipeline of net new units that will fit in the 55 a.m.i. level. specifically that is 1,500 to be built and 6500 already built. what i'm here to talk b. i is te misslmizmissing middle. what about the carpenter, firefighters, or teachers with two kids? even if they were single. a teacher with two kids probably puts us around 75% a. m.i.i.

we node to be smart about the mix of the projects that we're approving. the point of what i'm trying to make here is that i am in agreement we are in an affordable housing crisis but we need to build for everything. there are city employees that cannot afford to live here because we've been so focused on really low a.m.i. rates. i have a theory why. because when we think about poor people in the city, we think about people of color. let's just have a frank conversation. we think about black people, we think about latino people. but you know what we don't think about, we don't think about the working black people and latino people. my own, our own legislative aids would not even be able to qualify for these b. m.r. units. let me drive that home here. if you told your children, get up, go to school, go to college, get an education, and come back to your city. your child probably wouldn't be able to afford these new

constructions, not because we're not -- because they're too poor. but because ironically, they make too much because we've been focused on just building housing for certain segments. which i want to point out, we have ample units. i'm looking for a healthy mix. i need a mix. i need people who are making $82,000, as we joked in the newspaper a few weeks ago, how the folks over in d.p.w. cleaning up the poop on the street making $80,000, they too deserve to live in san francisco. we need to make sure we are building these units. to the speaker that i thought said some insulting things about the carpenters, these are working people, most of them drew up in san francisco, they also deserve a shot. and i think it's not fair to say

that they are only exercising or coming out on projects because it's in their vested interest. that was insulting and disrespectful. so, those are the key points i wanted to highlight and emphasize on where we are in this discussion. one thing that also, supervisors kim spoke about, was section 415. this is a section that says something basically that there should be 19% b.m.r. rate. what is concerning is that if we stick to that code, and we stick to the letter of that law, that means that this project would be out of compliance with the inclusionary housing, particularly the project sponsor is offering a quarter, 25% b.m.r., above, up and beyond by six percentage points, more b.m.r. that what would be normally determined to be found

in the section 415. to me that's the give away. that's the give away to the developer. we need to be holding developers accountable and acknowledge that we need housing mixed for everyone. supervisor kim and then supervisor safai. >> thank you. a couple points i wanted to make, one, i also agree we need to build significantly more middle-income housing. i just want to correct the assertion on why we build a lot of middle working-class housing. if you are making at 55% of average medicine yan income you are a working person. for a single person you make $45,000 a year, that's many of our workers here in san francisco, many of our non-profit workers and actually our beginner teachers. if you are family of four, you are making about $65,000 a year.

we reason we build the average income that is where we apply tax credits and they help build at forward able housing. that is why typically, we have built more at this level and we don't have enough housing because we don't provide as many credits to build middle-class housing. now, i am ok with building a greater number of middle income housing on the site. however, when we negotiate deals, the percentages is lower if the units are deeply subsidized. so for example, if build was to commit to building 100% supportive housing for the formally homeless, we would not require them to build 25% on site. the requirement might be 10% or 15% on site. now, if you are going to build higher income housing, where the subsidy per unit is less, ve at private developer, then you have to build more than 25% on site. because the subsidy is less. so i would encourage the

committee to look at not the percentages of numbers but actually what the value of the package of what the developer is offering and pure dollars. so, if we expect the developer to commit to, i'm just going to make up a number, $40 million in affordable housing, whatever that is, that should be the contribution. so, i think that we have to be careful when we talk about percentages. secondly, in our inclusionary ordinance in 2017, we both tip you lated to what he will -- we stipulate lated who is eligible and what the rental price should be pegged at. so supervisor and president cohen presented a grid of who will be eligible for this housing. i think that it's important, actually, for households that make up to 140% of medium income should be eligible for housing on that site. the question is what rent or ownership price should we peg

those units at. in our insolution ary housing ordinance in 2017, we require three bands for developers to meet. the first is 10% said aside for households to make from 0% to 65% of average income. let me tell what you that is according to the mayor's office of community development in 2018. a studio at 55% of income is pegged at $1,140. now i think for many people, they would still have a hard time paying $1,140 for a studio. but that is what is to come from affordable housing in san francisco. to understand what it means when we peg the price at 1140%, the studio is $2,901. that is what we're calling

affordable housing in the studio that we can rent a studio at 140% of median income and the rent is $2,109. i don't see how that's affordable for anyone that is working class? my issue is not with who sell eligible, let's have households that are eligible for housing at indian basin, i don't want to charge the price of a 140% as that rent. is the way it works in our inclusionary ordinance is 2017, recognizing the rent price was so high is what we said is the highest stand was limited at 110% of a.m.i., but households that make up to 130% are eligible to apply for that unit. now a studio at 110% of median income is still $2,280. that is the max i'm asking for in this development project. i just don't think that i can

allow a project to say that they're affordable contribution is a studio pegged at $2,901. i just don't consider that affordable housing. i feel strongly about the project and everyone should look at numbers of what the rent prices are capped at firsts the a.m.i. of who is eligible, we should have a wide ban and have a cap on that run. it's not a contribution if we allow the developer to build the units at 140% of median income rent price. in my final response around the 25%, it's that we can do more middle income. that's fine. but we have to think about what the appropriate percentage is and maybe it's more than 25%. finally, i still know and i know president and i cohen and i have talked about t. i still have issues that if the developer elects to not build on site but

fee out to the city, they would only have to do that at 5%. we require a higher percentage. i roughly calculated this last week, i think it was about 6 and a half percent it's really a difference from 75 units off site to 110 units off site. this is a bare minimum. otherwise the developer should have to build all of their units on site. we do this because it takes often a very long time for the mayor's office of housing to build off site housing. by requiring these units to be built on site we know that these projects, these affordable units will be delivered as a market rate units are delivered as well. so, a couple of things, again. the max we should allow for this project is 110% or 120% for home ownership with a wide band of who is eligible second, if the

developer elects to do the fee out to the city, that it should be higher than 5%. the final thing i will say is this, i represented a district that is very poor and very wealthy. we are losing retail ever were . in the wealthy neighborhoods and in the poor neighborhoods. it's not just about who lives in the neighborhood. people are frankly just not shopping in retail. they're not going out to eat dinner at a restaurant. i don't think we can simply say it's because of how much people make that allows grocery stores or retail stores to survive. an example is china town. one of the poor neighborhoods in san francisco, which has an incredibly revitalized corridor along stockton, where, very low income people shop for food every single day and those stores survive. paying a high rent per square footage. i have also tried to get a

grocery store in the tenderloin and i have not succeeded. i know, i understand supervisor cohen's frustration with representing a neighborhood that is a food desert. i disagree it's because of the income level of residents. i just don't think that these businesses are willing to invest in our neighborhoods. in fact, the response i got from grocery stores is not that people make too little in the tenderloin, what we know nationally in the data s. that poor people just spend their income on rent and food than anybody else does. they pay the same price that a wealthy person pays for food, it's just a greater proportion of their income because people have to buy food. the issue that grocery stores said is they're worried about shrink age, which is shoplifting. that is why stores have refused to come to the tenderloin, it's not because our residents are too poor to buy food. they pay more for food in this neighborhood than at other neighborhoods because they pen on small corner stores where

those small business owners don't make a wide margin in profit and don't buy the scale. and therefore, they have to charge more per unit for the same item that a wealthy person may buy for a deeper discount because they can buy it in bulk at costco or go to whole foods who buys food across the country in one bulk. i just feel very strongly about this i think we have to be consistent. i don't want to set a precedent for a major development agreement and housing project that they are going to contribute less than what we expect of other developers. that is where i am today. i'd love to continue this conversation through tomorrow. i know that this will be a lot the full board of supervisors. for me, it's really important that we get a good deal and build for the people that need housing in the city. we have to do it at the appropriate-run price. >> thank you. >> i want to hit on the point

that supervisor kim has made. do we have a response from either staff or the project sponsor on the rent bans? that was an important part of the conversation that we had when we did inclusionary housing. we spent a lot of time, myself, supervisor kim and president breed at the time and supervisor peskin, alon along with many mes of the community. it's an important point. we would have a price point related to the rental units around those bans. >> supervisor lou. the rent bans were created because essentially, we were originally going to go at 110 average with just a range -- >> this is different from what you are saying. the percentages that you broken out, 5% of 55, what supervisor kim, to clarify, at 55 there's a band around that that you can be

above 55 and below 55 to a certain point but the rent is pegged at 55 for that 5%. same thing on the top 5% at 140. you would be within a range but the rent would be set and it would not be sent at 140% a.m.i. that's fine in terms of filling those units because i know that we always have trouble with getting people that qualify for those units at those ranges. and the hard range. in terms of, to be frank, in else it of the revenue, what matters is what we can rent the units for. there's two sides to that question. one is, what is the revenue coming from the rent and the other is who can we rent to. i don't know if that answers the question. >> i'm not sure what the question is. >> restate it again because i've tried a couple times. the rent would be pegged at a

particular number for all of that 5%. >> the lowest band would be 55% or below. the middle band would be -- >> i'm not talking about the people anymore. we're talking about the rent. >> the actual rent would be set at 55% a.m.i. >> what about at the 80 to 120? >> the went would be between 08 and 120, to an average of 110%. all three bands would be set so that when you put them all together, the average rent on the affordable would be 110% a.m.i. that's for sailor for rent or for any unit. >> that needs to be cleared out, spelled out specifically so we would know. supervisor kim, with we did the middle band, the rent was pegged at 90. >> 110. >> it was pegged at 110? that was the upper band. >> i'm sorry, yes. the highest band. it was 80%. >> so it was 55, 80 and 110. those are where the rents were

pegged, right. it didn't matter if yours was different because it's 80 to 120. >> that was an over all percent. it toggles the whole calculation. we're at 25%. >> so we would just -- that would probably make a little more comfort level to have that. >> we're happy to discuss how to do the math here. and it's our intent to build as much affordable housing as we can. i think someone from your team wants to say something. >> the chart that we laid out -- >> identify yourself. >> courtney pasch with build. it was for sale and rentals. that's why the range is wider than in section 415. >> so maybe you guys can just think about clearing that up for the over all. >> when we finalize this in a final vote, it would be helpful to have it clearly spelled out.

i hear supervisor kim -- through the chair? >> i do think it's helpful to include who is eligible at each rental price. i emphasize why i can't accept 140% as the highest band for the rental price. i would have take this stuff and i'm at 140% of average median income and i want to i'm a renter and i spend too much in rent. i would not want to spend $3,000 a month on a studio. that is what you are including as your contribution to the city's affordable housing crisis. i just don't see how that's acceptable. >> this is courtney pasch, this is still in the housing plan that we are capped at 80% of the

market rate and the bayview or district 10, i believe. so, if the market rent is less than 140, we would not be able to rent at 140% a.m.i. remember, 140% is also for sale. >> you didn't actually say that. i read the amendment that you put in. it says -- it does not specify it's for sale only. it's for rentals or sale. >> she didn't mean to say it was for sale only. it was for either. >> right. >> so that -- may i just ask perhaps to clarify for the future. if president cohen, if you might want to entertain an amendment to exhibit h that might distinct wish between rental and ownership instead. >> yes, i would. >> in time for tomorrow. >> it would make a huge difference. >> if we're talking about ownership at 140% that's one

thing. if we are allowing 140% at rental price, to be considered your obligation to our affordable housing crisis, i just can't support that. and again, i just have to emphasize, $3,000 for a studio unit, i would not pay that much for a studio. how can that be your afford able housing contribution. if you want to change that to home ownership, our inclusionary is pegged at 120. we allow households that make up to 1 50% eligible for those units. as much as possible i'd like to stick with our inclusionary housing ordinance. i think a wide band of folks should be eligible. >> if i may too, supervisor, kim as well, i know that there were pieces, previous pieces of housing legislation that i worked on where we had different bands of income levels qualified for someone housing levels and

we didn't spell it out in the legislation, it was through the mayor's office. housing where the policy lies and so, hence, i understand why it might be be spelled out here but i agree with maybe breaking it down between ownership and rental. but keeping the income bands held with whatever it is that mayor housing policy is in that regard. >> i wasn't done. i really appreciate the clarity. i would agree with that spelling it out. i just wanted to say a few comments. i appreciate all the folks that spoke from the community and from organized labor. one of the things that i think that is an important point that's missed often, is a lot of the men and women that build this type of housing often can't live in that housing. i think that's one of the most insulting things about our housing market today. so anyone that's criticizing the folks coming out to build, this