>> good morning, supervisors. shell medina. thanks for having me this morning, or afternoon. hi, supervisors. out of curiosity, does anybody know salary as of a teacher in san francisco? do you know how much they make a year? ok. cool. well, how much does a public teacher make in san francisco. the average public teacher salary in san francisco is $71,854 as of june 27, 2019. the rates stability between 62,731 and 82,954. salaries can range depending on many important factors, including education, certification, additional skills and the number of years the teacher has spent in class. i'm in support of the mayor, i think we need to get housing as soon as possible, eliminate the time frame, more money,

construction is more expensive, pay teachers more money. if we are living in one of the most expensive parts of the cities in the world, if you had to pay $3,000 for a studio, that's a mortgage in somebody else's cities or country. you know, we need to figure something out. we need housing. i'm in support of the mayor. thank you so much. >> hi. my name is dana, and i'm here to speak in support of the charter amendment. we are the only city that has a thing called discretionary review, anybody can file to block any project for any reason or no reason. i read the d.r.s and every planning commission packet and interesting to see how people are explicit about their greed. i have seen neighbors try to block housing because tenants might live there, because tenants would not live there but the building looks like the

tenants might live there. personal favorite, landlord worried that new housing would block shadows and he might have to do something crazy like lower the rent. why are we needling people's worst instincts? discretionary review is an embarrassment to our city. abolishing d.r. for affordable housing should be a no brainer. it's going to be a lot more important as we start building affordable housing in exclusionnary neighborhoods, people are going to get mad. we have a massive shortage of affordable housing with 8,000 applicants for every unit. we can't afford to waste time and money on frivolous appeals. i hope you guys can work with the mayor's office to come up with a way to eliminate these terrible appeals for affordable housing. thank you.

>> hi, my name did ira kaplan, a renter, live in district 3. i want you to support the mayor's charter amendment. some concerns from supervisors today about the high rents that some of the streamline projects would have. that's what it's like out here for those of us who are not housing secure, who did not have the opportunity to purchase a home in san francisco 10, 20, 30 years ago. that's what this process has done to us and the rents you are concerned about are the below market rate rents. discount from the private market where most people are forced to seek housing in san francisco. just near my apartment every day i see people sleeping on the streets every night and breaks my heart we don't have enough housing for them. it's a moral failure. the mayor's amendment does what you all say you want. it streamlines 100% affordable

housing and if you oppose it, because it also streamlines other housing, that's playing politics with people's housing. please don't play politics with people's housing. please let the mayor's charter amendment go to a vote of the people. thank you. >> my name is gabe. i've heard stories from teachers that are just heart wrenching, i'm sure they are to you as well. i'm in support of the mayor's charter amendment. great if we lived in a world we didn't have to -- we could put rents at a place teachers could afford them and housing prices to a place teachers could afford to buy in san francisco. that's not realistic and i think that if you want to help the teachers and people of all walks of life to afford to live here, you have to be realistic how to

accomplish that, you can't do it by stricting or protecting the institutional blo kadz to prevent housing from being something affordable. he's that the mayor is trying to address. a pretty courageous stand and said we are not going to do it the easy way by just bashing developers and talking about greed, but the hard way about taking on the institutional blockages contained in the charter right now. i understand this is not politically the easiest thing to do, but i think it's the right thing to do. we need to help these people and one of the ways we do that is by addressing the systemic problems, not a little piecemeal work here and there, frankly how we characterize the supervisor's proposal. but rather to make the hard choices and that includes market rate housing. now, the mayor has done her part, i think the voters will back her, and what's in the middle right now is you guys.

so, please vote to put her charter amendment on the ballot and let the voters decide. thank you. >> hi, jennifer fever with the san francisco tenants union, 8,000 members strong. i'm here to support the board's measure for affordable housing on public lands. we are very much opposed to the charter amendment, everybody is opposed to the charter amendment. i want to commend you all for working with the community stakeholders on this, and rather than just dreaming up tools for developers behind closed doors. we work very closely uasf and 2121 during elections so i thought it was very important to show up and support their ideas today. i have appreciated their sensitivity and always considerable vulnerable tenants and essential workers of the city, whether they are school teachers or not. and so they always work to come up with the best possible plans. so, thank you for all your work on this ballot measure.

another thing i noticed, i thought the mayor's office of housing and staff was supposed to be neutral like the planning staff. so my mind was blown today by the very bias presentation and that's not how i want my taxpayer dollars to be spent. >> hi, laura foote, mb action. two quick technical points. the first one is about the two competing ordinances. both of them rezone, and the worst outcome would be for neither to reach the ballot. if neither reaches the ballot, if we pursue a legislative way of doing this, a city-wide e.i.r., set back literally years, thousands and thousands of city dollars would have to go into this city-wide e.i.r. and

just like you are seeing with the navigation center, subject to a lawsuit. we are making it more high risk to do upzoning. so, while i have a slight preference for the mayor's upzoning, please make sure that either, both, or one of them makes it to the ballot. we need to do this at the ballot in order to make sure the e.i.r. is not subject to all the nonsense. and broadening affordability, more projects as federal and local funding is limited, growing it, more complicated projects that use a variety of income types. and the mayor's proposal allows for more of those cross subsidies so we can spend less. i was middle income when i lived on my friend's couch for months. and i was middle income when i lived in a bug-bite in fested warehouse apartment that had sort of been converted into

something habitable. middle income people need housing. when i was facing being a single income person in san francisco who was middle income, where was i supposed to live? i run a non-profit. we have so much tech money, i make $75,000 a year. it sucks. thanks. >> hi. my name is julian pressman, i have been in non-profit my whole life. and i wanted to voice my support for the charter amendment. in particular, i want to speak to the question of who we would be leaving behind. we don't get this amendment from the ballot. one is, so i live in district 6, i volunteer in the tenderloin working with the very poor and very sick people of the city who live in undignified and inhumane

life because they cannot afford rent or barely squeeze by, they don't have enough for food and medicine on top of that. we need to move much much much faster when it comes to building. we have been way too slow. we have not moved the homeless population in the city has swelled. by 14% in the last two years. and i appreciate the assurances could approve one by one, but the people suffering outside this building can't wait for all of that process and we have to move more swiftly. second, leaving behind middle income, non-profit workers. again, been in the sector my whole life again and again, entry level employees who come in, try to live here, can't live here, work for two hours and work the grueling and intense job and commute two hours back and leave the sector and decide i'm going to go work at a bank because i can't do this. and our sector in the services that your communities and our most vulnerable in san francisco really depend on are not able to

get fully staffed because we can't, these people can't live here. so, really encourage you to put this on the ballot and thank you so much. >> hi. my name is jessica hernandez, i am a teacher at paul revere. we are one of the lowest 5% performing schools and all though a lot of contributing factors to that, having a really vital school community is one of the biggest problems that affects all of our schools. and i would like for all of our staff to, that are passionate, our staff is passionate. they love our kids, to stay together and build something there. and so i appreciate the board, sorry, the, sorry -- afford and homes for educators and families initiative now. i would like to let you know that in the last five years i've been teaching i've tried

everything. living in san jose, commuting 1 to 2 hours, living in the east bay, living in liver rooms, considered living in my car. until i was one week from being due, i lived in hayward, and commuting on bart and that was hard. it's like people know that when you are pregnant you want to start taking time off and taking care of yourself. you can't do that if you know you are not going to be able to afford rent next month. and taking time off for my child, i can't because we have rents to pay, our rent is as much as our daycare, so we are paying what some people are paying for a full house right now, and it's both of us are teachers, so -- again thank for your support and i would like you to support the affordable homes for educators and families initiative. thank you.

>> my name is harry mudd, born and raised in san francisco, 45 years, fillmore district. homeless all my life, could not read and write. i think that this needs to pass, a lot of homeless people on the street, women and ladies standing in cars and sleeping in parks and on busses and sleeping in hotels, and late on rent one time and kicked out with a newborn baby. city is claiming they need money and funding but if you have 7,000 people that are homeless in one city and you get everybody together and put the money together, you wouldn't need the city's money, just --

someone to trust, san francisco, stockton, where there is land and i think a lot of these companies might, a lot of the schools and target and stuff that have people working for them, that dedicated that comes to work every day, and sleep in their cars with their kids and children, i think a lot of the schools and companies should start building housing for them, you know, so therefore you can help the people working for you and not turn your back on them. peace to my son, kareem malcom shakur. >> i'm here to support the mayor's charter amendment and ordinance. i want to say i'm thrilled that there are two ordinances that countenance, upzoning the rest of the city, 80% of the city's subsidized housing in the last ten years has been built in two supervisor districts, which means nine supervisor districts

split the other 20% and that's wrong. it's economic segregation, it is wrong. so i cannot tell you how thrilled and proud i am that this body is competing to move forward with something that will facilitate integrating all the rest of the neighborhoods. and echo what laura said, keep your eyes on the prize. if we mess this up and can't get this before the voters, something a real goal for everybody here will be lost. i have noticed that supervisor peskin will characterize the fighting as fighting between the board and the mayor and i think the public is going to feel, is going to interpret it that way. that really is what it looks like. up here, there was a lot of discussion before public comment but there were no points raised, actually. there was a lot of purposeful confusion between allowed and

requires, the mayor's charter amendment allows projects up to 140, and supervisor fewer repeatedly claimed that that meant it required, all projects to be 140. there's a big difference between allows and requires, and when you meld those things together, people in the public hear that you are being insincere and it really makes it sound like there are no reasons that this is just fighting. i was disturbed by the cavalier attitude supervisor ronen had towards waiting 100 days. one # hundred days is a big deal. if you run out of your time -- >> good afternoon, supervisors, robert, i live in district 5 and money for affordable housing is hard to come by. one supervisor said the real need for resources, money for building and acquiring land.

good news is that the mayor's proposal would help with that. it would lower construction costs, it would streamline affordable housing, i mean -- the real question is like are there actually streamlining issues. the answer is yes. in your committee packet today there is a memo and says in the year and a half since the effective date of senate bill 35, which allows for streamlined approval of affordable housing projects, six 100% affordable housing projects have gone through the discretionary review project and paid fees. they expect 8 to 9 annually. people are filing discretionary reviews and if you are a neighborhood group you can do so for free. i think this is pretty -- this is patently ridiculous. if we think there's no problem with discretionary reviews, it

should be uncontroversial to get rid of them. and if you don't like the mayor's proposal, which i support, i would hope to see legislation which gets rid of discretionary reviews, apparently not a problem, from the office of the controller. i think overall there is a real need that's just being confused here. this is not about building studios for everyone, this is -- this is about actually providing funding for affordable housing somehow, like although i will say i would be happy if we upzone west side in any sense of the word. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is susana parsons. thank you for the opportunity to provide comment, particularly on the mayor's charter amendment. on behalf of spur, i urge you to

support placing this proposed charter amendment on the ballot in order to streamline the review and approval of 100% affordable housing and housing for educators. we believe the passage of the measure will have a real impact on how quickly and cost effectively the city and industry will be able to produce the types of housing urgently needed in san francisco. we know that the full board of supervisors supports creation of housing for educators and low and moderate income households. this measure will address our infamously complex approvals process that provides many opportunities for opposition to delay or halt affordable housing. all at the expense of our city residents. the measure will require the city to create a more efficient and less risky approvals process, resulting in quicker delivery and less expensive production of exactly the kind of housing san francisco needs.

we urge you to refer this measure to the full board and give our supervisors the opportunity to show leadership on housing in san francisco. thank you. >> good morning, laurie, inner sunset resident. delighted that lawton and 7th avenue is a site for 100% affordable educator housing. i support affordable homes for families and educators now and oppose the mayor's charter amendment. public land is a public resource that should be reserved to serve the greatest need not to enhance developer revenue. homes for public educators, including very low paid support staff, are vital to supporting public education itself. it is shameful that the mayor's office would use widespread support for affordable teaching housing as cover for buy right

market rate development and offer affordability upwards in the same breath. there should be no buy right development on public land and no public subsidies for market housing. who are we leaving behind? i would add, why are we leaving them behind and on whose behalf are we leaving them behind. returning to the 7th and lawton project and the questions of affordability levels. one proposal for this location is 325 square foot studios. two people or more in 325 square feet, that is not a home, that is temporary shelter. it is frankly tire some that we continue to hear from the mayor's office the mantra that rarely used discretionary reviews are the reason for high housing costs. when will they decry speculator demands for sky high returns on their investments. finally, supervisors, thank you for your work with the unions representing our public educators, exactly how work force housing should be envisioned and enacted.

[please stand by]>> i want to thank the board for standing up for the ability of the board to

assert its own legislative authority. as i see it, the charter amendment basically bypasses the legislative branch of the government and we still have a belief, i think, in the separation of powers. and what the unfortunate thing about the charter amendment is, reminded me of prop 13. how installed and california constitution was linkage between commercial property and residential property, and it has become impossible to change that and the results are devastating to california. idea of installing buy right for developers under the false front of teacher housing in our constitution is another way of bypassing the legislative authority which actually represents more of the people of san francisco than the mayor's office. and i just think that i want to associate myself particularly

with supervisor fewer's remarks at the opening, i feel like they covered the realm of what has really been happening and echoed by those of you up there. and i hope to see frankly that the overwhelming majority of the board supports -- [microphone cut off] supervisors, my name is ken tray, served san francisco unified school district from 1985 to 2017. most of those years was as a classroom teacher teaching social studies. working with the children of san francisco. i'm here today representing uesf, a staff member of the union in support of the initiative. there was some illusion earlier to whether we worked with the mayor's office or with the supervisors. i think uesf would say as up

front as we can that we started good faith negotiations with both sides of the legislature here in city hall. we did meet with the mayor's office, talking about the charter amendment. never really had an opportunity to talk about their initiative. at the same time as we told the mayor's office, we were invited into discussions with the board of supervisors, and we, in fact, did work very closely with the board of supervisors on the initiative that we are speaking in favor of today. at the end of the day, what the board of supervisors came up with in intense discussions with san francisco's teachers and para educators, is policy that will cover affordable housing for our lowest paid para educators to our most veteran teachers. it will allow for a scope of housing which includes 2, 3

bedrooms and not jamming in the members -- and provide support -->> speaker time has elapsed. >> good afternoon, supervisors. peter coen. council committee housing organizations is very pleased to see the board's proposed affordable housing and educator housing and family housing

initiative. teachers have been working with several board members since the beginning of this year on legislation to build on, if you recall, last fall's very successful legislation with the south market sally district, industrial area and legislation specifically to allow affordable housing on the sites. overlay zoning approach. we wanted to build on that, and the density bonus programs and apply the policies city-wide to all residential districts, neighborhood commercial districts and importantly, our public sites, public lands. for 100% affordable housing. this is baseline zoning. rezone all up front, don't have to go by one by one, that's the biggest time delay, zoning and the e.i.r.s triggered. a huge boost in what's called geographic balance. everybody says let's build housing on the left side, let's do it, a goal we believe in. money now in the housing bond

this november. we all agreed on that. but an entry level question. where, and what sites? we don't have those sites. the fundamental value to rezone the sites up front. and it sounds like the yimbis agree on that, too, fantastic. let's do it. also pleased to see that educator housing have been included in this initiative so we can really start focusings on that particular population group. we know you have choices before you today. maybe even some competing ideas, but we encourage you to pick the board's measure, well thought out, we work together the educators and move together all together as a ballot what we have heard today. more sites for more housing. thank you. >> supervisors, steven boss with m.b. action. i like some who spoke before me, thrilled there are competing

measures to upzone the west side as we have been advocating for for years. we need zoning equity for affordable housing on the west side. i want to note the only actual affordable housing developer who is out today supports the mayor's proposal, i think that's worth really soaking in, really, you know, taking credence and support for that. and i also want to talk -- well, supervisor fewer, i was frankly offended by what you said, you said two people living in the studio, that's not -- that's not acceptable, basically is what you said. i've lived with my partner in a studio, 500 square feet. i, you know, lots of people live in small studios with their families, with their partners,

and to imply that that's not a real acceptable way to live is the height of privilege. you are insulated from these problems as a homeowner, of course. but the rest of us have to deal with our housing shortage. it's also the height of privilege to kill the mayor's proposal here and not let the voters decide. this is a very small cross section of san francisco. we have all taken off work, most people can't do that. the people most affected by this can't be here. so let's let the voters decide, bring them both to the ballot, and i mean, i'm hopeful, i'm hopeful that the voters will make the right choice. thanks. >> is there any other member of the public who wishes to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. so, colleagues, perhaps -- i

want to see if anyone wants to make any comments before we vote on the three items before us. looks like supervisor fewer would like to start us out. supervisor fewer. >> thank you, chair. so, i think that in listening to public testimony we have heard people ask me so who are we leaving behind. i actually think that we should probably vocalize who we are leaving behind. according to latino parody report of 2016, household medium yan for white house holds, 106,000, 919. asian, 105295. latin x, 70,000. and blacks, 46,000. blacks resident experience poverty three times the overall poverty rate in san francisco,

46% of black children living in poverty in comparison to 27% of pacific islanders children, 15% latin x, 10% of asian, and 3% of white children. nearly 40% of san francisco households that bring in less than 30% of a.m.i., or asian american, or pacific islander. the majority of latin x households in san francisco make less than 100% of area median income with the largest population latin x households falling in the 30 to 50% a.m.i. designation. between 1990 and 2014 and 15, decrease of low income workers living in san francisco, 30% increase in median rent associated with 21% decrease in low income households of color. correlation not seen for low income white house holds. as housing prices rose, the

share of low income black households in san francisco living in high poverty rose 41% in 2000 to 65% in 2015. in comparison to low income asian, 27% latin x, 19% and white house holds 12%. when people ask who are we leaving behind, and it is not a requirement they build at 140% of a.m.i., it is allowable to build at only 140% of a.m.i. so, when people ask who are we leaving behind, when we don't require affordable housing levels to be built at every level, these are the people we are leaving behind. they are our friends, they are our family members some of them, they are our neighbors, our educators, they are social workers, they are people who are working every day jobs to serve

those in san francisco. by our own analysis, the average black worker in san francisco makes 60,000 a year, compared to the average white worker that makes 156,000 a year. so, who are we leaving behind if we say that we allow developers, and again, not require, developers to build affordable housing at 140% of a.m.i. these are the people we are leaving behind. and this is why this issue is so profound. it is not simply about streamlining because both of these initiatives i think also allow for streamlining. it is about redefining what we are requiring developers to build when we identify what we identified as affordable housing, and then giving those developers streamlining to build

that type of housing for just this group of people. so, people also ask me who am i protecting. i am protecting the same people that we are leaving behind. i think that, and i just want to also speak to the comment that the public commoner said, i didn't say it was unacceptable for two people to live in a studio. i just said it is unacceptable to assume that it is -- i just think some of the speakers today were absolutely right. we have two competing issues here. we want one of them to get on the ballot and of course being on the boarding it should be the board's initiative. i think -- i agree, i hope that the mayor's office and the

supervisors come together and work together as we had during the city budget as well as the housing bond, and i have said to the mayor's representative that i hope the mayor will come on to ours, the one that is actually being supported 100% by educators in san francisco. i believe that educators know best about what they need for their work force, and as i said, as a former school board member, i work closely and i was a school board member for eight years and all three of us actually have been on the school board, all three of us have been presidents of the school board. we know intimately how hard it is to retain and also to recruit teachers. this is a truth that has been true for a very long time, and whose responsibility to build the housing, quite frankly.

>> i say it is envy. it is inclusiveness in my

backyard, people of color, of all chick groups. people of san francisco, and, hopefully, the good people of san francisco will see that in order to actually include everyone, we must include in this crazy housing market, we must include different levels because people in this city actually earn incomes at different levels. we must mandate it, as we must always mandate things for people of color and also poor people. so i don't have a vote on this committee, but i am urging my colleagues to do what we were elected to do to represent the people of san francisco that we are a city of diversity, economic diversity, racial diversity, diversity of thought the it is a slippery slope to

redefine what affordable housing is at such a level and in such a way that we will not require developers to build at any lower rates. i think what the board of supervisors has brought forward this initiative is very well thought out. i think it is with our stakeholders who we are designing this for, it allows flexibility. i would like to see this get on the ballot. i hope my colleagues agree with me. >> thank you, chair and colleagues. i am sure that most of what needed to be said has been said. i will be brief in my comments. i want to thank the mayor's office of housing and everybody who came out today to speak. i especially want to thank my friends, public school educator here from usf especially on your

summer break to be here advocating for something that you shouldn't have to continue to keep showing up to fight for. our educators as has been said do some of the most important work in our city. to have to have a conversation about whether you all can afford to stay here in the city that you have given and continue to give so much to is one of the greatest shames that we have as a city. it is something that i know as former school board member, school board president alongside supervisor few errandual ton that you have been fighting for for a long time. when people tell me that you don't understand how housing works or you don't understand what is best for you, i know that nothing could be further from the truth, that it has been our teachers, educators showing up again and again saying you have to address the housing

crisis our members are facing and up to do it now, and it is the city and school district as well that is slow to respond. when i first got elected to the school board, one of the main things the teacher said we need you to address housing. it wasn't for years after that that we finally moved the conversation forward and have our first project moving forward. there are a couple things i remember from the experience of being involved in the francis scott key project. and supervisor fewer said this. it was always not just a priority but requirement to our educators that it be available to their members at a broad range of affordability. that was always one of the most important things they fought for. they said we ca cannot leave

para-educators out. that was something that they always said was a requirement. if we are going to move forward a policy and initiative and charter amendment that claims to be for the educators, let's make sure to include what is a requirement for them which is access for educators at a broad level of affordability. the other thing that was always important for the school district that we had these parcels that are now being discussed for a long time, and what happens on those parcels, who gets to live there, how they are used on this public line is incredibly important. this is a huge decision that is being made right now how we use this land. i know supervisor fewer can attest we have been talking about what to do with that land for a long time now we want to

build housing for educators on that land. i think maintaining that principle that is part of the conversation not just at the city but at the school district is important. i would like to see the school board more involved in the conversation. one of the concerns i have had is that they haven't been able to weigh in on this including the city college board of trustees, as the publicly elected bodies. i think there ar are basic principles that under lie the proposal that we put together as a board. i also want do say i am really happy we are at a place where the city and school district and city college this is at the top of the agenda we want to put more money into educator housing and rezone for educator housing. that is a huge change from a few years ago.

that is due to educators fighting and advocating to make sure we address that with the urgency it deserves. there is a lot of agreement here. there is a lot of agreement to rezone much of the city to allow for 100% affordable housing to be built. that is in all of the proposals. there is a lot of agreement and potential for moving forward. i think there are essential requirements that need to be in the initiative which includes access at a broader range of affordability including lower end and make sure we use public land for educator housing 100% for educators. with that i guess it is no secret i support the board's initiative. i am a co-sponsor. i want to thank colleagues for

their leadership and working so closely with the stakeholders. i thank the mayor and mayor's office of housing. when we make the changes and come to compromises and go to the voters we will be in a much better place and we will see hopefully in the near future hundreds hopefully thousands of units of educator housing come on line in the near future. >> supervisor mar. >> chair mar: i want to offer brief remarks. i really struggled with these issues, both the policies and politics of it. i want to thank everybody that came out today to share your perspectives on either side of the issue and the many that have communicated directly to my office and to my colleagues. i think this sort of contentious nature that we have gotten to around the proposals to

streamline affordable housing highlight how complex these issues are and there are a lot of different perspectives to best address these problems. it highlights how important it is to get the details right and to consider the specific details. i think the presentations today, thank you so much to the mayor's office of housing and planning department as well. the presentations have been helpful along with public comment in clarifying my thoughts. i want to say that i am proud of the board of supervisors measure. it will rezone and streamline affordable housing sites across the cities specially the western neighborhoods serving a wide range of people without pitting it against low income housing needs. it is just the kind of mixed income affordable housing policy we need. i look forward to working with

the full board and the mayor and educators and the community to see that this leads to more housing city wide for low and middle income households. regarding the charter amendment, i do appreciate the effort by the mayor office office to explore new models and to address the housing needs of middle income residents which is a high priority for me and my constituents. i have a number of significant concerns about the policy and process of the mayor's charter amendment which leads me to oppose moving this forward today. my main concern is that the charter amendment is not needed. as stated affordable housing including educator housing projects like the outer sunset educator housing are already eligible for streamlined review through sv350.

what is needed are the zoning control adjustments in the boards ordinance which i look forward to support as it moves forward to the november ballot. i look forward that the key project is able to take advantage of the streamlining from the board's initiative if passed so that 130 teachers are able to move into affordable new homes up to 18 months sooner. finally, i look forward to leveraging re-zoning in the initiative ordinance and streamlining 350 to aggressively move forward with the district four affordable housing strategy i have been developing with my constituents and looking at the four public sites and three dozen private sites we identified for affordable

housing development. thank you. >> thank you so much, supervisor mar. i want to appreciate everyone. when you listen to the stories of educators and what they are dealing within san francisco right now, it is just really hard to keep it together. i am a parent of a child in public school, and i know firsthand what her teachers and all of the paraprofessionals at her school are facing. they are leaving. there is so much turnover every single year. it is a true crisis. i have no doubt that we are all -- the mayor' mayor's office the planning department and the policy office and the mayor and all members of the board of supervisors, we want to fix

this. there is no doubted we all want to fix this. there is a fundamental difference of opinion how to do that. on the one hand, you have the majority of the board of supervisors that the educators themselves who believe that with the precious resource of public land that is in such short supply the minute we build on it will be gone forever should be reserved for affordable housing. there is a little difference what the a.m.i. levels are that constitute that. the major difference here is what should that land be for? how do we build the amount of educator housing we need the quickest way possible? i believe it is to fight for public funding at the state and local level and at the federal

level again to preserve that precious resource for 100% affordable housing for teachers. we are starting that with francis scott key. with the $20 million in the bond for teacher housing. we are not going to stop relentlessly fighting for that funding. i believe that is the fastest way to get us there and the right way to get us there. on the other hand you have the mayor's office and a few members of the board of supervisors who believe the best way is to convince private developers that have a profit motive to, you know, as long as we give them 66% of the land to get the top dollar they can get for the commercial space and the luxury housing that they build that they will be willing to build 44% of those units of educator housing at the highest level.

that is a real disagreement. it is not worth fighting each other. i think supervisor fewer said this. we want to attack each other. that is not it. we are fighting for how we can get to the greatest amount of educator housing the quickest way possible. we have a major disagreement. there is a lot of talk and accusations going around. that is not what we are doing to each other. the mayor is not doing that to the board of supervisors and the board of supervisors are not doing that to the mayor. our intentions are right. we disagree how to get there. i want to say that i agree with many of the speakers who i disagree with on the best way to get there, that we have progress here with the willingness on both sides to rezone the city for affordable housing on public

lands, and i think that is great. today i will be supporting supervisor fewer's -- well that is just a hearing. when it gets to the board of supervisors, i will support supervisor fewer,ual ton, haney and peskin's charter amendment for housing. supervisor walton. >> thank you. i want to thank everybody for being here. i know it has been a long hearing this morning. the one thing for me that i truly understand after listening and sitting through this morning's hearing is that we have a lot of people here in san francisco that are dedicated to addressing the affordable housing issues here in the city. that is important, and it is

exciting. i know a lot of you in this chamber have taken off work today, taken time away from family and summer vacations. i want you to know we do appreciate you being here and understand your commitment to addressing some serious issues we have in the city. i do have to say it is always concerning to me to support a charter amendment solely dedicated to what we do in times of crisis. it is hard to reverse when change is needed. this locks us to a very high a.m.i. for years to come. regardless of whether or not the economy changes and there may be need to decrease the high point. we need to address this issue legislatively and as a unit. the charter amendment is divisive at this time. i prefer to work with the executive branch and educators

to legislate this like we should. in addition, we have to be very careful how high we make a.m.i. levels through the charter. things change. 140% of a.m.i. cannot be the speak standard for affordable housing in san francisco. my family lives. i know how hard it is to live in the city. like supervisor fewer stated. i live in a small bedroom and three of us and sometimes four of us when my eldest stepson who is an adult is with us. we are on top of each other. i lived in public housing growing up. i have lived in studi studios. my mom and i have had to stay with friends. it is not ideal to be in the situation my family lives in. we love san francisco. we work hard in san francisco. i want to work hard to make sure

people don't have to live on top of each other, particularly people raising families here in the city with less options than people may have. i also know there are thousands of folks that have it worse than me. we all have to think about their needs as well. a charter amendment, this amendment will redefine 100% affordable housing to raise income levels requirements, create definition of teacher housing. not supported by the former body that represents educators in san francisco and allow market rate development on public owned land. that is a major issue for me and a lot of my come leagues. these def -- colleagues. we should not be giving away publicly owned land for market rate developments calling it

affordable teacher housing. we know we can do this as city leadership. the director even mentioned that. costs may be different but it is something we can do. i want to read something for people who are accusing me and my lack of support for a charter which is hard to reverse. here are numbers. 7218, 3454, 2600, 2150, 574, 600, 1240, total proposed between 16,686 and 17,000 836 units with the mixture of

affordable, working class and market rates. does anyone know what these numbers reflect? these are the units in the pipeline in district 10 alone. i have actually built 100% all affordable housing. i have also led successful proposal to build 164 all affordable housing units in district 10. i know a little bit about getting housing built. i would not call myself a housing expert but i would say i have good knowledge and practical experience in getting housing built in communities in san francisco. calling me a nimby is sort of like calling donald trump a decent and moral human being. i played a role in building all

affordable housing projects and making sure housing gets built. responsibly and with benefits to the community. thousands of units, some of which are under construction right now. we by ourselves also cannot say what is best for educators without the support of educators. we were able to get approval for the first affordable housing at francis co scott key. we have the ability to streamline through sb35. this changing the definition and increases the a.m.i. averages which is not responsible to do through a charter. because of the lack of flex bill when the economy changes in san francisco. all projects proposed can be affected by the charter

amendment qualify under sb35 for approval including francis scouted key. the land needs re-zoned which should have happened a couple years ago. the true reason for the dilatory removement at the francis scott key project is due to the developer that doesn't know how to work in san francisco and not truly chosen by the school district. this is the first project of its kind. they secured all most 60% from housing bond money promised by the late may or lee. with $44 million in 2017. that contribution from the city allowed units to employees who make more than the low federal income limits at a max of 60% of media income.