smaller sites are important part of this equation. i wanted to find out what the current strategy is with regard to acquiring new sites? either available land or improved property to mohcd or department of real estate? >> thanks. as i mentioned earlier in comments to another question, we acquire fair amount of land because of the provision in both the inclusionary law and the job housing linkage fee allow that allows folks to dedicate land in lieu of paying a fee or offering

affordable units.

>> supervisor preston: i had trouble getting clarify. for my district, was a site that late ed lee, with then supervisor london breed identified purchase and it will be 100% affordable housing. can you shed light on how that kind of purchase comes to be? what our budget is for that going out and buying land for the purposes of developing 100% affordable housing? >> there are cases where there

are certain high profile projects like that site which has been identified as a source of concern for neighbors and community members for many years. when the site became available for sale, there was an added urgency to making a move and taking advantage of that opportunity. that does happen occasionally. we have in recent years bought a few sites. it's a point in time assessment. do we have the money. if we don't have the money, we don't buy the site. when it comes to question who decides it's a collaborative decision often including supervisors, some of the times the request to acquire income from supervisors.

sometimes they come from the mayor or from community. there's no -- i can't give you a clear response how we assess. do we have funds in hand and is it a developable site, can it leverage other funding sources and what kind of folks we have at the site. it's a professional feasibility analysis that is really based primarily on our financial resources. >> amount of funds are set aside for acquisition. let me make one exception, this year, in response to concerns from supervisors and others, we were concentrating too much housing activity in certain

areas. we identified sites in district 1 and district 4. neighborhoods that we have not developed as many projects and that was note that went out to our developer community and we're doing acquisitions of two sites. one on geary and one on irving. >> supervisor preston: is it a fair assessment though that generally, the funds need to be freed up from other affordable housing pots in order to undertake acquisition of land for affordable housing? annually there's a set pool of funds specifically for that purpose? >> correct. i wouldn't want to characterize it taking funds from another project. if a project is delayed we have

critical amount of dollars we can deploy more quickly, or if we get unanticipated funds from inclusionary fees which are very difficult to budget for because they are subject to market forces, if we end up having more resources than anticipated an opportunity might come available by consensus, it's not definitely a collaborative decision-making process. >> supervisor preston: is mohcd or department of real estate proactively looking for sites to buy? >> we don't have the resources available for that. >> supervisor peskin: the city is notified on any of these land sales?

>> when we get into a purchase and sale agreement with an owner, it goes to the board. >> supervisor peskin: i'm asking when property goes up for sale. vacant property or improved property. the city notified part of the notifications or any other notifications. >> that's right. now if we can shift to the preservation world, if there are multifamily building, they'll be meeting a certain set of criteria that become available for sale on the market. a list of preselected list of nonprofits. there maybe one for profit developer. they can have the right for refusal. >> supervisor preston: has there been any reevaluation given the anticipated drop in land prices

in the current economy? any reevaluation of potentially use of a strategy of acquiring land? >> we have been hopeful for -- to be able to implement a strategy. we keep waiting to see the prices go down. we have not seen that happen yesterday. also, because of our sources are drying up, because you know our preservation programs are funded through set aside same sources that we use new construction funds for. housing and trust fund, inclusionary funds, also the photo proof bonds which are safe. in so far as our preservation funds are moving, those numbers

are moving. we have to be judicious about what acquisitions we entertain. we have not seen numbers go down on the acquisition side. we're part of a high cost city with housing folks from all over the country, big cities, chicago, d.c., l.a., new york obviously and we're hearing the same thing that has not hit yet. >> supervisor preston: thank you. i want to comment, i think some of these smaller sites and potential acquisition land banking are strategies that require capital to undertake but also i think as important as we spent lot of time on the larger site. those are certainly more high profile. i think that having a more systematic approach, is one of the things that i hope that prop i revenues maybe able to to be used for or looking at other

ways that the city can have a more defined pool of funds to use for acquisition.

all time lines have been influx. what's not aware, frankly, before i began preparing for this hearing in the piece of it that appears to have been missing is, there have not been board of supervisor hearings one was called for in the immediate aftermath of prop k and though provide the report and by april 15th, the board is supposed to have a hearing. i'm curious from i suppose i could ask colleagues, who may know but i'm wondering if that's been waved or simply not

scheduled and eager in light of the important issues around surplus properties to figure out how we get that on track or maybe it's been in other hearing. i don't know. what has happened to the board hearing part of that process? >> so, if i may, as the chair of this committee, that's largely consumed by our hearings on the balance report and insofar as this was not a charter amendment, but a initiative ordinance and it's largely been dealt with under the housing balance report. >> if you would like to add to that, i know you were about to try to speak so feel free to chip in if you would like. i was just only going to note

that the real estate division sends ready to give a presentation to the board at their request and i think the practices over the years sort of have been that we present the report to you and if there's something in the report that you feel you need a in-person briefing on the board will request that hearing and we would be prepared to present it. i think it's sort of that and in addition to what supervisor peskin said about it being subsumed in other ways. >> part of my reason for asking, my understanding if i think the

so you end up with a sliver of properties like in the current one it's just really the arts commission property that extended is on the site right now and i could fully understand whether it was president yee may have thought we don't need a hearing to discuss one site that is in progress for affordable housing but what i'm concerned about, decisions going into what is above that line and another words the surplus property, what is below that line which is quite an extended list of properties including properties and my district that are certainly i would say to you and even it would be valuable beyond

the scope of this hearing to sort of go through individual properties and how the surplus are made and i do think there's a value to what who was mapped out in proper k around the board and having a more substantive discussion about that and even if very few properties are identified by city sad straight through the surplus properties and process. i may be misreading that. i'm happy to stand connected before my time on the board but it's my impression that few properties go through that decision-making tree and being presented to the board as actual surplus properties that we could be considering for housing development. do i have all that right? have i summarize that? >> that's a lot to unpack but i think you and supervisor peskin,

hit the snail on the head in your earlier conversation and that is it is in large measure up to the department to identify surplus property. here we buy and sell and lease with you we don't program and we certainly don't have the ability to and they say oh this property may look surplus to you and we have long-term plans for and it's not suitable for the surplus property list and if you want today see and list and be a little more robust or you wanted the supervisors to have a in-depth analysis of what properties go onto the list or

not, it's a very that own property and what their processes are for determining surface status. maybe we can explore ways and it's small sites and what is and is not surplus and it's important part of the equation and director, i did wonder to my question around proactively identifying sites for purchase for the city. does your department do that and my district goes on the market, does anyone within real estate consider looking at that or is

that simply not within the scope of what your department does. >> no, it is within the scope of what we do and i don't think that the process is as formalized as you would like it to be. i get unsolicited calls to purchase city property and buy private property and we have an expensive i send that information to departments that i think would have an interest in that property for their progress attic use whether it's hsa, dph, hsh, mocd even oewd on

occasion and normally beer looking at say sleeping, parking, when departments me they have a knead i match 245 expressed need with sizes they come in the door and. >> it might be helpful to speak to what departments you do not full full a real estate role for? >> thank you, chair peskin. that is your absolutely correct. i don't usually although the real estate division is a full service department and we will assist any city department upon their request, typically i do not get requests from the airport ex the puc, and mta,

rarely, sometimes redevelopment agencies and no, they're in wind down. within their department and they tend to consider themselves with their own real estate needs though we provide appraisal services or maybe consulting services if they request. >> >> thank you. director and let me just say that i think that these, i want to remind folks that these sites, if we're able to acquire them and develop them for affordable housing, these are despite all the debate around buy right and many come more controversial issues in terms of private development. the city has green lighted these

sites for affordable housing and through prop e and last year or 2019 and so these are real opportunities and the highest profile for the each of them but in terms of especially if particularly if we see some drop in prices, on some of the land i would hope we're aggressive in pursuing those opportunities. >> over the short ken you'r tene board has preferred purchase over lease and we do look for those opportunities where possible it's also a question of prioritizing resources. >> switching back and i will wrap-up soon but switching back to ms. eli around the land aroud

dedication when we talk about properties that the city can acquire, that's a whole category of properties. those are not subject to some of these issues we talked about in terms of jurisdictional issues and these are properties being set aside or dedicated to the city for most to oversee affordable housing developments so can you speak to our policy what of the dedicated sites is 100% affordable and what is mixed use with respect to land dedication by private development. >> so, under the planning code and the job jo job housing it's

satisfied by a parcel, we then do a feasibility study on how many units the parcel can accommodate and any serious toxic issues or is it over a bart tunnel or on a 25% grade and we look at high level feasibility and we write a preliminary for the site assuming that it doesn't have my major features. to date, we've not turned down any land dedication site. we just are celebrating the completion of construction on our first site. beautiful building for seniors right off chavez and we have a number -- i think i have a list somewhere but i think we've accepted six or seven to date and they're all 100% affordable.

we may go up to 40% but we don't have any land dedication projects with market rate union it's in that. >> that's regardless of the size of the land dedicated? is that right? >> right. so the largest site that's come to us to date, is 801 brandon also known 607th street and that's been in use as a covid testing site and it's going to be most likely two, i should know this but i believe it's two distinct projects but it's too large to build one so, we've selected a developer for that project and it's in early pre equipments and the large site that we have provided

preliminary acceptance for is 1979 mission and the city hasn't required the site yet but when we do, it will be me get the project and i'm sorry, to realize the 607th street is one large projects so 1979 mission will for sure be the largest site and it's too early for us to say how it will be programmed or financed. >> what's the approximate unit count that is feasible and site? >> i'm not sure. >> ballpark estimate. >> let me see if i can get that. the seventh street site is currently 208 units. and i'm not sure about the 1979

mission. let pesky ilet me see if i can t while we're together. and when we do a high-level feasibility, review in order to accept the land as the land dedication site, it's quite actually a close analysis where the unit count and the unit mix needs to directly for which is the land is being dedicated so we went up been may not be what was so for example, 106t 106th street, we assessed it as 250 units because of the way we're programming it we're able

to do it 208 and i think it looks like my colleagues are in touch and the 1979 mission will probably be 200ish units. as we discussed before, best practice is not to have hundreds and hundred of units in a single building. it's not great for the financing because you reached financing caps. it's not great for operations and so there's a lot of considerations when we determine how many units to put. >> let's do this. it's now 3:52 and we've got public comment. we still have not finally adjudicated item number 1. i have a meeting at 4 on an item coming to our full board tomorrow. how i'm going to compress time, i'm not sure.

supervisor preston, can we open this up to public comment. i don't want to truncate your question. >> we absolutely can and i appreciate the time and diving into many of these issues. i will, before we conclude moving the informational hearing to the call of the chair because i think there may be some things we want to follow-up on, but absolutely fine to move to public comment. thank you. >> before we do that supervisor preston and vice-chair safai, i've been in many different dift incannations of many committee incarnations, i got fired from this committee once by someone. i just want to say, and i don't say this lightly, it's really been a pleasure serving with the two of you for the last session

and i actually think even though we come from different political stripes and thoughts, that we've all been thoughtful and engage with the public and had really honest public policy dialogues so thank you. with that can we open it up to public comment and ms. major, we cannot do this without you and the back house team so thank you for keeping it together in 2021. >> of course. >> we'll try to do do 21 as well. through the chair, we have a spanish interpreter from supervisor ronen's office we have a last minute request for interpretation so santiago, if you can unmute yourself and

provide instructions before we head to public comment. >> before you do that, you are working out of class and i hope you get extra money for this. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. so, i [speaking in french] >> we will unmute the first caller. james, you will have four minutes for interpretation.

[speaking in spanish] >> she may begin. >> i live in the --

>> this is -- i live in district 11 and and this issue is important to us we have to continue to live here and the salaries are not allowing us to pay these high rents and people can't live here.

>> in district 11, there are only two current projects that we know of and the balboa project and it's -- >> i just couldn't hear the other name of the project. so, it's the balboa project and

the mariney project. >> i heard that the first time around. >> these are the only two projects that we know of. we want to know why the door has been shut to making these more affordable and we need projects to help lower the rent for the community. [speaking in spanish]

>> so, she is wise these two projects are the only ones right now that are being put in the excel sethebut one needs to make money to live there and she's asking why these projects are approved and why is the city approving projects that will not help rents come down. people are living in the excelcier and there's no housing possibility for them to have low rent or purchase housing when the city conditions to approve

unaffordable projects. >> next speaker, please. >> >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> [speaking in spanish] [voice of interpreter] hi, i live in district 11 and i am a

part of excelcier action and i'm here to request that the city approve more affordable housing in the community because that is what the greatest need is. [speaking in spanish] the only two projects are those are not, she's asking why those

were not made to be 100% affordable. there is a big need for affordable ability in the area and why is the city approving projects that will not hold with making rent more affordable. >> we are being evicted. families and seniors do not have a place to live and we deserve

dig need housing and and redeserve our place in san francisco. [voice of interpreter] there are people living in garages and people living in one room and there isn't enough place for all of us to live dignified that the city needs to provide more housing so we can all live a dignified, healthy existence.

>> what we're asking today, is you support us. you have the power to provide the lands and projects that will help us again we are workers and we're not asking for anything for free we just want an opportunity to live dig need. >> next speaker, please.

[voice of interpreter] hello, my name is maria elena and i live in the exce excel seeand i'm sao see these projects have been approved. i work with the community to help people apply for affordable housing and to housing and these projects will not help at all. why is the city a proving these pro projects.

[voice of interpreter] i've worked with the community and we hope to get the permits and the land for these projects and now that we have the community has

worked in the belief this will help us, none of these rents are going to be within the range that we can afford. that the supervisors should volume worked with the community so that the rents are set with the reality that is what they're able to pay with.

[speaking in spanish] >> i don't understand why there was a developer that was chosen for this project that has caused the price to go up and has made it impossible for anybody to

rent and the community and we have been working for many years to make sure that the two projects are accessible and we are very sad and angered to find out that when we see what these rents are, that it will not benefit the people that have been fighting follow over 10 years to bring more housing into the community and she's very upt they will not helping the community. >> next speaker, please. >> [speaking in spanish] >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is harlow i'm a san

francisco resident and first of all i wanted to thank supervisor preston for sponsoring this hearing and i was involved in a campaign to proposition k to offer the city its own affordable housing and i believe we should be maximizing affordable housing on city owned land as much as possible and this land must be used for the public good and not sold out to private interests and the results of the prop k election we had 73% of voters in support and this shows we are in a housing crisis and social housing is a key part of the solution and it's not a radical idea in many cities aroun aroune world such as singapore and have invested in municipal social housing and have really affordable rents that amount of working class families and this

presents a really great opportunities to act on climate change and support a local deal. we can do this through publicly acquirinacquiring housing units. the city passed new correction and it goes towards decarbonizing housing however, we should consider enacting new legislation as soon as possible to ensure that any public funding provided by the city to non profits for housing is

subject to all electric and weatherization requirements. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> linda chapman. i really want to thank supervisor preston for this. i want to say it's really kind for the city using its property for anything anything that affordable housing and the point, it's very important to have mixed income and we do considering anything falls within affordable housing. sue mentioned when we were speak agent a different hearing before you, that i was right about the fact that our neighborhood, although it doesn't have a lot of public sites, has sites that

would have been used for affordable housing and when they're gone they're gone. wouldn't it be better to do them in a phased state. many of the comments made today were just right on and you don't have to do all the infrastructure to build housing and later on we can deal with the community center and the parks and maybe another set of units so fourth for example. and i would just like to say, you know, it would be so feasible to do smaller projects. we had a project, 52 units and the mayor's office of housing said how can we bri it when i said the proposal and could have brought it and they were ready to build it and david baker was ready and they confirmed it and so on and why wasn't it built on a site on a church that wanted

to build affordable housing and didn't think they could find a developer until i found them one. he was demolishing the land park. >> that's concluded. >> next speaker. what is 100% housing community and for the housing is what is city can afford to build these are low income feed who are desperately out of housing because there's none being built

for them and the senior citizens the homeless people in the city are all over the place because there's no place for them to go and housing should be to those who have their greater needs and money from private inconcerns should not be loud to dictate where and when new housing can be used and built and in order to tell you or because of money and house tag is necessary for the presentation and it's horrible to see and other places too and people don't have no place to stay and it's very disgraceful and even think about people also and time with the pandemic and being they don't have no home at hall and it doesn't make sense. i want to say that and thank you for giving me this time.

>> thank you, sir. next speaker. >> and i want to your knowledge you to intended and the city will boast through the landlord and utilities and and i support the need by investing proposition i revenue as well as other funding over the coming years to require 10,000 social units and and however, new

legislation as soon as possible tone sure that any public funding provided by the city and other entities for housing and and during the critical care you need to begin we come out and decarbonizing our housing and it's on going city and real estate center has run the city for fatah long and we're suffering for it and thank you very much. >> thank you and looks forward meeting you in-person. next speaker, please. >> hi, gave and i'm a

constituent and district 2 and i want to thank the supervisor preston for sponsoring this yearing and special thanks to preston for k and i as your renter here, i urge you to make those opportunity to publicly acquire and rehabilitate housing units with all electronic and retro fits. to the extent we build housing housing prop i funds to do this and supervisor preston and would like to invest in revenue and to acquire 10,000 units of social housing as provided under prop k and the all electric new we

should consider enacting new legislation since possible and ensure any public funding provided to non profits or other entries for housing and is also subject to the same all electric and they're both climate friendly but tenant friendly and we need to overcome segregation and approaches and public housing and for example articles and california constitution and they have exacerbated these housing and inequality with low carbon social housing we can build a new pile at approach to housing that guarantees rents and begins the process greenhouse tag is efficient and healthy for all residents. expand the audience and invest other funds into low carbon

housing on public land. thank you. just for the education of those who are watching, and before we call on the next speaker, supervisor preston, we all just voted on a measure that you introduced on the ballot, but, could you please define what housing housing is? >> yeah, generally what the term social housing means in terms of the i think there are definitions and there's projects

so, my view and if you look up and it's different definitions but i view social housing is the umbrella term for those house tag are off the speculative and for-profit market and include perks and that's what we did with prop five with the housing stability and and left it and to cars out the spending process within that it's before i fixed my name to said measure but i thought i was h it was important just to put that out there. next speaker, please. >> we want to thank supervisor

preston for bringing this conversation and to the committee today and we appreciate his desire to be created and thinking about ways and we can acquire land and so we very much appreciates those efforts and thinking about the policy outcomes that were trying to achieve and if it's the affordable units the city acquires and builds it's one piece and if it's maximizing the amount of affordable housing on a site without cross subsidizing with market rate housing it's

another piece and i think trying to figure out what we as a city want to come up with a policy outcome and defining that can best hel help achieve and the ld banking and the deet buying land and did has often been discussed and there are pros and cons of the current one mile radius and it has advocated for expanding that at the same time we want to make sure that we're not concentrating all of the below market rate housing and centering parts of the done so that presents solution and we want to make sure they avoid pit

bulls and it was. thank you mr. smith. before i call on the next call, mr. smith, are you still on the line? >> who are we? >> the who are your board of directors, that would be my question? >> so, next speaker please.

>> good afternoon, my name is charlie and i'm here representing and thank you supervisor preston and members of the committee and i appreciate this discussion given i'll represent our city's best opportunity to create two assets that are generally affordable and meet community needs and the project located next to the bubble of arts station is a public land site and is or was a model that we want to lift up for public lands development and we're concerned, however, because of the and we're out of reach of low income and working class families in district 11. it was back in 2012 that youth and community organization in front of the mta and demanded the city transferred the land to the mayor's office of housing so

we can begin this process and creating 100% affordable housing and community organizations then led a community planning process that engage hundreds of neighbors to in-depth, face-to-face conversations in spanish, chinese and english and in that process the community overwhelmingly prioritized a range of affordable ability from 30% to 50% to serve the needs of very low and low income families. and that community they have been increased to go as high as 105% meaning that an individual can earn up to $94,000 to qualify for some units and all this in the neighborhood where

the income for a household is only $75,000. given this is a public hand site we urge the city to assess the ami -- >> thank you for your comments, next speaker, please. >> supervisors, this is loraine petty and district 5 advocate for affordable housing with people with disabilities. i too want to thank supervisors preston and yee and the committee for really the illuminating viewing. the need is so great for seniors and others on fixed income or low income and essential workers and they're vulnerable and they must fast track building affordable housing and using

public lands only for 100% affordable housing. that's the way to get there faster at a lower cost. putting market rate housing and it's to repeat old patterns which have been far too slow of policing the numbers that lead and in addition i also believe that the use of public land for any private profit making purpose is a misuse of taxpayer assets. clearly we need nontraditional process and other non profits social and financing and it should be in the public state of housing. thank you. >> we have 42 listeners and 24

in queue. we should not use our taxpayer money for mixed-use development and we're just a city helping our vulnerable populations by building affordable housing on land collectively owned by the people. >> thank you next speaker you will be notified that your line

is be muted and you may begin your comment. >> i'm a 3d resident and land use and i want to thank supervisor preston and getting this conversation to this point and i just wanted highlight thinking about what people are saying the critical distinct one that we're having two discussions at ones is the first discussion is the ownership and the profit structure of housing on public land and the second is the affordability and rent structure. and i want to eye light andousing proposal is not the same and they're different feats and it's profitable and they're

participating in it. our goal should really be to direct this surplus, which we're not doing right now to cross subsidize lower income residents so we create social housing that is integrated that is sustainable and feasible with increase affordability and all these things are not -- and have public oversight and community accountability. there's one parcel that with in renewal and district 1 and that is continuous 15 5:00 how squarely move and just want to throw that out there for everyone. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, place. >> good afternoon. can you hear me. >> please proceed.

>> hello. >> hi, my name is raina and i'm calling for the shift 11 and i'm calling to echo the sentiments of the first callers and i believe that public lunch would be exclusively earmarked for affordable housing and like i said before and what affordable moves and i understand that workforce needs housing and i think we all need housing and i think we're talking about equity and so come communities get together to plots of land like the balance owe a upper yard that people out and hearing and we should keep this affordable and so i urge you to please consider callers in front of me have said please bring back the affordable levels and pardon me, please bring down the

affordability levels and can stay in district 11. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, caller, you are on the line. we'll take the next caller. >> i'm a member of 350 san francisco and the san francisco climate emergency coalition. first i had would like to expression my appreciation for supervisor peskin's emergency in the housing in the city and focus on up lifting approaches

based on deeply affordable housing and this is crucial and supervisor peskin mentioned henry george and i think century economists who champion the understanding that what derives from the land is all the people on it and i believe he would be proud to see a public servants taking responsibility for using this land to attack the unfair housing situation we have created here. second thing is low carbon housing can help us move cooling and cooking so please expand the electric word and invest the funds and to low carbon social and affordable housing. thank you. >> thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, supervisors, i am with usm and i'm calling into ask that the developments on public lands should exclude for affordable housing and echoing sentiments and other callers we need a new process to ensure from created from the bottom up designed communities where they are built and especially in the midst of the covid crisis our communities across the city want public land to be used for 100% affordablous housing and we urge the city help our vulnerabilities by collectively owned and please keep public lands and thank you very much. >> thank you for calling. next speaker, please.

production. there are no excuses for selling off public resources. we often hear as an unjustified default and market rate projects can move faster because they leverage private capital and in fact almost every 100% affordable project does leverage private capital and moves forward in timely ways. it's the big projects that depend the work project that i worked on and back in 98 and it's still waiting for private

capital and and they have a great responsibility to expand the geography of affordable housing and they come up and whether it's already been identified and currently under utilized and potentially become under utilized in an plan and

they can't work together and to be creative and be flexible and take advantage of these precious public resources. it's not going to be easy but that's why they can all figure it out and opioid glad we're moving on. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm representing united educators of san francisco. i'm a retired social studies teacher and i've seen the struggle of educators in the city to find affordable housing so they can stay and serve the students and so in short, united educators of san francisco

support the idea of 100% affordable housing on public lands and our "commodities" most precious treasure, our public land, we've succeeded in the educator project francis which will be affordable 100% affordable housing mixed income from our highest earnings teachers and to our lower income para educators and we believe what is good for the educate tours of san francisco is good for the community as a whole and we think we should use public land inform further affordable housing. we will make the process more transparent. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor. thank you supervisor preston and supervisor for holding this hearing today. my name is carlos and i'm

calling with the mission and there's not a lot here that hasn't been said that i don't agree with and when i said otherwise so i'll use my time to raise just three concerns that i've had with what i've heard today during what has been said. first of all, with regards to the affordable housing numbers, i have seen the pier 30 mission rock numbers were not included but you might have seen they're 30% and 40% affordable housing only so just to make sure that we're not misrepresenting numbers it would be great to have those included as part of market rates housing it would be great for the community and the knowledge of the supervisors to know the person or position in each department whether they're the sfmta planning department, or whatever other agencies that is making the explicit decision

to go with a mixed income or affordable housing so everybody can be clear and transparent where the decisions are being made. it's just with the understanding that we've had a huge housing crisis here in san francisco and this development cry sunshine cd to displacement families and it's an impact of families within color so this displacement has been racist in its nature and given that i have strong equity concerns with the current process and projects and considering the great responsibility that we do have and the city and the community with these public lands i would like to recommend that each of these fees ability assessments that have been made be produced to both that the board of supervisors and the public prior to any decision that is made so that way together as a city and a community, we're able to maintain both transparency and

accountability for insuring that any development that's being proposed in a public land is number one, local community and it's beneficial to the city. thank you, very much. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. good afternoon, supervisors, thank you for holding this hearing. this is lisa with united to save the mission. san francisco vote verse made it abundantly clear and provided the directive via their votes that they expect to see 100% affordable housing and educator housing on publicly owned sites and they don want to see the land privatized for market rate housing and that they expect the input given by community members and who were very clear that they expect the city seek

federal to rehabilitate the bus yard and in order to provide 100% affordable and spectrum lower ami. residents of the mission are tired of the perform they pass in order to check the box. we're tired of gestures about the use of public lands and that do not reflect community feedback and do not provide transparency and in the decisions nor a chance to revise prior make revisions prior to releasing moving forward and newly going to work fundly training and systems and within our government, the first steps should be to incorporate community feedback and the project and they effect the ability and color to being laid and where they are sent and

effect the ability to retain

>> we would like to not only region tra fie our neighborhood but also gain equity as far as home ownership and it's far of affordable housing and my family in particular, we have not been able to use and because we are middle [please stand by]

income. and the testimony from folks in the community, especially that spanish-speaking person telling you that income levels are raised and they cannot afford to live in their own community once the project is built. thank you. please do something about this. bye. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm jennifer. i'm a renter in district 3. first i want to thank supervisors preston and yee for sponsoring this hearing and thank you to supervisor preston for operation k-9. i'm so excited. i'm calling into this hearing. first i urge the mayor's office and supervisors to expand the amount of public land that is available for use as municipal

housing. instead of discussing how to dispose of the lands, i ask the city to use the authorization of 10,000 units to expand the stock of housing through a municipal housing pilot program. second, i urge the supervisors to make this an opportunity to publicly acquire and rehabilitate housing units with all electric appliances. and third, i want to reiterate my support for things already included in the original that is set, housing will be built for a broad range of incomes, focussing on low-income households. please follow supervisor preston's lead. i am looking forward to hearing

more about the housing. >> thank you. next speaker, please. hi, thank you, supervisors, for having this meeting today. i am an organizer advocate and we're desperately advocating for affordable housing as we are located in district 11 and want to make sure that balboa and the a.m.i. is readjusted and we want to make sure our families can stay in the city. and specifically the district 11 families. our black and brown communities are targeted and as you can see, they're the ones suffering the most during this time. and this has not changed, about you am -- but amplified the

situation. my grandma wants to make sure that i can stay there, right, but my mom and the person, i can't truly afford, right, unless it's affordable housing, so i want to urge the a.m.i. to be adjusted. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm with an alliance community organization in district 11. rich tradition of working class people with color. deep community leadership has made the balboa upper yard a model that we want to celebrate for public land development. but we have significant concerns about these back door conversations and decisions that have increased ami thresholds for the project. community planning effort resulted in formal

recommendations that the ami levels for that project ranged from 30 to 50% ami in order to reflect the incomes of working class families in the district. as referenced by m.o.c.d., the recommendations are intended to serve as a guiding post for the affordability there. so it came as a surprise to learn that the a.m.i. project and the only other city supported housing development in district 11, they've been pushed up to as high as 105% ami. this is a departure where 80% is the maximum when compared to the rest of the portfolio for similar projects. it's also out of sync where the median household income is so much lower than 105% ami. the median income is $75,000. that's much less than the

$94,000 limit to qualify for a single individual. so why is the city watering down the affordability for the only two affordable projects in district 11 and make these decisions without a community process. we urge the city to adjust the a.m.i. to more reflect the community priority and the neighborhood income in our working class district. thank you for this timely discussion. >> thank you for calling. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is bill with teachers local 665. thank you for giving me a couple of minutes today. my comments relate to the exclusion of working people to have access to affordable housing. our local has over a thousand

members that work in the city, yet the majority of them, up to several hours a day commute because they can't afford to live in san francisco. the cost of living in san francisco is way too high for working people and middle-income families as well. affordable housing should not price out working people and their families and labor union members for that matter. with that said, we need affordable workforce housing at 105% of the ami so we can make sure we have affordable housing available for working people. thank you for the time and thank you for considering our position. >> thank you for calling. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is paul. i'm a constituent of distribute district 5. i want to thank the supervisors preston for sponsoring this

hearing and supervisor peskin for proposition k and i. i'm a renter and aware of the long-term effects of having social housing. i want to make sure -- we are aware if we don't invest in affordable housing -- [indiscernible] -- initiatives that we're going to just be creating higher costs for these renters. we know that electric utilities are going to be much cheaper long-term. so by ensuring -- [indiscernible] -- part of this hearing and electric means that we're not only creating affordable housing, but creating -- affordable housing showing that people can continue to live there long term. i hope that we can continue the discussion and i agree with many of the comments of people already.

and i just want to end, i hope we can expand on the [indiscernible] and prop i and other -- low carbon. thank you so much. >> thank you for calling. we have 29 listeners and six in the queue. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is -- i'm a renter in district 8. i want to thank the board of supervisors for having the meeting today. even though i may not agree with dean preston on everything regarding housing, i do support him pushing the envelope on social housing. i'm a strong supporter of social housing and i think it's important to look at cities such as vienna that have successfully developed a large stock of social housing and how they've been able to do that. one of the things they've done

is made even the housing is owned by the government, of course, their eligibility requirements are broad. as a result, it caters to a wide range of incomes. [please stand by] [please stand by]