Good morning. Everyone, the meeting will come to order and welcome to the thursday, december 5th meeting of the government audit and over site committee. Im supervisor mar and im joined by supervisor peskin and supervisor brown. Clerk, any announcements . Yes, thank you, mr. Chair. Please ensure youve silenced cell phones. Your completed speaker phones and any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. Items will pai acted upon will n december 17th meeting. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Please call item number one. Agenda item number one is a resolution authorizing the mayor or disne designee to cast a baln said district. I would like to welcome the Senior Program merge at the Workforce Development to present on this item. Im presenting on a resolution authorizing the mayor in affirmative for the two parcels controlled by the board of supervisors. On december 13th, they will mail out ballots in the proposed rule of the cbd with two sent to the county of San Francisco. The board has jurisdiction over the two parcels and the citys obligation on these two parcels is a combined 5,561 pipeline 59 which represents 2. 257 of the cbds total assessment budget. The complete list and individual breakdowns can be found in the legislation on line one of page 3 of the resolution. Any questions for staff . No and thank you so much, mr. Corgus. Any members of the public wishing to speak on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Can we send this item to the full board with positive recommendation without objection . Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please call item number two. Agenda item number two is a resolution opposing California State Senate bill 50 to authorize scott weiner in planning for the public good to capturing an equitable portion of the benefits, to private interests and restrict San Franciscos ability to protect vulnerable abilities from genderfication unless further amended. Thank you. I would like to open this hearing which is presenting an overview of my remarks. Im grateful for the opportunity to continue this important discussion on senate bill 50 and its implications for our affordability crisis and our approach to addressing it. This conversation strikes at the core at the biggest challenge facing our cities. Its a city that has more jobs and homes, that has more vacant homes than Homeless People and the highest number of billionaires per capita anywhere in the world in one of the largest wealth gaps in the country. We are the second densest city in the country and we have birthed social movement and innovations that have changed the world. Our affordability crisis is a challenge we must rise to meet. The question isnt if we take action but how. The question isnt if we build more housing but what we build and for whom. We will consider amendments to this resolution because i believe developer give aways wont solve problems. Because displacement is a threat in the past, present and future, because the specific challenges of San Francisco deserve specific solutions and because we have to have this discussion in good faith and work with our state representatives to solve the problems we face. Because we know its not enough to say what were against. We need to say what were for. To imagine a future including a middleclass and working class in San Francisco, that prioritizes Community Needs over bottom lines and puts people before project and we need to build that future. To be clear, the resolution before us is a duplicated file. It is already the official position of the city and county of San Francisco on sb50 passed with a 92 vote by the board of supervisors earlier this year and since then sb50s advancement through the state legislature was put on hold. But our representative in the state senate, scott weiner made it clear he intends to move it forward again this january. When we last heard this item, we heard a desire to clarify what San Francisco would need to see in this bill to support it. And with the return of sb50 imminent, im bringing this resolution back to introduce amendments, to clearly state our need to give communities a seat at the table in planning for more housing in their neighborhoods and to capture the value created when we up them and use that value for more Affordable Housing and Community Benefits instead of give aways to developers and to provide meaningful, enforceable protections against displacement and intelligen jenty again indu. The houses we build is not Meeting Needs low and moderate San Franciscons. This is the kind of data we should use to make land use in Planning Decisions and the kind of data that wasnt available when sb50 was written and make us rethink the approach were taking in letting private market drive housing production. As written, sb50 wont correct that imbalance and exacerbate it. And the jobs housing fit report also shows that were seeing huge amounts of displacement of middleclass people from San Francisco, people who need the kind of housing that Luxury Development simply wont provide. As written, sb50 doesnt representative Community Plans and the kind of plans that have been most successful at increasing Affordable Housing in ways that center the needs of neighborhoods instead of ignoring them. We need an opportunity to decide for ourselves how we meet the needs of our communities and truly Affordable Housing is one of the biggest needs. Weve been investing in that. A big chunk of my first year, budget addbacks went to Community Resources so we can do this work and give residents a voice in creating more Affordable Housing in our neighborhoods. We passed a 600 million bond for Affordable Housing and we increased the jobs housing linkage fee on Office Development to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for more Affordable Housing over the next decade. And we passed proposition e to rezone land for more Affordable Housing and educate our housing projects. Today well be voting on updates to our citys Priority Development areas to give us more funding and resources for Affordable Housing, transit improvements and more. Theres no disagreement that San Francisco needs more housing. The discussion i hope to have today is on how we do that, what we build and for whom. And we arent simply in a housing supply crisis. Were in a Housing Affordability crisis and our specific challenges deserve specific solutions. I passed out amendments to get specific on how to address our concerns with this bill. The bulk of the substance can be found on page 5, line 8. First sb50 does not respect Community Plans and San Francisco has been most successful managing growth through the adoption of local Community Plans, which have included significant upzoning for new housing. Sb50 restricts the citys ability to adopt local Community Plans to ensure equitable and Affordable Development in all neighborhoods. Therefore, we are demanding that sb50 exempt areas in San Francisco subject to local Community Plans that resulted in increased density and Affordable Housing benefits, ensures cities that reach the Needs Assessment production goals for abovemoderate income are sufficient opportunity to create local Community Plans and submit draft eirs by january of 2026 in lieu of sb50 state land use preemions. Preemptions. Its potentially applicable for the site. And third, sb50 fails to protect all vulnerable tenants. Sb50 formmulaciclly establishes communities which meets its apparent purpose to meet displacement. Ithis accounts for the impact te housing has on communities. We demand the demonstrable efforts increase in the state of repair. This could be flew a bonus pod of grant funds and a higher share of formula funds distributed by the state for associated projects and programs and priority in statefunded competitive Grant Programs and allowances for jurisdictions to impose private Sector Development impact fees, sequa exemptions for landuse changes transferred by sb50 and finds for local Community Transportation planning. Im grateful for the time and attention of my colleagues on this important issue. And welcome president yi for joining us. Thank you, chair mar. I just want to say that right off the bat, i hope that my colleagues on the committee will support the amendments. You know, for several months, weve had, like, heated discussions about sb50 and s sb827. Were trying to plan for things in our district and many of updatof theamendments would be l to our efforts thats been ongoing for a little while. You know, we have bills and does not take into account the nuances and unintended impacts that comes with upzoning the entire neighborhoods and in the area of, like, in the west side, there has not been much resource put out there to help us plan. Ive been talking about this for seven years now and saying, what are you talking about . Were not building anything, this is ridiculous. Puwhat do you mean . The Department Says it will have 4,000 more units and San Francisco state is going to bill for they currently have 4,000 beds for their students and their going to bill for 12,000 students. Thats an increase of 200 . Stonestown is talking about developing hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of more units and thats just one little area in my district im talking about and then you add on top of that the development happening on ocean avenue, where we had building after building of significance stories and apartments and so forth, which in the last few years, were built probably about 500 units along ocean avenue. On top of that, weve been working up and working with my neighbours to see if we could build something at the balboa reservoir site which would give us more than a thousand more units, 50 affordable. And then, im working on other sites in the district, including laguna honda and its ridiculous that we had no resources when were trying to do this and what we need is not only the city, but the state to help us. In regard to giving us enough resources so we can actually come up with area plans that makes sense for our district out there. Where the density is there, well increase and when you think about it, i mean, why do you need sb50 when in San Francisco were already the singlefamily homes, if anybody feels like theres an empty lot in the rh1, it becomes almost three units, basically three units right away because of what we have allowed. So these are the things that we need to take into consideration. When you look at cities like San Francisco, were actually building our share of housing, and maybe we could do better but probably doing better than most places in california and we have motivated communities that want to plan. Theres no guidelines of how you should do it. They just do it. Where are the resources . What do you need recordingses r . What do you need infrastructure and why do you need transportation . Oh, you know, like the mline and the nline and all of the muni that goes out there, try taking that in the morning when you want to come downtown. Its train after train that just dont stop because its packed and thats before were talking about 10,000 more units that will be out there. And so where the funding to help us with the infrastructure . These are things my neighbors are concerned about. Its not about our neighbors saying we dont want any growth. We dont want this or that. I just name all these projects that people are supporting in the district. So these amendments would go a long ways in terms of helping areas like the districts in the west side to make things happen. We have leadership of supervisor mar, supervisor furer who are working, and myself, working with our neighbors to say what else can we do . We know were in a housing crisis at this point. We know that. Maybe ten years ago it would have been different but today, you go down the streets in district 7 and two out of three people will say to you, theres a housing crisis. Were losing our families. Were losing our seniors and were losing our teachers. Yesterday i went to a ribboncutting for a new Childcare Center and we were talking about the Stipend Program for the early educators thats being implemented at this point and this is what is called 2. 0, versus the 1. 0 which i created, like, 20 years ago. At that time, the early educators, 80 lived in the city. Today, when they survey the 2500 teachers that would qualify, less than half now live in the city and weve been losing them. So chairman mar, thank you for making these amendments. With these amendments, i would love to support this resolution and i hope that the rest of my colleagues here can support it, also. And so, a couple other things i want to say is, this discussion, notion of, oh, my god, singlefamily homes are racist. And i dont get it. I dont get that. I mean, i grew up in a duplex, in a rental unit. There were four units in there. And everybody that i know, all of my chinatown friends, they all desire and everybody i could think of that lived at the time, they wouldnt be highrises now but when you talk about four stories, it was a highrise then and people wanted to have a singlefamily home. Now does it mean that many of the Housing Associations in San Francisco what they really had i mean, singlefamily units in itself is not racist. I challenge anybody who says it is. Its the stupidest notion ive heard of. The covenants were in the association for many years, decades that people could not live there in writing and thats why willie mays couldnt buy a home and even though he was the most famous player, they wouldnt allow him to buy on the west side. I could go on and on about this. This is very hot issue for my district and people want to step up. So give us a chance to step up and to add to the developments were seeing on the west side. Thank you very much. Thank you, president. Supervisor brown. Thank you. And thank you, chair mar for bringing these amendments forward. I know when i brought amendments to the full board for sb50, and i brought eight amendments that i worked with planning with senator weiner on, which at that time i had the votes, but i felt it needed to go back to committee so i referred it back to committee because i felt there needed to be more of a public process information, for us to be able to work with the community. Also i have clarification questions that may you can answer for me. So are we having a presentation by planning on these amendments . No, not on the sb50 resolution. On the amendments were not . No. Were having a presentation by planning on the next item which is the Priority Development and written ros resolution. I wish we would have had a presentation and they are the experts and whether we agree, we pay them a lot of money to give us an explanation about the development in housing and with these amendments i feel it would have important to hear from planning. I worked with planning when i actually created my amendments because i was afraid, like, what could be the unintentional consequences for us. I wanted to hear that and i felt it is important for the public to have that fra plannin from p. I agreement with president yi that i especially think the west side needs a lot more time to do that planning. I know in district 5 and we just finished it up with planning, we did a housing opportunity blueprint that will be coming out next week and thats something that i think every district should do because that way you can really look at all of the different sites that can build, whether thats private development or city land and wha then you can go and talo a community about it. So thats something that district 5 we did a few years ago and then when i got into office, we actually updated it, because as we know, every year, we have changes in our housing laws. I have one question for you that im a little worried about with these amendments. Supervisor brown, if i could respond about the planning. Perfect, thank you. I wanted to make it clear. I and my staff did work closely with the Planning Department on the amendments that im introducing today and weve gotten their feedback and their support on it. Oh, you did . Yes, we did. We worked closely with them and working closely with the Planning Department staff on developing our plans in district 4. As president yi said, hes been doing that in district 7 and i know supervisor furer has been doing that in district 1 1 to really develop working with the Planning Department to support our communitylead Planning Efforts to strengthen our neighborhoods, including increasing housing density. Thats been happening on the weed sidwest side and im very f the work youre doing in district 5 and thats great, too. My point was that if you worked closely with planning, it would have been nice to have a presentation so we could have asked them questions, but thats fine. Theres one particular one, its number 4 and when it says ensure sb50 projects are required to make Affordable Housing contributions, is that subsequently higher than existing local, Affordable Housing standards, potentially applicable for the site . So that is a little concerning, just because of the fact that we know with home sf program that it barely works. I mean, asking for 25 affordable. Im not talking about luxury condos or luxury apartments but plain old apartments, right. And so having anything thats 25 , i mean, theyre not building. And that means it doesnt get built. So thats a little bit worrisome for me that number 4, because im just really worried that if we put Something Like that in, we could be killing projects because when you look at planning and i wish thats why we had planning here to report that, and i know when i was looking at and doing feasibility studies for divisive corridor and these were private, all apartments, no luxury apartments and looking how high we could do that. How high could we put up the affordable inclusionary housing as we were coming through the board and 25 killed it, absolutely killed the project. They couldnt build it. They would walk away. And i know when one of the reasons and i did my homework and you remember for two years, i worked in joint development doing feasibility studies in the land use and so i worked with joint development. I worked with planning and i found out that the 25 that the mission had put in place, not one project was built. So when were looking at that, thats where thats the one amendment im a little worried about, right . , is having that actually could kill a project, if we put it too high. As far as community process, i absolutely agree with you. We should have that community process, community should be involved. As a neighborhood activist, legislative aid and supervisor, i have seen so many of the Development Projects come through that are so much better when the community is involved. But i dont want to put a situation where the community could just kill project after project. I feel Like Community should be there making a project better. So this is kind of my read on this. Im absolutely going to support your amendments, absolutely, because i feel like and i absolutely agree with president yi, when youre talking to people, people know that were in a housing crisis and we need housing for everyone. Its just not Affordable Housing and our definition of Affordable Housing. We need housing for people. Ive run into so many people that arent going to qualify or theyre in Affordable Housing and not getting the lottery and looking for something they can afford. For us to be building apartments in in cit this city i think is important. But thats the one amendment. I have a little trouble with, number 4. Thank you thank you, supervisor brown. President yi. I think i understand supervisor brown, where youre coming from, with this. I think this also projects ive been involved with, ive been pushing whatever i can with afforaffordability. If we just take the Current Situation and have no more Additional Resources to support Affordable Housing, i could almost buy into your argument but its like the horse or the cart. If the state were to actually put substantial funding into helping with affordability, then we could do it. Part of it is this is a state mandate, where is it state and lets get the funding . And maybe we could put more pressure because of that. You want us to build more, then help us with affordability. So theres a little bit i understand your argument but at the same time, i could argue, like, this forces people peaced and put pressure on to force affordability. I agree with the state housing. I think thats something all advocates should be fighting for, we should be fighting for more funding from the state for Affordable Housing and looking at state land in the city, also, for Affordable Housing. I mean, the dmv lot, the big huge parking lot, wouldnt that be great . But i also think we need a large transportation bond from the state because, as you said, on the west side, and the southeast part of the city, we need better transportation. And i absolutely think we should be pushing for a large transportation bond in the state, also. And i agree with you, thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to add a brief response to the concerns you raised about the amendment. Number 4, which just to restate it, it says that sb50, we should ensure that sb50 projects are required to make Affordable Housing contributions substantially higher than existing local Affordable Housing standards potentially applicable for the site. So really, this is just acknowledging the fact that the blanket of zoning, that through sb50 is going to concur significant increase in value for those properties and for developers that acquire those properties. So this amendment is just ensuring that the public and our city is able to capture some of that increased value that were basically granting to Property Owners and developers and redirected to Affordable Housing development cub whic, which is y one of the stated goats of sb50. I absolutely agree with you but what would that amount be . Thats my fear with the 25 was home fs and no one has been building with that, barely. And i definitely think, and i just got these amendments last night, so excuse me if its in here. But i feel they cant doubledip. The developers cant doubledip on the density and im not sure if thats in here. Like i said, i got these last night and i wasnt able to really go through them. But i think thats something in my last amendment is the developers should not be able to doubledip, like with home ms and with this sb50. I absolutely agree with that . And in terms of how much the Affordable Housing contributions would be required of a project, taking advantage of sb50, i think thats to be discussed publically with the board and with the public to determine that. As a city and with the board, weve gone through an extensive public process in setting the inclusionary housing requirements in our city and also around the home sf program, our local density bonus in setting those Affordable Housing requirements, which is kind of the baseline right now. Again, this amendment to sb50 is just saying that if were going to through the upzoning were going to grant increased value to developers and Property Owners, but we should capture more of that value more Affordable Housing development, above the baseline that weve set. And i also think that if were going to and i know this costs a lot of money, but we should probably put for some of these projects that were going to ask for a lot more of the higher affordability. We have departments to do this because that will help us make sure we dont kill a project because, you know, a certain amount of money, they go out and get investors and if they dont, they just leave it or hold the entitlement down. They sell the entitlements which no one likes. And the Community Gets furious because once they sell the entitlement, you start all over with somebody that doesnt care as much, i feel. I feel to protect the community, we need to get this right. Thank you. Thank you. So maybe we could go to Public Comment right now. Yeah, i have a number of speaker cards turned in, so maybe ill read the names and if you hear your name read, if you could line up on the right side of the chambers as youre facing us and step up to speak. You have two minutes to speak. Please state your name clearly. Susan marsh, ilene boken, kevin welsh and terry mccue. Im susan marsh and im here on behalf of the San Francisco tenants union. The Union Remains opposed rite to sb50 targeting at the ten centantslive there. This will displace tenants both indirectly jen industrification and directly. Speculators will simply be able to wait out the bills time limits and for that and other reasons, these are meaningless. We hold the urban core communities should be able to plan for their own needs, for their own need of Affordable Housing. Given the true goals, the reality of investor demands and simply the legislative dynamics surrounding it. That said, we strongly support the resolutions goal and we urge the goal for communities and we urge you to pass this as written. Thank you supervisor mar and thank you all. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im with the coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods, im here to urge the community to change the position on sb50 from oppose and less amended to outright oppose. Sb50 cannot be redeemed because it is based on a failed economic model and failed priorities. The failed economic model is regonomics with trickled down housing. The failed priorities is that sb50 is a real estate bill, not a housing bill. So far most of the car vouts have been geographic. They can be rescinded by future legislation or amending future legislation. At yesterdays meeting, there was discussion about the possible quote, unquote, reform of sb375 from 2008. Another is increasingly strident rhetoric. Its been the bills author and medimedia. Theres attempting to wrap himself in selfrighteousness the way others wrap themselves in the flag. In closing, it appears that the bill and his author are beyond redemption. Once again, im urging the committee and the board to outright oppose sb50. Im going to read some additional names, loraine petty, asi roam, anastasia and kyle dewolfe. Thank you, supervisor. Calvin welsh, the Neighborhood Council housing board member. And the difficulty with sb50 is in significant regard addressed in the proposed amendments, except that the proposed amendments, i think, make a misapprehension about the objective of sb50. And i think there needs to be one additional amendment to the citys position. And that misapprehension is that this is actually a bill aimed at developing housing. And it is not. If it was, it would have language that would require any developer exercising a statemandated density bonus would have to actually build the housing within a specific reasonable period of time. The useit or loseit provision was original pay parly part of e legislation and one of their points was a useit or loseit requirement. When the aflcio state endorsed the measure, the use it or loseit provision was dropped showing, i think, in a significant way, as the previous speaker said that this is not really a housing bill, this is a real estate speculation bill. Please add a useit or loseit requirement that would say, you cannot exercise density bonus unless you actually build housing. There are 77,000 approved projects in San Franciscos pipeline. Only 9,000 are under construction. The others are not. And there is a market in selling and buying approved project permits. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good morning, supervisors. Im terry mckuhn, district 7 resident, lifelong city resident. You guys are the stewards of the city and supervisor brown, when you said you need to get this right, you do need to get this right. Times change through the years and San Francisco, people want to live here and one of the big reasons is because of the differences and the different neighborhoods. You can go over to the marina and do something, be in the sunset doing something else. In bayview now, thats certainly changing and that is good and bad, depending on how they do it, ok. How you do it is right and giving away, which sb50 does, local control and resident control to developers and to the state is not doing it correctly. Thats not a sanfrancisco thing to do. So i oppose sb50 all the way around but if we have to have amendments to it, then i support those amendments, thanks. Thank you, next speaker, please. Good morning. Im loraine petty here. Im a longtime voter from district 5 and im a member of senior and disability action and sb50, to me, is a danger to seniors and everywhere else struggling to stay in San Francisco. I dont say this out of malice or fear or political viewpoint or desire to stop change. I say this because i have read the bill. Every word of the text. The words of the bill speaker louder than any opinions, any samesex marriage pitcsales pit. It shows a biased towards markrate development, scarce protection against displacement or for sensitive areas. It shows flaws that cannot be corrected by patchwork amendments. The bill needs to be completely rewritten from scratch to reflect our need more Affordable Housing and meaningful, local input and control. The city needs time, a coolingoff period to allow careful public analysis of the scores of housing bills thrown at us all at the same time. No one really knows how the bills will affect the city or how they interact. We do not need an sb50. Were well on the way of creating Affordable Housing and the state density bonus bill, sb35, sb3330 and the account ability act gives them the tools to create this. Dont let them have sb50, as well. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. It bypasses a california quality act and i can see Hunters Point with San Francisco footing the bill when it comes to light and there was a thing in there about municipalities having to provide density bonuses for low income or Affordable Housing rather than making it our choice and our requirement that they provide it in a sense without giving them something back. And i have to agree with the majority of speakers that say 50 should be killed outright rather than amended. Its too flexible and even after amendments, those amendments can then change again and so i think it needs to be written from scratch. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Ill read additional names, garry wise, Suzanna Parsons, jeff rego and peter cohen. Good morning, supervisors. Im with the San Francisco coalition. Im just echoing the same thing as everybody else said. This is a very flawed bill but i am grateful to supervisor mar for having these amendments that are going to be desperately needed if this bill is ever going to pass. And i just want to bring up one thing that supervisor brown brought up about the planning and whether or not they weighed in on this. While the planning publishes this thing called a nexus studies. Studies. In the past two, they did state for every 100 units you build, you need 25 units for low income to house the people that will be supporting the 100 unit market rate residents of those 100 unit brandnew luxury condos. If you put in the middleclass, that number raises to 37 units. So if we cannot put at least 37 for Affordable Housing, were not even going to cut a dent in our affordability crisis. And one other suggestion that i have with respect to the amendments is maybe it is too radical but maybe we should try to amend the bill to include areas that were precluded as part of the deal that scott weiner struck with senator mcguire. I dont understand, you know, why should so sosilito is exclud while the outer sunset which takes a good 55 minutes from downtown is included. Maybe it should be amended to include the entire california. Suburbia wont get hit at all thanks to lack of busing, lack of rail and lack of adequate transit and it will be us. Its mostly the urban areas. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im a tenant advocate. Were gravely concerned that sb50s broad rush zoning will further incentivize je gentrification by creating a windfall to developers by failing to capture Affordable Housing or other benefits in return to address Community Needs. We need real Affordable Housing and protection from the risks of displacement impacts of the massive imbalance towards market rate housing, which the amendments in the resolution help address. Our San Francisco neighborhoods should be able to create a communitydriven planning process as they organize and collaborate with their local representatives and city Planning Departments. I support the amendment to address sensitive communities, so sort out a definition in sb50 so it covers the areas of sensitive communities and exempts them from the bill. And the amendment to address strong enforceable tenant protections, also, with sufficient programs, sufficiently funded to enforce those provisions in sb50, to truly protect tenants from displacements. And also, the amendments that ensures Affordable Housing, values capture above the inclusionary limit. And an amendment that the bill needs to ensure Affordable Housing value capture, as i said. And allowing sufficient time for local Community Plans to be done to achieve upzoning and Community Development goals. Sb50s topdown approach would undermine our communitys ability to work with the elected leaders and to plan our own vision. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good morning, supervisors. My name is Suzanna Parsons and im here on behalf of spur. Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on supervisors mars resolution to oppose state weiners sb50. This is to overcome barriers to the creation of infill homes in the right places, close to major transit and in high Opportunity Areas throughout california. And spur supports sb50, the more homes act and opposes this resolution. We are concerned that this resolution undercuts key San Francisco you haves and aligns the city with some of the most exclusionary places in the state. Passing sb50 is a muchneeded step for california to take support of the environment and support of equity. It presents places close to transit and does not change San Franciscos ability to do Community Planning and nor does it change the entitlements or sequa process for projects. This establishes statewide inclusionary housing in cities that do not have policies like San Franciscos and allows higher, local inclusionary areas like San Franciscos to prevail. This will increase the number of Affordable Housing units produced in other less responsible cities and also increase the Affordable Housing units produced in San Francisco. Sb50 respects local tenants in respecting local inclusionary requirements and provides for planning processes and communities at risk in gentrification and displacement please stand by . Service to those who need it. Thank you. Next speaker. I have lived in the city since 1976. I basically totally oppose sb50. It is so flawed it shouldnt be considered. I support the resolution opposing it. I think it is a good way to deal with a bad thing. I think we have a housing problem decades in the making, and now it is an emergency. That emergency is being used to basically just create or developer give away. I agree it is capitalism out of control, i think. A bigger problem we keep Digging Deeper into the hole. We keep building more and more office space that we dont have housing to support people working in the offices. I think what we should do is stop the development of the offices, play the same game the developers are playing with us, and threaten them with loss of work and huge amounts of money they are making for themselves and investors and get them to the table with us. Another thing that bothers me the only good thing is getting housing close to transit. As another speaker spoke earlier, i feel the people supporting sb50 for nearness to transportation, it is like wrapping themselves in the environmental cause to put a different flavor on what is about agreed. Thank you. Next speaker. Good morning. Our Council Supports the boards resolution on sb50 as well as the proposed amendments. We were quiet in the spring on this bill. In public i am saying the 24 member organizations that work across the citys neighborhoods and this is about how neighborhoods are affected differently from bayview to mission to south of market, chinatown, fillmore, west side. These are the geographies we work in. There are different issues how it will land. The amendments are smart and rational. Aside from the Good Intention of a number of these state land use preemption bills, and i am sure there are Good Intentions by sponsors and authors. The challenge in San Francisco for five years since Governor Brown threw out the first idea about this is that one size fits allstate land use policy that getting into the weeds how to do housing and planning at local level is very difficult. It doesnt work for San Francisco. It is difficult to make workable period. We have the largest state. We have nearly 400 cities, 50 something counties, massive geography. Figure that out on pen and paper. The amendments before you address very real on the ground issues. This isnt just botto bombastic. It is at ground level. I hope the supervisors respect that. This is a falsebinenary of pro or it has made san