Model. Let it was figure out what the state can do to help, not hurt. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. George wooding, coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods. I support Affordable Housing, and i also am in very much agreement with the board and supervisor mars resolution. I object to the false choice that scott weiner presented the board of supervisors saying if you are not for sb50 you must be antigrowth. I think that was a terrible position to put you in because i know that you are doing the best for the city. As peter just stated, i dont think one size fits all, and definitely the amendments have to take care of different aspects of the city and the character of San Francisco. I think sb 50 billions the market rate housing much more so when you look at arena than it ever did build Affordable Housing. There is no profit in building Affordable Housing so it forces developers, even wellmeaning once, to build a market rate. Rate. It is a massive give away to developers to incentivize them, and especially for transportation. When you look at the transportation figures, you see we are running a 22 billion deficit in the next 25 years. That is going to be a disaster. Thank you. Next speaker. Thank you. I am from the San Francisco tenants union. The union opposes sb50 in its entirety. It is beyond redemption. We do appreciate the hard work you all have done to come up significant amendments to reduce the harm this bill would cause if it goes forward as it is right now. The reason we think the bill is flawed is that it centers the interests of landowners and developers and not the people that need housed. This is to increase land values. It is designed for gentrification. That is not a side issue. It is the while point is to make lower priced land become higher priced to make Affordable Housing more expensive to build. It puttings more pressure on existing tenants on pushing them out. The current lan language is a j. They have to come up with their own plan for when and how they will be gentrified but they dont have a choice. That shows this is on increasing land values. None of this i this is enforcea. It is not a surprise they came up with unusable tenant protections. They didnt talk to anybody in the Tenant Movement how to protect the tenants when gentrification happens. Scott weiner only talked to people in other jurisdictions and not folks trying to keep tenants in their homes. We think this is beyond redemption. Thank you for doing what you can to save us from the worst aspects of it. Please support this resolution. Thank you. Next speaker. Marlene morgan. Corridor neighbors, save muni and sf transit riders. I think we have an example in front of us, the area plan that was put together in 1989 under mayor dianne feinstein. That created a high density housing over ground floor retail along the major transit corridor. This is a great opportunity for 30 years to see how to develop housing on the major transit corridor. For the first 20 years there were Redevelopment Funds available. In the first 20 years under this up zoned transit friendly corridor there was 1500 units built in the first 20 years. I dont have statistics on the bmr units. Starting in 2010, there were 1,083 on the venice corridor with 163bmr units. We also have on the corridor another 670 units that are permitted and about 300 of those are currently under construction. Of those 600 units we have about 90 that are going to bmr. I think we can see if you have Something Like this in place, it should produce something more than it did. This is why sb50 is not a good idea, not enough control, and we need a lot more better guidelines and better control. Thank you. Good morning. Catherine howard. I have a letter from 15 members of the public. It took me two hours for those two signatures and there are more out there. We recommend to the board opposition sb50 out ride. If you propose amendments you are accepting the basic premise the state should dictate housing, zoning and land use. San francisco must retain the right to develop our plans for Affordable Housing. We can use the communitybased planning system. First we need statistical information not hand waving about up zoning or other developer driven mantras. The city should prepare a study to include the capacity, number of units under construction. The impact of the legislation on zone capacity, elimination of longterm vacancies, enforcements against illegal air bnb and housing used as corporate hotels. Analysis of the Infrastructure Improvements needed to support the increased housing and a plan to pay for it. Any communitybased plan should have a vision what the city will look like and what it will be like to live here. Will iwill it be attractive anda large percentage of wildlife live alongside us to survive. Please oppose sb50. Set up a communitybased planning process to result in an increase in Affordable Housing, preservation of Family Friendly neighborhoods and healthy and liveable environment for everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Theresa flanders. I am so glad that we are here discussing this today. We do support the resolution to oppose sb50. The amendments sound so much better, and it is still about for seniors and people with disabilities it is about the unafford built of housing in the city today. Sb50 says you must build deeply Affordable Housing. We as the state will also give funding to have subsidie sub sur more Family Housing with schools, transportation, it would be different. That is not in front of us. Speculation, killing our city, our neighborhoods, we would not want sb50 in place. What we need in San Francisco may be very different elsewhere. The one size fits all does not work for california. I am really happy that you have these amendments in place. Again, the tenant protections that would not be enforceable. This is how people are losing their housing. This is how we are losing so many people as well as losing the housing to become market rate as rent control at one time. Please, we support this. Thank you so much and i hope all supervisors will be on board. Norma, laurie, renee curran and bruce bowen. Sb50 is beneficial to the local economy. It provides great opportunity for Community Participation in the Housing Market through the hands on process of the material development. To the contribution of small Property Owners and tenants, investors, contractors and suppliers and draftsmen and building inspectors and sales and leasing agents. It provides for the wellbeing of the individuals and community by reducing commute times anding Traffic Congestion between home and workplace. Through the increased economic activities, sales activities and employment it contributes to that vacuum pulling individuals into employment. Superseding the wage base. Contributing to consumer dollars along commercial corridors as it increases opportunities for disposable spending. Unfortunately, the contention it prevents public from recapturing an equitable portion of the economic benefits must be examined and dispelled. Nothing prevents the municipal government from capturing, contributing and conferring upon itself substantial economic reward. That increases the house of each new housing unit by substantial initial sum of 100,000, born by the purchaser 10 greater than that of the actual construction. This being prior to the tax and the Community Benefit district assessments. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good morning. Bruce owen, improvement be club and land use coalition. Thank you for your continuing leadership to oppose the bill. Thanks to all who are sepping us fight this. One way to motivate ourselves is a few things to have in the context. First of all, housing accountability acts and constraints including demolition controls and the way in which senator wiener ignores it to attack us when we oppose his bill. Sb330 which extends the act in ways still unknown and havent been analyzed. San francisco plans is trying to do this. It is described as the most farreaching housing bill in many years. The inner relation with sb50 are unknown. As previously mentioned. Existing unused zoning capacity and entitled units is tens of thousands of them and effect on live ability. The additional zoning density from two units to unlimited units. We need to keep this in mind as sb50 includes four plex which is up zoning with sb50 annual the existing legislation will have unlimited number of units across the city. Sb50 waves maximum controls with the four pluses plus the housing accountability act that is unlimited number of units. What do we get in return . Conversion of San Francisco into an extension of real estate state. We have to stop this. Thank you. Next speaker. Rick hall. Antigentrification activist. I support this resolution, but i would much rather see it being an opposed full stop. President yee said we should be exempt from sb50. That fits with what senator wiener is doing carve outs across the state to sell his disastrous bill. La supervisor paul carrets vowed to keep la opposed even if all of los angeles is carved out. He would do that because it is right for the rest of the state and that carve outs from pieces of this bill in order to sell it and impose it on other parts of the state are just wrong. The premise of sb50 that state mandated top down one size fits all plans is wrong, obviously, one size does not fit all. You have heard speaker after speaker after speaker tell you what is wrong with this bill, and everything they said is right. But taking the power from our Planning Commissioners, supervisors and local electives and handing to the developers is wrong. There is so much wrong with is this bill, and with its author. I will read a tweet that came across when i was in the lyft from wiener. Supervisors that claim sb50 doesnt be do enough for Affordability Housing are simply wrong. Sb50 is Affordable Housing. Thank you. Next speaker, please. We can all read the tweets ourselves. Thank you. Next speaker. Laura foot. The future of sb50 is not going to be decided here. We have lost credibility at the state level about our ability to deal with our own problems. That is just the truth. They do not see us as capable right now of getting our way out of our systematic housing crisis. All of our state elected officials are together saying we need to pass statewide prohousing legislation. The citizens of San Francisco elected those people to go represent us at the state level. I understand this urge to say, no, we can deal with our own problems. I deeply understand that because i, too, want to be able to deal with our own problems. I want us to do everything we can to get as much Affordable Housing built as we can. This body can do a lot more. The people in this room, we disagree about market rate housing. We do agree about the need for Affordable Housing. We agree about the need for more funding and increasing tenant protections. Those are things this body can put time and energy into working on with people you may never have worked with before and may his at sometimes. We have the capacity to decide we have shared priorities and can make progress on those shared priorities. Even if we do not agree about sb50, there is far more that binds us together in our priorities than we have been willing to acknowledge. I ask everyone here and that includes the people who think i am terrible to try to do more for the Affordable Housing we say we want. We can do the trailing legislation on prop e to make sure. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Renee curren. I want to echo thanks for the time you have put into these amendments. I support this with one amendment. Take out without amendments. This bill was written in bad faithbased on the false smiths that San Francisco and false myth that we need to build housing for those who currently live on our streets. It does nothing to improve Public Transit which we need. This is too broken to fix. I disagree with the previous speaker. I dont think we all have the same priorities. I believe scott weiner his priority is the real estate industry. Since i have a little time left i will quote from songer for scotscott weiner. You are a liberal, developer, corporate donations must give you a thrill. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Board rule 1. 3. 1 prevents you from having any audible interruptions of proceedings, clapping, cheering, hissing or any of that. Thank you very much. Good morning, supervisors. I am presiden president presideh bury council in district 5. Thank you for bringing this amended resolution. Thanks to president yee for supporting it. I agree with president yee that San Francisco should be exempted. I also state that sb50 should be opposed, but these amendments you have proposed are excellent and should be passed by the board. I would suggest two slight amendments. One use it or lose it clause. Two, that you put somehow in the title to oppose or a sb50 and similar housing bills. The number can change. State funding for Affordable Housing is the need, not developer give aways. We also need transit funding. There may be other things that the state could do like local redevelopment agency. Our city is made of neighborhoods, and the people who live here are the people who elected you. You should be working for us, not the developer community. Thank you. Good morning. Norma guardianshipsia, director of policy for Mission Economic development. We thank you for bringing this forward. We think it is very important that sb50 be amended. What is at stake is very high. We are talking about housing, land use. There is a couple of words that havent come up and that is civil rights. Houses is a civil right when you have a low Income Community and you know what it is like to have a victim of housing discrimination. We need to talk about how sb50 overlays these issues and how it accelerates displacement and gentrification. Hearing the arguments made in favor of sb50. It is not the bill. As it stands it is a prime example of paternalistic policy. Mandates are thrust upon the community before they have an opportunity to offer input to the design. Community members are told to sit in the back of the bus while selfap. Ed antidiscrimination advocates do the driving. That is not acceptable. That is not a San Francisco value. I am so glad that San Francisco is demanding that we have our San Francisco values present in sb50 and if not the bill needs to fail. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Good morning. I am laurie leader man. I would like to thank you for developing the amendments to make the needs of communities primary and for being prepared for the battle. I remain skeptical the bill for preempting public input can be opposite. These are essential roles for government. These assign that to local government and communities where it belongs. California is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world and most populous state in the u. S. These are further away from public accountability and susceptible to lobbying. This is a recipe for disruption and displacement. Compromising is not viable without all of the amendments, sb50 must be opposed. Thank you. Good morning, supervisors. Corey smith San Francisco how, o housing coalition. The authors havent read the bill or understand what it does. Reading some of the inaccurate statementses. Page one line 12 less public review this does not change the process. Line 15 and 16. Market rate housing affordable. It helps them move in and 70 of low income live in market rate housing. 2 23 and 24 talks about managing growth. We live in the most unaffordable citych. City ever. Lines 4 and 5. We can do area plans. Nine and 10 talk about specific neighborhoods. Previous speaker mentioned concerns in the mission. The reality this will alter zoning on two alleys in the mission as a whole. They were the first developer to use sb35. I hope we can look forward to meta building the housing. We are going to experience significant barriers to production. This will increase the amount of Affordable Housing in San Francisco. Overall, the more home act is good for San Francisco. It will result in more housing. That is why the Nonprofit Housing Association of northern california, state Building Trades and Labor Federation support this. I am embarrassed by this resolution. Thank you. Policy director for Chinatown Development center. Chinatown is proud of this resolution and thank you, supervisor mar for introducing it. Sb50 and we have read it. Fundamentally it takes away an important process right called democracy. We need a democratic process, one that the state does not provide for us to protect local communities against displacement. In 1986 after the eviction of the hotel and the evictions of many residents, chinatown came together as a community and adopted the chinatown plan which has protected it since then from Market Rate Development and protected existing residents and small businesses. That flan will be disrupted and underlined by sb50. Our basic zoning in chinatown is 35 feet. Everything above requires a c. U. Sb50 will up zone everything to 55