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