the districts. i want to welcome more neighbors, more friends and immigrant like myself into the city, but we can't do that if the west side is only providing 1% of the inclusion units in the city. 827 will increase affordable housing because we need more market rate housing for the inclusion requirements to kick in. please vote no on the resolution. >> i'm a homeowner in cal hollow.

we opened up our homes for many years, renting out rooms in our house to students. we've never raised the rent. we've taken this year a homeless student from columbia and refused to charge rent. >> you spoke earlier on this same item. everyone has one opportunity. >> neighborhood coalition. venice neighborhoods are in favor of housing and we're building a lot of housing. the height limits go from who 240 feet. in cathedral hill in the last three years we've approved over one thousand units of housing, half have been built. those built are primarily market rate and rest of them cannot be built because they can't get the financing. so it's not just the question of permitting, it's a question of

actually having affordable housing getting built. i oppose 827. and 828. >> good afternoon. cory on behalf of san francisco housing. i want to point out that according to "the chronicle". top three candidates have looked to directive for 5,000 new home. that's three times the current housing production. the city is going through a lot of changes. local control is a conservative land use policy. it has created what my generation is dealing with. we're facing the realities of the decisions. so when we advocate for the status quo and not any sort of change, why would we think the results would be different? as the planning department said, this will result in more capital, lower case a, more housing that is affordable and with all that is going on in the

world, the politics of no, which is really captured the country, i ask you to not say no to a solution. let's work with the senator to get this bill in a great placement thank you. i'm daniel, i'm part of castra for housing and part of the action. so displacement is guaranteed if we don't building housing. that's how it works. 75% of residents who move into new housing which is is found by a study done by the city are people who come from the city. it's not new residents, it's people moving out of closets. please support 827, that will lower rents for people in the city. the people speaking tore the bill are younger class renters

and a lot of those people can't come here because it's a work day. there is going to be misrepresentation here. thank you for your time. >> hi, supervisors, thank you for your time. i live in district 10. what we're experiencing here is a national housing crisis. about ten years ago a large generation, my generation, left home and entered the workforce. and as a result, we're trying to house the 21st century population in the housing of only the 20th century. what we've experienced as a result is mass price increases and displacement. when i first moved here, quite some time ago, it was easy to find a studio for $900. that's not the case anymore. that's because the population has grown and jobs have grown. please oppose this resolution and support 827. thank you.

>> hello. supervisors, i just wanted to point out a generational divide that is apparent here. 99% of the people supporting the resolution are 50 years old and older. everyone that opposes the resolution and supports 827 is of the younger generation. the older generation doesn't want change. they don't want their views blocked. they don't want new people here. i will continue to live here far in the future. please don't stand in the way of the future and oppose this resolution. thank you. >> i'm going to call more speakers up. mark, daniel, eric, mark, please come on up. >> hi, my name is ben liberalby.

it's a good example of regulatory capture. instead advances the commercial or political concerns of the sectors tasked at regulating. if we're serious about making this an equitable city, we need to support 827 and a more generous housing policy. i have seen friends leave because of the high who'sing

costs. -- housing costs. when i moved in 2016. i know how the less fortunate experience the housing crisis. unable to drive or use stairs, my brother's search was long and difficult and he paid a high price for a new unit. for him and many he fights for, san francisco's old walkup housing stock is inaccessible and the sprawl is isolating. the modern transit housing is not just preferable for people with disabilities, it's necessary. i urge you to vote against opposing it. >> there is a false dichotomy

i've been hearing where it's more housing or tenant protection, but we can have boeing. this bill has lots of protection already. there is demolition controls, there is right to return. that just came out and we can strengthen them and make it only single family owner occupied buildings. how many people have a home and can think of four families that would be happy to live on top of them. it would be great to build those spaces. and some people said that more housing makes unaffordability, but higher wages cause unaffordability, so we're enjoying the higher wages, we can harness them to build more units and with the units, more bmr. so i think the people [bell ringing] >> thank you. i'm going to call the remaining

cards, brian, michael, henry, charles, kevin, and eric. and if there are any other members who want to speak and are in room 263, overflow. >> hi, my name is mark. i'm here to speak favor of the bill. in the eight years i've been lucky enough to be in san francisco, i've seen many friends and colleagues leave the city and some refuse to come. they all leave because of the housing costs and the housing cost is due to not having enough housing. this gives an opportunity to build more housing and that's why i support it. thank you. >> hi, supervisors, my name is mark. i'm a resident of telegraph hill. and i'm a renter. i'm not a native san franciscan, and apparently in that city,

that makes me a second class citizen. i work for a nonprofit that fights for immigration reform, i don't make a ton of money, i don't work for a corporation and it's hard to live in the city with the rents the way they are today. i think a lot of the other folks out here of my generation have expressed those same sentiments. i want to keep living here. i want our health care workers to work here, firefighters, police officers and they're having to leave the city because the city has done nothing while we're in urgent housing crisis. people can barely afford to live here. local control has failed. it's time to give the state a chance. oppose this resolution, support 827. >> hi, i'm eric, from district 3. sb 827 would never have been drafted had neighborhoods evaluated proposed development on the merits for the good of

the city, rather than gaining the system by using ceqa and other means to thwart the obvious means. assertions should not be used as basis of legislative administration. when it's a good problem to have, the alternative is detroit of san francisco. balance the onslaught of people in the city. >> thank you for your time today. i urge you to support 827. it's time to start enacting policies that are progressive and help deal with the housing

crisis in california so that people like me can afford to stay and contribute understand energy to making the bay place a great place to live. the situation where it's illegal to build apartments in over 80% of the city. people like to talk about hong kong, a constrained metropolis, but what about beijing, or seoul. making sure that people like the folks in had room will not lose their homes because there is not enough areas or units to go around.

sb8 contains defensive measures to protect vulnerable members and it allows sf to become the city it should be. environmentally ly and more affordable to all residents. please support it instead of opposing it. thank you. >> rick hall here. san francisco must oppose 827.

it's a gentrification machine on steroids. we got protection for low-income communities of color. we had no leverage because the city had -- our own city had already supported it. at least formal opposition could provide measures to improve the bill. i don't think the build could be amended to be acceptable. it's outlandishly broad and the basis is unsound. one size fits all it impacts california neighborhoods across the straight is impract cal -- i am impractical. i have a picture of a bus that says i'm your bus not your city planner.

>> are there any other members who wish to speak and a didn't call your name, come on up. >> i'm here to support the resolution to oppose the bill. one thing we have not talked about is what's going to happen to the low income communities of color. there's talk about communities of color but there are no protections in place for us here and throughout the city and we haven't talked about the small businesses it's going to affect. the latino community will be coming out and expressing our feelings. we've not been invite to the table and you'll hear from us shortly. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. contrary so the claims of the lower park given as have you already have heard, san francisco is built moreover and

it's met the quota of market rate housing and has under built low-income housing. what has not worked is the failure to ability to build affordable housing and it will not work and what it will do is it make it far harder to build subsidized affordable housing by driving up land values and encoura encourage getting tenants out. >> hi, i'm jill roy.

it doesn't give any thought to solve the house crisis. this has resulted in luxury mcmansion and paved the way for market rate housing. please keep local control not state control. please oppose this bill. thank you. >> hi, my name is natalia and i work for eviction defense in the fillmore region and here to speak about sb827 and in favor of the peskin bill. and i want to point out there should be a protocol in the chambers for comments coming. i think it's really inappropriate to not be

tolerated in the same way that other types of biassed comments should be tolerated. there is a homogenous population among supporters that could also be called out very easily. and i just want to say that the housing crisis is an affordability crisis and it will be solved not by building more luxury-rate condos but by expanding rent control, filling vacancies and -- >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public who wish to comment on item two? no one from the overflow room? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you all for coming out. supervisor peskin did you want to make remarks first? >> first of all -- >> sorry, you have now replaced supervisor safai so he is now a member of this committee. >> i want to thank all the

speakers and i understand it's not just an intergenerational issue. the bay area the state of california and san francisco in particular, clearly, clearly has a profound affordability crisis. there's no question about that. you don't need to read the latest poll to know that's on everybody's mind. it's real. there's many ways to solve it. as i spoke to you earlier we have collectively over time whether it's affordable housing bonds, excessive dwelling policy, tenant protections, home sf have been chipping away at it and everybody is entitle to their opinions but as my former supervisor wiener said you're not entitled to your own facts.

it is true that san francisco has actually been albeit though we can do better at the forefront of creating luxury rate markets and more affordable units than our counterparts. and i appreciate the notion that senator wiener is coming forthwith which is that there should be housing equity around the region and around the state. but as that map shows, this doesn't quite do that. this actually rezones a very small part of the bay area. i was part of the movement as were many of my colleagues to encourage our neighbors to the south to use the bay lands for thousand of units of new affordable house starts. that was something where the board of supervisors all agreed

and i associate myself with the individuals who indicated this is not a one-size fits all solution. i want to say to senator wiener and his colleagues in the state legislature the simple notion which is show this money. you want to help, get us state resources. we weren't around when we used the redevelopment agency -- the old redevelopment agency was the history of displacement but the agency that was dissolve was an affordable housing agency. give us those tools. give us state resources so that we can use the properties that we have for 100% affordable housing projects. i think the older generation can all support that. i can say as a district 3 supervisor, virtually every piece of vacant land whether it was broadway and battery or

broadway and phantom we are looking to legislation at 530 phantom street with a mezzanine with a fire station where we could build 200 feet of affordable house. we're looking at those opportunities all over the city. there are tens of thousands of units in the pipeline. to the individual who said this takes time, that is a true fact. much has been made of the planning commission's memo. there are actually two of them. the most recent dated march 8 that addresses the senate bill as revised and there's a lot in there for everybody but i want to call out a few top-line highlights and then want to go actually into the language of

legislation pirp legislation. i know this is a highly emotionally charged issue. i don't know how many have read the legislation as amended but to the planning department, senate bill 827 may preclude the city from rezoning property to p.d.r., production, distribution and repair to protect industrial uses and districts in san francisco. that's important because planning has to be done holistically it provides zoning intensity without time or resources for cities to concurrently adopt measures -- the transit richness bill is broad for corridors and speaks to that.

i don't think anyone would say our department is not pro growth.

any person who moves from profit in the boundary after a proposal subject to housing bonus is deemed complete. it goes on to say a development proponent shall prepare detailed relocation benefits and assistance plan. this is to make us happy and submit to the applicable local government for approval to determine if it complies with the requirements of this section

which are as follows. a diagramatic sketch of the project area, projected dates of displacement, a written analysis of the relocations of all eligible relocation needs of all displaced persons as to how the needs are met. the written analysis of the relocation housing resources including vacancy rates. a detailed description of payments to be made and plan for dispersements. this goes on for pages. after approves the relocation benefits an and resince stance. they shall notify all eligible persons of the availability every location benefits in the system. eligibility requirements of procedures for obtaining such, extent of their needs, supply each eligible person information

concerning federal and statehousing programs. it goes on and on. here is where it gets disturbing. eligible applicant eligible for relocation and assistance shall cease if they move to comparable replacement dwelling and receives assistant and payments to which he or she is entitle. number two, eligible displaced person moves and refuses reasonable officer offers of moving to a replacement dwelling and receives payments. flethree if they failed to loce the displaced person. three that is terrible. number four, from his or her dwelling unit refuses reasonable offers of assistance.

who is going to enforce that? you can read it. it is all in there, but if the state wants to help cities with housing crisis we need to repeal hawkins, reform the ellis act, create a vacancy tax which i intend to propose for november. continue to strengthen the move in eviction controls and to do what we are going to do and hopefully more robustly. i think the plan needs more housing not less. 7,000 units in that plan and this land use committee is not enough. we have an opportunity to build tens of thousands of units of housing in the plan and i hope we avail ourselves of that. supervisor tang, i look forward to ironing this out. i hope we can work to make

reasonable amendments. first and foremost among those is the fundamental notion of value recapture. we need to set goals for the senator, nancy skinner and the entire assembly and senate delegations. put mile markers out there. i hope we can put forth a qualified opposition resolution saying we oppose it if we do not get substantial meaningful amendments in the bill and with that i will relinquish the microphone. >> thank you for reading us the entire legislation. i hope everyone read it before they came here. i do agree with a lot of comments you made and i want to thank you all for coming out no

matter which side you are on. i see value in the comments you made. i proposed some amendments to the resolution. instead of opposing i would like to urge amendments to sda27. i agree it does over reach in san francisco, and i am actually, you know, surprised but happy to hear some of the folks come out to say they appreciated it was they didn't when i was working on it. when i was working on it i was trying to go for recapturing the value where we my give you two additional stories but a lot of studies went into why we chose two versus 10 or 9. the 30% affordable housing, no demolition of existing rent controlled units.

including small business was first in the only program in the city with any development of affordable housing that says you must take all of these steps to notify, communicate with businesses, that there are restrictions around lot sizes and mergers for storefronts on the ground floor. i don't see any other programs doing that for small businesses. i am very concerned that sba27 does not consider all of those factors that our office, the planning department, the small business commission, oawd spent two years negotiating to get through. i just want to, you know, help you understand also how much we have moved forward because also when we passed it we had 100% affordable housing program we passed prior to that. i wanted to eliminate condition

use for that program was met with resistance. to this day we don't have a true 100% affordable program under the density bonus where you don't have a cu. there is a modified cu for that. i would say what we were working on years ago was reasonable. we wanted to capture the value of the benefits we are giving to developers at that time. now here we are. i do think it is extreme for san francisco. my since this bill is in the pro since, it hasn't gone to smithty. it can be amended. i urge amendments to ensure the value of additional height and debs city is re-captured and the existing neighborhood character is preserved. again, while i do respect senator wiener and his work and

at the state level this particular bill is troublesome to me. some of the other clauses that i have here i wanted to share with the public is that san francisco has spent years working with communities on planning efforts resulting in affordable housing and infrastructure impacts. the board of supervisors is committed to working with other jurisdictions and tenant advocates to address the crisis by amending fb827. in the further clauses i wanted to urge the state leaders to fund affordable housing stream to address the housing crisis. that funding is a huge challenge. the last clause is board of supervisors will continue to monitor the progress and may provide additional comments as the bill is heard at committee hearings. that is my proposal to

supervisor peskin. we do agree amendments need to be made but, of course, it will get down toward smithing here. do you have any comments, thoughts? >> madam chair as much as i would like to send a strong message to senator wiener and the state delegation, i think you have articulated that very well and in the spirit of working together i would like to do a couple things. one is and i suspect we are getting the senator's attention at this point. by the way, if anybody wants to see our e-mails, i think we have gotten hundreds and hundreds of e-mails in opposition, and i would say less than the number i can count on my hand in support.

we heard from a diversity of people today. by the way, these are not form letters, they are from the heart. i mean it is rather remarkable. i can say for the record that my office did no organizing on this. i think this has touch a nerve. having said that, and given the fact that i think we have an opportunity to negotiate with our senate representative from san francisco, what i would like to do is send this to the full board as proposed by chair tang with recommendation, but set it for a hearing on april 3rd, long before it is going to get to committee in the state senate and reserve my right depending on what happens in the intervening three weeks to move my position at the full board to an oppositional or conditionally

oppositional position depending what we see from senator wiener and assembly member tang i would support it for the hearing on 3 april 2018. >> that sound great to me. we will shoot for april 3rd full board meeting hearing on the resolution with the amendments that i proposed. >> the amendments are your amendments and the recommendation for april 3ed is by supervisor peskin? >> send it as amended with recommendations for hearing on 3 april 2018. we will do that without objection. >> mr. clerk any other items before us? >> clerk: no further business. >> thank you. we are adjourned.

>> ever wonder about programs the city it working think to make san francisco the best place to work and will we bring shine to the programs and the people making them happen join us inside that edition of what's next sf sprech of market street between 6th is having a cinderella movement with the office of economic workforce development is it's fairy godmother

telegraph hill engaged in the program and providing the reason to pass through the corridor and better reason to stay office of economic workforce development work to support the economic vital of all of san francisco we have 3 distinctions workforce and neighborhood investment i work in the tenderloin that has been the focus resulting in tax chgsz and 9 arts group totally around 2 hundred thousand square feet of office space as fits great as it's moved forward it is some of the place businesses engaged for the people that have living there for a long time and people that are coming into to work in the the item you have before you companies and the affordable

housing in general people want a safe and clean community they see did changed coming is excited for every. >> oewd proits provides permits progress resulting in the growth of mid businesses hocking beggar has doubled in size. >> when we were just getting started we were a new business people never saturday a small business owner and been in the bike industry a long needed help in finding at space and sxug the that is a oewd and others agencies were a huge helped walked us through the process we couldn't have done it without you this is sloped to be your grand boulevard if so typically a way to get one way to the other it is supposed to be a

beautiful boulevard and fellowship it is started to look like that. >> we have one goal that was the night to the neighborhood while the bigger project of developments as underway and also to bring bring a sense of community back to the neighborhood. >> we wanted to use the says that a a gathering space for people to have experience whether watching movies or a yoga or coming to lecture. >> that sb caliber shift on the street is awarding walking down the street and seeing people sitting outside address this building has been vacate and seeing this change is inspiringing. >> we've created a space where people walk in and have fun and

it is great that as changed the neighborhood. >> oewd is oak on aortas a driver for san francisco. >> we've got to 23ri7b9 market and sun setting piano and it was on the street we've seen companies we say used to have to accompanying come out and recruit now they're coming to us. >> today, we learned about the office of economic workforce development and it's effort to foster community and make the buyer market street corridor something that be proud of thanks to much for watching and tune in next time for