check sfmta.com for more information on the process. thank you for watching. >> thank you for doing this. this is not your day job. we appreciate your service every day and thank you very much for doing this and for everyone who wrote in or e-mailed or was getting that e-mail or tweet ready, thank you very much for joining. >> one last question here. the only budget details provided so far relate to fares. how can the public comment on transit service change proposals that have not been written yet? subway service cannot be increased at peak times due to subway. >> i think i get where that question is coming from. we are finalizing proposed service changes.

we will present them to the board in tw two weeks. we will get those out so the public can weigh in on those. there is after in capacity in the subway. two to three car trains and adding more shuttle service. we may be close to capacity. we will work to add more. >> thank you for watching. have a good night. >> thank you. ♪

[gavel].jf&ñçóa5ñiñiçóñrñr good afternoon,çó ñhveryone. welcome to our landñr useñilp 12, 2018.ñi

ñiclerk,ñi any ñ63qannouncemen? ñi silenceçó all cellñi phonesesa5% itemsçó actedñi upon tox boardçó of supervisorshçóagend. canñr we call item ñione? fá restrictionsko with theñrñi as recorder against ÷h property designatedñi asñr5aiñrñi asse block numberbñi2643, lots numb ñi 1 openñr space in support ofñiñiñ fi%ñ"ip &hc% nation fund grant andçóñiñiq pr thatñ the use-"xd'c restrictio containedçóçó in the?; grant wñ covenants, cona=monsñi andçóñit restriction on the s we also haveñrñr received yo koñiçó

ñiçóçó restrictions onçó the funds, weñr maint'9ñi and oper them for añr periodñi of 20 yea.

i for p recreation space,ñsr recreationi ññiñi ñiyears. thisñi time frame isçóñr also

so the board does not focus on the ramifications of land use restrictions on city departments that have jurisdiction or need to use the restricted land. on the top of the package, question 12, it does ask if there are significant requirements or comments. this item is generally not answered. but i think putting ccr in city property is a big deal, so much so the acknowledgment of this issue deserves its own question on page 1 of the form so it's not overlooked.

let me explain how serious the issue is. the language of the grant contract, section 3, general provisions, use of facility states, grantee agrees to use the land for purposes of the grant and no other use or disposition shall be permitted except as authorized by the legislature of the state of california. in 2014, the board put restrictions on glen park lands to satisfy accepting the grant, but there is a big problem that the city is stuck with. rec and park did not have sole jurisdiction over the property to agree to the grand conditions. the public works has jurisdiction there, now they're barred for 20 years from using the land for the legitimate city purposes by virtue of the ccrs without getting the legislators approval. please amend your form so the city does not accept money that will compromise other city

departments. you must assure that all departments from written up. this is what page 2 looks like. this is where it talks at the top. nobody fills in the form because they don't know it's there. thank you. please put this on the agenda. >> thank you very much, any other members of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor tang: colleagues? supervisor safai is the only one -- the other committee member. can we get a motion? oh, did you have something else? >> supervisor safai: motion to approve. >> supervisor tang: did you have something else to add? we had a motion with the committee report, please. >> supervisor safai: motion to approve with committee report. >> supervisor tang: we'll do that without objection.

item number 2. >> clerk: resolution opposing california senate bill 827 authored by senator scott winer which would significantly limit san francisco's local ability to recapture critical public value of development projects city-wide and override local planning process. >> the sponsor of the resolution is here today, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madame chair, supervisor safai, the individuals who came down here today. they say that all politics is local politics, and that in san francisco all local politics are about land use because of the constraints of the 7 by 7 mile city. this is a very, very important piece of legislation, unlike other resolutions -- or other state bills we take a position

on that generally go to adoption without committee reference calendar. i thought it was important to send this to committee, so that we could all have a robust discussion. i really wanted to create a space for a public discussion. i realize i am an unabashed opponent of the legislation as it is currently crafted, but i think it's important to create a space to have this dialogue and this debate, because this is a piece of state law that while it may look on its surface is about zoning regulations in the state of california, if you look at it carefully, i'll hold this up, disproportionately impacts one city and county which is the city and county of san francisco. [cheers and applause] and while it is true that the

state is expanding in population and that housing is an acute need in crisis throughout the state of california, and that we all need to take our fair share of that housing, particularly affordable housing, this bill is really in many ways a san francisco bill. so i think it's very important that we all have this discussion here and that the board of supervisors makes its position on our former colleague, then supervisor scott wiener, now senator scott wiener, senate bill 827. i say that in the context of someone on and off the board, for 20 years, where we have wrestled with the very difficult issues of housing and

particularly affordable housing. in many manifestations. my colleague, the chair of this committee, supervisor tang pioneered and after two years of effort dealt with a 1979 era vintage law. the state bonus density law and conformed it to san francisco's unique situation with home sf. myself and supervisor mark farrell worked together, collaborated on and had a successful passage of legislation around enabling, encouraging dwelling units. and despite what people heard last week that only 20 of them have been built. that is absolutely untrue. 1600 have been built. we were the city that pioneered inclusionary housing under mark

glennos leadership and last year, in 2016, later in 2017, passed some of the most ambitious onsite affordable housing laws in the united states of america. we have pioneered general obligation bonds to deal with affordable housing. san francisco has exceeded the bay area and northern california relative to the production of housing at all levels, unfortunately, we exceed at the luxury housing level, but we do better than any of our neighbors at the low, very low, and moderate income levels. i look at this bill and i'm deeply dis-turnbulled dis/* -- disturbed is because what san franciscos have learned is the decision of displacement. we learned that in the international hotel.

we learned that in the a-2 and redevelopment and the legacy of justin herman, which we have addressed symbolically relative to names and places. and yet, this bill, senate bill 827, puts us and precipice -- and admittedly so -- of getting back into the policy making of displacement and the ruining of lives. and you i don't say that lightly because i understand, and i acknowledge that supply is part of the issue and as a supervisor, maintaining the affordable housing that we have is also an issue whether it's the academy of cart gobbling up sro hotels for student dormitories, whether it's

gentryification, those are all things we have to address at the same time we add supply. and it's not any supply. it is affordable supply for people who live and work in the city and county of san francisco. so i want to have this conversation today and i also want to acknowledge that senator wiener has made a number of amendments to senate bill 827, those amendments have recently been published. i also want to say that san francisco has learned over time that when we enter into the planning process, when this committee and predecessors to that committee approve area plans, and neighborhoods plans, that include upzoning, that we at the dawn of the 21st century have learned one profound lesson. which is that when the city or a

public agency confers benefit on a landowner, we have obligation, a responsibility to recapture that value for the good of the public. what does that mean? well, that means investment in public transit. that means investment in affordable housing. that means investment in complete neighborhoods. and whether it's central soma plan which actually attempts to do that and to derive that value recapture for a host of public benefits, what senate bill 827 does not do, what home sf actually did do, is recapture that value. if we are going to use major transit hubs, then we are going to continue to burden our public

transit infrastructure. then if we are taking a building that right now can be zoned up to 55 feet and we almost double that zoning capacity, this is not a giveaway to developers, this is conferring massive value on property owners and we must recapture that value. i want to hear from the public today. i understand that there are opponents and proponents of this. i am in receipt of the letter that is signed by many, many technology and gig companies, albeit some of the biggest ones, including apple, did not sign on and i don't want to politicize this, but i note that ron conway is a signatory to that letter, supporting senate bill 827. and i understand that those companies feel they have and indeed they do have a moral

obligation to take care of the impacts that the tech economy is bringing to san francisco, but i think that colleagues, there is a better, more sophisticated way to do that. then let me leave before we turn this over to you, madame chair, and to hear from the public. there is also one profound legal notion in the state of california which is the notion that cities and counties bring about their own destiny. and there is no better place than around land use. now, we just had a bill, senate bill 182, that unfortunately was passed by the state legislature and signed into law. which prevented this city and county and municipalities across the state from charging a

business license to transportation network companies, lyft and über. and our city attorney asserted our independent constitutional charter authority and we brought suit against senate bill 182 because that is a sovereign right of the city and county of san francisco. and should senate bill 827 not be significantly amended or die in the california state legislature, i would respectfully suggest to our city attorney and my colleagues that we follow the same route as senate bill 182. [cheers and applause] i do have -- i do have one other thing -- >> sorry, reminder to the office, use your spirit fingers if you feel inclined to express support or opposition.

thank you. >> supervisor peskin: i have one other thing to say, i have the honor to serve on the state of california coastal commission and spent three days last week in southern california at the coastal commission meeting. and was amazed that my colleagues, half of whom of that 12-member body hail from the southern portion of the state of california. pointed out to me that senate bill 827 disproportionately impacts lower income communities and communities of color. as a matter of fact, one of my colleagues said this is urban renewal 2.0 and she said to me, how dare your senator re-zone compton, california. and i was not thinking about it in that lens, because i was thinking about it relative to 96% of san francisco, but i also wanted to express that because it's not just about san francisco. but when you look at the map

that i just held up, if this is about having more suburban communities do their fair share, when you look down to san matteo and santa clara counties, it is a thin little ribbon along the 1010 corridor. this is not about density equity, this is an attempt to rezone san francisco. and i say that is as someone who is proud of the rezoning efforts where we'll building thousands of units of housing on the waterfront and bay view hunter point and treasure island and mission rock and pier 70. we're cranking it out. we're doing it. supervisor tang, as i said earlier, did home sf. former supervisor farrell and myself, did accessory dwelling unit. it's not as though we have our heads buried in the sand, with

that over to chair tang. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor, peskin, i would say that there are many points in the comments that i do agree with, but i do also want to commend senator scott wiener, because on his time as member of the board of supervisors -- thank you, i know that you are very riled up, but please listen to what i have to say, ok, on his time as a member of the board of supervisors, i know that supervisor wiener was a huge proponent of trying to create more affordable housing here in san francisco, supporter of home sf, which i worked on, and now as a state senator i understand and appreciate his leadership for i think, really in the previous comments made, having other cities do their fair share in terms of building affordable housing, especially as we bear the brunt of a lot of the telephoning back and forth -- transportation back and

forth. i think we need to ask other cities to rise to the occasion as well, but we spent two years or more on home sf. and that in itself was controversial when we began because, yes, there were height limit increases proposed, but there was a cap. and there was a lot of strings attached to that voluntary program, meaning you had to build a percentage of affordable housing, certain unit sizes so family size, not so many one bedroom and studios. we wanted to make sure small businesses were protected. that tenants were protected. all those are not there as part of the bill and those are the issues that i have with bill 827. after public comment, i have amendments and we'll continue this dialogue with senator wiener, but because there are so many people here for public comment, i'm going to call them

up unless supervisor safai has comments. i'm going to ask that public comment is limited to one minute each because we have so many. unless you would like to not comment at all. because we may have a quorum issue. public comment at one minute each. with that, public comment is here. i have cards, george, tess, ann, patricia, richard, monica, please come on up if i have called your name. i will call more afterwards. >> san francisco is the second densest city in the nation and this legislation proposed by scott wiener would penalize a few cities, not the suburbs to encourage commercial and do not building housing. both bills were developed by developers and speculators and

we need to, as a board of supervisors, representing san franciscans, oppose this, dump it, and start fresh. >> marina, oppose this for the following reasons. number one, it's a ruse concerning housing. number two, until you straighten out the issue, until you straighten out the issues concerning affordable housing plans, this is a real use. there are multi-numbers of buildings that have been built with -- they pay the money and have all high end housing instead of the money going to the low-income projects and i think there are hundreds of buildings that have not paid into the fund. number three, is i'm tired of

ruses. we need to have legislation that is equitable. i am tired of the wording of scott wiener's 824 as it is, it has to be completely reworded. [bell ringing] >> thank you very much, next speaker please. >> ann harvey, speaking of myself, my husband, who is a professor at usf and our two sons who we raised in the city, born and raised and still work here in the city. i was born in new york city, i grew up in philadelphia, went to school in boston, and all these cities, came to berkeley in san francisco and it was beautiful. the one thing i found bad about san francisco was the fontana, but i grew up, i was in boston, a student --

>> you have 30 seconds left. mr. clerk, if you could reset the clock due to the confusion to 25 seconds. or i think it was 28. >> it was the time of the big unrest in berkeley and i thought it was urban warfare. i was so surprised. i couldn't believe it. and then we moved to san francisco and i've loved it and we stayed here. we've never considered moving anywhere else, i hate to see this town turned into a place like new york city. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you, a couple more speaker cards. david, jerry, paul, diana and mary. >> ok, may i? >> supervisor tang: yes. >> finally, ok. george, president of the

coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. please support and pass the proposed resolution of the board in opposition to the bill. thank you, aaron peskin, as the city of los angeles have appeared to have done. i would like to devote the rest of my time to a moment of silence for scott wiener's attempt to kill the character and depth of our neighborhoods. use my last 30 seconds for silence. [bell ringing] >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker.

>> thank you, supervisor peskin. i'm from san francisco and thank you for not rolling your eyes, change is good, but that implies improvement, not just any old change. not hyper development. i think it was james baldwin who called redevelopment the negro removal act. what is happening in the fillmore is happening in omi. you have foreclosures, prices are zooming. can i even afford to stay in the city? anyway, go to paris. why is the beautiful? because they don't allow this cluster mess. go to the paris suburbs. they're horrible. they're huge towers, dense clusters, everyone hates them. the french hate them. the city parents knew you don't allow this sort of thing in city limits if you want a beautiful prosperous tourist city. i am in favor of affordable

housing, but you know, this is not -- [bell ringing] >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> the overhead, please. >> supervisor tang: sf gov tv, overhead. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i'm richard, i oppose state bill 827. will rogers said every time a politician makes a joke it becomes a law. every time he makes a law it becomes a joke. a very, very bad joke for san francisco. as a senior elected official of san francisco it would be a travesty for you to disenfranchise your stitch of their rights have a say in the local use decisions within their communities. 827 is a poison pill with respect to land use and decision making. it eliminates local control, knowledge, history, custom

culture and standards. why should we support ballot initiatives in june and november proposed by supervisors who fail to support a broad consensus of san franciscans? thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is jerry, it's clear that the demand for housing exceeds supply. excess demand driving up the cost of housing. san francisco has 18,000 people per square mile. or 6266 per square kilometer. with 6266 people per square kilometer, san francisco is currently as dense as hong kong, denser than london, and equal to

job poor india. sb 827 is expected to increase the housing supply, but never modelled. if the goal is to increase the number of square mile, it would make sense how many people the infrastructure can support and where the increase in density should occur. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker. >> may have overhead, please? my name is diana, aaron peskin for mayor! i mean you here today. is this is such an important issue. i am a 65-year-old senior citizen. scott wiener, what happened to you? we're so disappointed. we believed in him, elected him,

thought he was going to do good. my beloved city of san francisco is continuing to grow and expand within our 49 square miles. i disagree totally with sb 827 and the wording to override local planning process. we will not be denied the democratic process. we have voted many times and said what we wanted, now we have height limits, the same issues again. now that he want to change our laws. we cannot have this, supervisor tang, i'm very, encouraged by what you said about the revisions because [bell ringing]. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is david. i wanted to clarify we're not voting on 827, we're voting on peskin's resolution to allow san francisco to have a say.

and i think the main point we really should concentrate on is the basic principle democracy, self-determination for our communities. and not fall into the trend that is happening nationwide if people look. not just from the trump administration, in general, about that privatize everything, privatize the roads, social security, parks. and not allow people to sue large corporations, let polluters pollute and we don't have a say. and if you don't, if you go ahead with this bill in sacramento, you're falling into that trap of giving up our rights. i expect that the planning commission and the supervisors to respect the rights of the citizens of -- [bell ringing] >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker. >> my name is mary, i live in the outer sunset.

i want to address the floor area on the bill. i live in a typical sunset district house, the four area ratios, under this bill, looks like it will 3.5, 4.5, or allow for 10,500 square feet. that is 1,000% increase in density on my little tiny lot. we need to also think about the profound demolition that could occur. also, it's very unclear how the housing accountability act works in conjunction with this bill. and last but not least, the city of san francisco up-zoned 100,000 units in 1990s repairing the damage of the down zoning from the 60s and 70s, thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: going to call more speaker. bruce, rose, genoa, rita, please

come on up. >> good afternoon, my name is paul weber, i'm a resident of north beach and here to state my conclusions since we only have a minute. there is still time to act if you do so now. i urge you to recommend that the board approve the resolution opposing 827, cause the city to deploy lobbyists to seek the support of state legislature in opposing 827 and cause the city to seek a judicial determination there is not a compelling state interest in the need for market rate housing to provide bonuses there with no inclusion err housing which the bill does in a land locked city like san francisco to warrant wrenching away what is an exclusive

municipality affair. i appreciate the one minute. >> hi, my name is adrian. i am a resident of the lower haight. please oppose senate bill 827. it simply is not what the citizens of san francisco want or need. >> supervisor tang: next speaker. >> supervisors, we need your help. we need your help to protect us against aba 8237. it is bad for california, but worse for san francisco. not only will it inflate our real estate, it does not reflect the transit problems, traffic problems, infrastructure. the bill is based on many bad assumptions. just one. many developments have shown that transit can replace those who use transit.

transit oriented development migrants as well be called -- might as well be called transit rider. this is like handing over our transportation problems to über. even -- except the impact of 827 will be permanent and irreversible. once the towers are here, they're here to state. once the state takes over the planning, we'll never get it back. >> supervisors, this bill will tell you that all of the problems that can be caused can be amended and that's not necessarily true. and the problems are worth it, because it means we have more affordable housing. that is a lie. if this will result in affordability, then why is

manhattan and hong kong not the cheapest places to live in the world? >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. i'm going to call a few more speaker cards. greg -- i apologize, i can't read some some of the handwriting. >> one of the most positive aspects of san francisco besides the bridge are the charming neighborhoods. this initiative is threatening to destroy those neighborhoods just as that picture showed with the sore thumb sticking up like we have with the fontana and a few other buildings in san francisco. i feel it's necessary for us to maint control of our own initiatives and things that are happening here. centralizing this is un-american and usurping the power, that is the opposite of what the founding fathers wanted to provide and protect. >> next speaker, please.

>> hello. i'll ill-prepared because i only found out about this last night. which is too bad because this room wouldn't hold all the people if they knew what was going on. so i'll speak from my heart. i was born here. and i can smell money and corruption. simply. real estate developers, low interest rates. of course they buy the rivers. we need to keep control of our land. i think you should think about when you meet your maker if you pass this. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> overhead, please. >> 827 is a scheme relying on factors for huge heightened

density increases that circumvent review under san francisco's general plan. land value increases and creates pricing unattainable by the majority. trump-like sp 827, kills local control. all these bullet points i have displayed on here and the jordan park improvement association under the leadership of larry costel costello opposes 827 & so this is an image i want to leave you with. i turn all this and include my first overhead under sunshine into the [bell ringing] >> thank you very much, next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, my name is chris bigelow. allowing many more sueses on the property -- uses on the property will increase our already inflated land values. in a city where speculators grab every fixer upper on the market, the last thing we need to do is incentivize speculative behavior. in today's market, will yield 2-3 units to the developer. imagine what would it to do the price of land with ten units. we need a set of criteria capable of responding to the context of the urban environment. this bill is a blunt instrument. supervisors, we live here and we're your constituents, not some special lobby in sack

sacramento. i urge you to oppose the resolution oppose this bill. i've watched the city go from a charming neighborhood to a place where there is no parking, there are streets torn up, there are pits an holes in the streets. we've watched this city change and grow beyond its limits. and, yes, housing is a problem in this city. but this bill, these two bills, are not the answer. and i ask you to look at who is supporting it in their suits and ties and not living in san francisco, and then look at who is supporting it, local people, local neighborhood people, people who care and have lived here for a long time or want to live here for a long time. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> i have a queasy feeling in my stomach as i don't understand why news agencies were told -- we weren't told sooner about the bill. i get "the chronicle" and there is nothing in it. we had to scramble to run here. it feels like a slimy bill and i'm sad to say, but it sounds like wiener cares about more lining the pockets of developers than he does the people of san francisco. many people like me who are poor in san francisco, live near major transportation routes. wiener is proposing to take away our freedom, space, air we breathe, sunshine. food will become more expensive and it will be harder to live in my area. this bill is wrong, it's saying let's put high rises on lombard street. if this bill made sense to people of san francisco, mayor lee would have initiated it. thank you.

>> supervisor tang: going to call more names here. catherine, kathy, dennis, dr. lisa, ozzie. >> my name is greg miller, i think the proposed senate bill is atrocious public policy. the bill would essentially privatize and automate the planning process to replace the power to transform the character of our communities in the hands of individual real estate developers and investors. competitive pressures will make expected profit margins that criteria for urban planning. the combined impact of many individual business decisions is unlikely to lead to ideal optimal outcome. eventually overbuilding and lower quality of life seem to be the likely outcome. for those who doubt this, i refer you to the performance of

the unregulated banking industry in the course of the previous decade. thank you. >> next speaker. >> my name is ashley, i'm the vice president of the marina community association, we strongly oppose this bill. i would like to say that i'm appalled by this bill. it is shocking that san francisco being such a unique city would ever even not oppose this bill. and it would be in favor of it. as we sit in these rooms today, in 50 years, half of us may not be here, but these buildings will be here and the city will change. you have the power to leave your legacy. do you really want your legacy to have no longer the neighborhoods to be destroyed and relationships to be destroyed by the bill? i am urging you to go back to the drawing boards and figure out a better plan. and for this. thank you.

>> thank you, next speaker. >> i'm jackie, cultural action network. so this bill solution to california's housing woes, is not working. and not only that, those who provide the solution are blaming you for those woes. claiming that you are resistant to new residential development. so scott wiener believes the state should govern housing the way it should govern education. the planning department can set policy, but the state sets the ground rules. where does that leave local control? sb 827 goes beyond slash and burn territory. so, 827 should -- would dramatically increase the city's population and the demand for services. police, fire, school, transit,

without providing funds to pay for the new services and lets the state off of the hook for funding -- [bell ringing] >> thank you very much. it's one minute today because we have quite a bit of public comment and potential quorum issues. i firmly oppose sb 827 and 828. the reality is you're creating a model for higher developer income, not more affordable housing. it's not true that the more housing you build, the more affordable it becomes. as others have mentioned, look at hong kong where housing is 18 times over the median income and the most crowded city in the world. and rental apartment is $3500 a month. compared to san francisco as of 2016, was 18,000 per square

mile. why can't we learn from other's failures. i'm asking to you reject this legislation, it has no basis in reality, no matter how you amend it. it will only increase economic unrest, upending every plan that contributes to the housing allocation requirements. >> my name is dennis. i urge you to support tresolutin opposing 827. it's a final resolution for replacing, the middle class, working, elderly, but ma massachusetmass they made sure that the suburban

counties would not have to share the burden of providing housing for the workforce. tech is building campuses bigger than the pentagon, but next to no housing. 827 could have come out of the trump administration as another measure to support the housing measure like the measures proposed to open public lands to extraction. so for whom is 827 written? who wins? who loses? it's on the side of the people. >> catherine howard, sierra club opposes 827. it interacts with sb 35 to preclude public health and environmental protections and review under ceqa, the environmental quality act.

the ceqa act is one the foundational laws in california and helped to cut climate pollution, protect open space and protect wildlife habitat and farm lands and ensures environmental justice and equity are part of the decision-making process and gives all californians the opportunity to know what is planned in their communities. certainly in the current political climate, we should be supporting as much environmental protection in california as we can and as part of that, we should be supporting ceqa. please oppose sb 827. thank you. i'm going to call more cards here.

this bill is a power grab that overrides our local housing controls. i believe voters elected you to speak up when your power to act for our benefit is being challenged. don't be fooled by the bill's amendments. help for tenants during a three and a half year relocation and right to return is underhanded. it will create a whole class of development refugees being shipped off to distant unfamiliar communities. let's create another hooverville, maybe wienerville would be a good name. a real housing problem is due to unregulated capital and speculation we need sensible controls on both. we don't need an elected representative that goes to sacramento and panders to special interest. simply put, wiener's bill will gentry phi and knowledge noise

our city. sb 827 is a shameless land grab engineered by special interest who won't stop short of selling the entire city to speculators. we keep hearing we need more homes, but why isn't anyone talking about the 30,000 new homes for which the city issued permits. why do we let developers sit on issued permits if we have a housing crisis? this is the inconvenient truth about the housing crisis which is in reality the affordability crisis fueled by the behavior. if senator wiener was concerned about the housing crisis, he would proposed measures like vancouver introduced. on december 21, when the planning commission held a hearing on strategy, one person

after another stood up to tell the commission about their concerns about upzoning of the mission. supervisor safai, what would you tell these people when they find out it's not just the mission street corridor, but [bell ringing] >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jim. i'm 43 -- i've been a resident of san francisco for 43 years. i see there is really quite a housing crisis here, but still i'm opposed to 827 for several reasons. here's one. the bill does nothing to curb the rampant speculation that is fueling the housing crisis. part of the problem here is that the large amount of real estate investment by overseas investors. seriously driving up the real estate prices. so i'm saying why not follow the example of vancouver, canada,

which is tackling the same problem with taxing on nonresident owned property and rental income. other than that, the bill looks to be a great deal for developers and does little to solve the housing crisis. >> i'm going to call more names here. peter, lorraine. chelsea. anastasia, denise and bradley. >> i'm president of the lone mountain civic association, we represent 500 homes surrounding usf. i'm with my fifth generation native granddaughter, this is her first community action. we understand that senator wiener is trying to disrupt the norm. this legislation has so many unintended consequences. increased pollution, immense

impact on infrastructure, displacement of low-income residents. especially the assault on character. we encourage you to oppose this measure and let's work to find solutions that don't usurp local control and also don't destroy what makes us unique. this is the first time i've ever agreed with aaron peskin on anything. i'm glad to find common ground, thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is lori, i'm president of the cal hallow association. the association does oppose 827 and supports the city's position. i have to say that when i sent out, albeit late, notification of the meeting, within hours i

had over 100 e-mails opposing it. it gave me faith that once everyone knows, you'll have enormous tsunami of resistance to that. don't despair. i think we can get this solved. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is brian. i'm here today to ask you to support the resolution that calls for opposing sb 827. because we don't need another bonus for developers and speculators. it's outrageous for senator wiener to up the developers' profits without the slightest benefit to inclusion housing. the legislation gave out more height in exchange for upping the inclusion percentage to 30%. sb 827 has none of that. what shows the true motives of senator wiener.

average dwelling is no more than 1500 square feet. this ups the ante to 10,000 square feet per lot, with no mandate how many units should be built in the space. multimillionaires will have the entire 10,000 square feet for their luxury homes. meanwhile, there will be more evictions and buyouts for tenants that make up 54% of house [bell ringing] >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, my name is kitty lynch. and someone told me there was a plan in the city to build high rises along lincoln from 7th down to the beach. i think that person had been channelling scott wiener. the city is already -- this is my opinion -- ruined in a way, because the prices of homes and rents are so high it restricts the population to rich people and it's not very culturally

colorful. this bill would kill any cultural flavor in the city that it has left. it makes me glad i'm old and won't be living here that long. my house will probably be demolished because it's on a transit line and across from golden gate park. >> good afternoon. my name is bradley. i support this resolution asking for us to oppose senate bill 827. it's bad policy, if we want to see the state take over transportation network companies, the tncs, how well is that working for us? have we been getting across town faster? i don't think so. we know best how to govern our own planning process. 827 will severely limit our

ability for planning processes. and frankly, there are other ways we can expand housing. we're in a crisis, but this is bad policy, this is bad civics and this is bad democracy. and frankly, i'm a little bit disappointed in scott wiener pushing this through. it does have the appearance of some balances, but when you look, you can see that this is not going solve [bell ringing] good afternoon, i'm peter, speaking as individual. i am a long time resident of san francisco and strongly oppose senate bill 827 and 828. i want to thank the supervisors and supervisor peskin in particular for bringing this