>> president breed: thank you supervisor sheehy. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: i disagree with supervisor sheehy that now is not the right time. i believe that sb-827 even with the current amendments is fundamentally flawed and so much so that it's appropriate to go on record right now opposing it. and it would almost need to be a completely different bill for us to reconsider in my opinion. and that's for a number of reasons. number one, i don't subscribe and never have and never will believe that solely increasing supply of luxury housing will somehow eventually trickle down and create the affording housing that we so desperately need for our teachers. [captioner switch].

... of course, we all support transit rich housing development near transit rich places, but what this piece of legislation does it almost deincentivizes

areas of california where purposefully transit was not built because they wanted to keep people out of the neighborhoods, referring very much to what supervisor cohen was talking about. and this does nothing to push those cities that have been exclusive enclaves for white and wealthier communities to produce more housing for all of us. i see the incentives or the fact this is pushes for more housing to be built in the areas that are already producing housing and always have for diverse communities to just eliminate local control or say over how that additional housing should be built. it also sort of completely gets rid of the entire discipline of city planning. you know, we have many city workers who have gone to school,

who specifically design cities so they are walkable and work for people and there is substantial infrastructure to support the residents who live in those cities. and it pretty much eliminates in a very radical way that thoughtful development and work that many san franciscans have engaged in, in making neighborhood plans. and in being involved in the future of what our city looks like. and i thought we had so much debate. i think it drove supervisor tang crazy over home sf, but it was a worth while debate, it went on and on and you very thoughtfully, supervisor tang, got us all to a place we agreed. here is a package that allows for density and height, where we need more housing to be built, but captures back the value for

affordable housing and this would eliminate home sf and make it a pointless piece of legislation. that doesn't make any sense to me. i could go on and on, but i'll spare my colleagues. i just want to say this piece of legislation, however well intentioned, is so fundamentally flawed that i believe it is absolutely not only correct but necessary that we go on record as a city opposing it today. >> president breed: thank you, and can i remind the members of the public no audible expression is allowed, you're allowed to use spirit fingers. thank you for your cooperation. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, i want to thank my colleagues for the thoughtful remarks on the bill. i believe it is up to our city leaders and community ies to she

our destiny. we have done a great deal to plan for growth. while i acknowledge we haven't built enough housing, i have real concerns about the broad sweeping changes that sb 827 proposes. i cannot support a bill. i strongly support addressing our housing needs and transit oriented development and i believe we can do that with input and care from our local communities and neighbors and i refuse to cut them out of the process. together, we have worked collaboratively through programs like homes sf, and our inclusion housing ordinance. i'm certainly supportive of creating density through special use districts like the development at the old lucky penny site. this site was only zoned for 22 units and we were able to negotiate with the developers, neighbors and labor to get 95 units, which is along a transit

corridor in this type of collaboration and i belief it works when we give it a good try. i've heard from numerous residents, two-thirds more than the majority have expressed grave concerns with 827 and it's unknown implications. i believe at this time, i know the bill that everyone is talking about, there will be amendments, but what i have in front of me today is language in 827 and i think it's time to send a strong message to sacramento that community input is valuable and necessary and i'll be supporting the resolution to oppose the current version of 827. as the bill changes in sacramento i would like to receive up to date analyses from our planning department. i will request that so we understand the implications of the amendments. i want say one more thing. in things like this, you know, you see the division.

you see the divisiveness. you see people going at each other, name-calling even, which i think is so not appropriate. and i truly think that what unites us on this subject matter is greater than what divides us and i want to follow up on what supervisor peskin said to our senator wiener and phil tinge, we are here to work with you. housing is important to all of us. let's get on the same page and recognize that what unites us is definitely greater than what divides us and we want to shape our city's destiny, not sacramento. >> supervisor fewer: i want to say that i concur with many comments of the colleagues. not all but most. i want to say that i'm happy to support today the revised

version of this that supervisor peskin has brought forward. what is evidence in this bill 827, quite frankly, i think senator wiener does not understand my neighborhood well at all. so my neighborhood, if people don't know, 60% renters. it is a moderate neighborhood. most of my affordable housing is r h2 and 1 units that would be decimated. 40% of my constituents are of asian descent and in families we live communally, and it makes it so that seniors and families can actually live in san francisco in this increasingly less affordable city. i concur with supervisor ronen that i don't believe that building more luxury market rate housing actually has a

trickle-down effect. i want to say i am very concerned about the infrastructure, the lack of infrastructure in promoting something like this and i say mainly schools. i have said it many, many times, in this forum, we are not planning for schools and for increased residential in san francisco, in fact the san francisco unified school district is five schools behind the current projected enrollment and currently for what is in the pipeline now. so then i also concur with supervisor ronen when you look at the map, you look that it gives actually san matteo, permission not to build and not to be dense. i think we're on the right track of what we're doing here in san francisco. we're building housing where other communities are not. and i have to mention that when we talk about transit-rich, there are some neighborhoods that are much more transit-rich

than others. and my neighborhood happens to one of those neighborhoods that is not transit-rich. we do not have a rail. we do not have an underground. we have been fighting for better service in our neighborhood. and so to say that the transit-rich neighborhoods, i beg to differ that my neighborhood is transit-rich. i think we're overcapacitated, and so when i see something like this, this is really far reaching, it is overreaching the authority of the state, and my responsibility to my residents in district 1 is to actually listen to their concerns when development happens. and i really think that the work of what supervisor tang did around home sf was very thoughtful, it was collaborative. i think after a lot of compromise and then supervisor

tang holding strong to making a stronger policy, i think this is how we need to work with the housing policies in san francisco. so i just want to say i am happy to support this resolution in opposition of california state senate bill 827. >> president breed: thank you, next speaker, supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you, so much. i want to make a couple of comments about sb 827, although i'm very much on the record on this issue as someone who has done a tremendous amount of up-zoning in density in a district that is a transit-rich corridor literally, the entire district, the tenderloin, south of market, mission bay. i want to say this is not the right way to build housing. i have negotiated, worked with developers, plansers, community, neighborhood leaders for the last seven years to make sure we're able to build more housing for san francisco, but we do it

the right way and that involves a local process. i'm not against up-zoning and this board has done up-zoning. we have doubled the zoning of much of san francisco. we have supported home sf which went through a very long community process led by supervisor tang to do up-zoning on transit rich corridors with increased development on housing. when you provide more floor, more space, you're giving the land developers money. this is a giveaway. without asking anything in return for a city and community. when you give any land ten more units, you're basically giving that owner more money. and every time we have done this in district 6 and throughout san francisco, in my time on the board, we have given that value by asking that developer to

share that value back with san franciscans, by building more affordable housing, by building more middle income housing, by investing deeply into transit service, schools, childcare, open space. things that make our neighborhood complete and healthy neighborhoods that we all want to live in. i don't think anyone has done more upzoning than i have. i have said that i built more affordable middle income housing and i've only done that with up-zoning and density. that is how you build. this one size fits all bill, is just a bill that enriches the pockets of landowners and developers here in san francisco. but i just want to say the other issue with this bill is with supervisor ronen has pointed out. it will disincentivize public transit investment in counties and cities that have refused to build already.

it won't up-zone contra costa, we as a region need to build more housing. and we can't expect that san francisco, san diego, who are frankly doing their part, are going to be able to build the state of california out of their housing crisis. but i think that it behooves us not to just talk about what we don't want, but what we want to see instead. first i mention, i serve on the metropolitan transportation commission and we've been trying to link grants to the production of housing. the state could do this as well. if they want to see other regions built, link more funding to the actual production of housing. if you want a grant to rebuild your highway, you need a grant for a variety of different infrastructure projects, we want to see other cities build

housing and affordable housing. second, we want the state to invest more deeply in the actual construction and preservation of affordable housing. government use to be in the business of building housing. in 1980, president reagan and many other elected officials throughout the country, decided that the market should take care of housing everybody. the poor, the working class, the middle class. and those with income. and we've seen 40 years later, where those policy decisions have landed us. we have divested from building affordable working class and middle class housing and what we've seen homelessness as a crisis has grown. when we stopped building housing for those who couldn't afford it, we saw homelessness grow. we need the state to invest greatly into the preservation of affordable housing. give us the grant housing.

we will build the housing here in san francisco. there are several other things to do. san francisco is building. we have 30,000 units of housing in our master development area plan. let's get that housing built. but we can't build that without financing the infrastructure. you can't just build housing, you have to build the sewage system, sidewalks, electricity grid. maybe the state can help us expedite the infrastructure so we can build the 30,000 units of housing and shipyard in treasure island and hope sf and many others. we also as i mentioned earlier, have an accessory dwelling unit program which has doubled the number of housing throughout san francisco and increases value of single family homes owned by families here in san francisco. let's make the process simpler. let's have a design guideline

process with expedited permit, with work with the fire department on ingress and egress and help single-family homeowners increase the income and rentable units throughout the city. finally, as someone who went to battle with our current state senator on the ceqa local process, i have to say, i really believe in our local process. there is not a single development, area plan that did not get better without the community process involved. and in every single development negotiation i've worked on, and i headline it in every negotiation, i've always gone in with our neighborhood leaders and community leaders or a member of the labor organizations. there is always been a group of individuals that have involved in negotiating these high level affordable housing that we talk about, whether it's 40%, 25%, whatever the percentage is, a local planning process allows

for that. a local planning process ensures the development are being built for the neighborhood and community and not just for the developers and the land owners. and so, you know, for those who get frustrated by the process, this process has entitled tens of thousands of units over the last years in san francisco and very few have gone into litigation. and if we want to build more housing what we should be focused on is more funding for affordable housing, infrastructure, and working on streamlining the permitting process, after the developers have gone through the hoops. let's help them through the approval process after they've been entitled. 827 is not one of the ways to build housing. >> president breed: supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, madame chair. there has been a lot of

insightful things said this morning, unfortunately when we get a snapshot of a piece of legislation, particularly when it's not local, there is a lot of fear and misunderstanding. when i look at the original version, my original reaction was fear about rh 1 and 2, that is 99% of my district. but when i read the most updated version of the legislation, i feel a lot easier in terms of understanding the direction it's going. i believe 100%, and i want to say clearly that local control is something that is extremely important in our planning process. i am a trained planner and have been acting as a planner for the last 20 years in san francisco. i'm very understanding of the planning process and respectful of neighborhood input and all of the different neighborhood organizations and individuals and actors that are he wanted here today. but when you look at the most updated version of this, i hear

it clearly spells out that this bill would require local government to have requested grant developer transit rich housing, which again the definition of that is a work in progress and that raises a lot of fears. i know supervisor peskin when you came into the land use committee put up a map and it showed that almost the entire city of san francisco could be impacted by that in its initial form, but when we read further it says in the bill, that the only bonus would be granted if it meets specific local planning standards including complying with demolition permit requirements. so again, if you added that and looked it emap again, that could take out almost the entire city of san francisco. so those concerned about demolition, demolitions would not be wholesale based on this. and then also, it requires that it meets to local inclusion

housing. so local inclusion housing which we spent over a year, myself, supervisor peskin, president breed, supervisor kim, supervisor tang, all of us involved in that, we raised that and amended that for the first time in 15 years. and required the number to go up to 18%, it's 19% now. and in the next few years it will be 23%. so local inclusion and then it talks about relocation assistance. i think this is a work in progress. i think if we were to say where it is today, and where it was certainly before these amendments, my vote would be no. but based on the fact this is a work in progress, i think that there is nothing wrong with allowing a process to go forward and the conversation to be has. the unfortunate thing about the legislation is there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding. and i, too, was part of the

misunderstanding. because i did see this as something as i said again, rh 1, 2, is almost 100% of my district, but when i read it again and see it has to comply with local demolition permit requirements, it has to follow local planning standards, it has to meet local inclusion, then i look at this piece of legislation and i think this is really more about probably empty pieces of land. this is more about spaces in the city that are not necessarily current occupied. so you can hss, but this is a slap shot. this might be a message to sacramento saying, no we're not for it. i do believe we have to have something that protects our local controls, but i do see

progress within the last month and evolution of a piece of legislation that is trying to probably think less about san francisco and more about other parts of the state of california and that's often how state legislation is written. so, i do see a lot of conflict and i see a lot of concern, but i do also see a lot of progress in the sense that progress is being made to protect local ideas ordinances, requirements and planning standards. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor safai for your comments and clearing up what i believe is a lot of misinformation on this legislation. as i stated on several occasions, i support 827 and support the resolution before the board today, without the proposed amendments to oppose this bill unless these particular amendments are

adopted. as the 827's goal is to promote more housing near transit. focus and growth around public transit makes sense and i understand that the transit hub specifically needs to be clearly more defined when we talk about transit-rich. like i specifically did with my neighborhood commercial transit district legislation which did not increase height along fillmore, but increased the number of units that could be built. i made it clear while i support sb 827's direction i want to see amendments to ensure we are addressing displacement and other key issues. i've been working directly with senator wiener on a number of these amendments, but what is clear, we have a deep housing shortage. all across the state. and we need to do everything we can to address it. the status quo which everyone claims they don't want to see

continue happens time and time again. the average rent we know for a two-bedroom in san francisco is nearly $5,000 a month. one single room occupancy hotels are renting for $1500 a month. we have people living in their cars because they can't afford to rent a unit and everyone is talking about displacement in housing and affordability and all of those things and we're not doing enough to make sure we build more housing. i grew up in the western addition and people i grew up with can no longer afford to live here. when i think about folks growing up now in san francisco, where are they going to live? where is the next generation of san franciscans going to live? not in san francisco clearly. we're continuing down the same pattern. this bill in its current form does not change our ability to deal with local controls as was

stated. including permits. including requiring discretionary review, ceqa or other conditional use approvals. it doesn't take away those local controls. it also allows us as supervisor safai has stated, to apply our local inclusion requirements and set our own demolition restrictions and design standards. senator wiener has already inserted language into the bill providing tenant protections including requirements if a tenant is displaced, the developer must house that tenant with no increase of rent. and then offer them the same rent as before. we did this for the project we just approved for the conservatory of student housing that was just voted on today. what i have made crystal clear

directly to the senator, is that we can grow without displacement. we know all too well the history of this city and what has happened in the western edition under the redevelopment agency. we don't want redevelopment 2.0. we can't repeat the same mistakes of the past. i have asked senator wiener to amend his bill, to focus on incentives of empty lots, parking lots, underutilized strip malls. this is what we're going to do with the purchase of the mcdonald site. we're not displacing anyone and we're going to build affordable housing on this completely underutilized lot. and to also make it clear to exclude parcels with housing currently on them. the author of this resolution is now proposing that we oppose sb

827 despite the fact that senator wiener has informed us that the bill will be significantly amended in just one week. why won't we at least wait a few weeks to see exactly what the bill looks like? the board knows the bill is going to be revised shortly, yet we won't even wait for that to occur. knee-jerk opposition to 827 as opposed to expressing concern and working with senator wiener and our state delegation on amendments sends a loud and clear message. that san francisco's board of supervisors isn't serious about addressing this deep affordable housing crisis. let's acknowledge that the bill needs work. that it's getting that work. and that we should work with senator wiener and not just respond with opposition. and so as i said, based on the amendments that -- i mean, based

on the amendment to specifically oppose this bill, i am happy to support the requested suggestions on amendments, but i will not be outright opposing this bill. i think it sends the wrong message, we can do better than that. >> president breed, are you making a motion for amendments? >> president breed: no. >> supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: i don't know if the city attorney could answer a question for me on sb 827? i don't want to put you on the spot. but it's my understanding -- can i ask the city attorney to answer a question on sb 827? >> through the president, supervisor ronen, unfortunately, we won't be able to provide advice on the proposed legislation today. we can talk to your office after the meeting.

>> supervisor ronen: it's my understanding from reading the recent amendments that senator wiener made to the legislation that it actually took away -- in my opinion, made the legislation worse. please stand by.

>> supervisor ronen: it would allow even for market rate housing which many projects will do, take advantage of sb-827 meaning these projects would not get ceqa review. you could have, for example, a street where there are single-family homes and in the middle of the street they take advantage of sb-827 and build five to eight-story condominium, depending the width of the sidewalks and the streets. and then let's say the developer takes advantage of bonus. maybe it is a couple stories higher than that. let's say it is near a school and cast as shadow on that school playground where our kids get their only exercise for the

day. no ceqa review of that project. that's insanity to me. so, it is absolutely imperative we go on record opposing sb-827 because so far some of the amendments that senator wiener has made have made it better in my opinion. but some have made it worse. as a matter of fact, expanded the reach of sb-827, takes away local control and input into the process. >> president breed: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam president. first of all, i just want to be clear about -- because there was reference to the battle days of redevelopment. and i'm just reading from the digest of the bill. the bill would require an eligible applicant to provide

benefits to persons displaced by the development, including the applicant to offer a right to remain guaranteed and make payments to eligible displaced persons as well as for relocation benefits. the bill would also require an eligible applicant to provide assistant plan. the reason i want to bring this up is because the fundamental premise of this legislation is displacement. so, i think there are two issues. one issue is the issue over local control and what is properly the jurisdiction of this elected body as lawmakers and i see that as a lawmaker who has built affordable housing. who has voted for rezoning large swaths of the city who has worked with other supervisors on you name it, accessory

dwellings, inclusion -- inclusion fair housing. when we think about the lessons that we all learned that we do not want to repeat, that we continue to try to solve for relative to what happened in the western addition in the fillmore, where we still issue certificates of impression, once people are displaced, you have a relocation plan? their lives move on. they don't come back. they're displaced. the fact that there are pages here about relocation plans and displaced persons, benefits and what have you, fundamentally means that is going to rip people lives aasunder and that s not right. without rezoning any of san francisco, we could build

145,000 units of housing. but we are rezoning. as a matter of fact, we just all voted for the fiscal feasibility pursuant to chapter 29 for 1,100 units of housing at balboa reservoir. and there's 60,000 units in the pipeline. i have lived here now for almost 30 years. this city has changed in front of our eyes. you might not like it. but yes, i voted for the rincon hill plan. for market octavia, for -- we are about to do central soma, albeit i have said i think it needs to have more housing than it currently has. but that is the purview of what we do, what our planning commission does and the planning department does. this is about huge amounts of value and running up the cost of land and housing. when you are talking about a

mcdonalds site, i say respectfully to the chair, supervisor breed, that site could have cost a lot more than 15 million bucks if this transit-rich bonus had been given. it is going to run up land costs through the roof. it is going to make stuff less affordable in san francisco. so, as i said before, i think we should send a message to sacramento that this dog does not hunt and let's start over again. and if sacramento wants to be helpful, help us address the ellis act, costa hawkins and send us a bunch of money to build more affordable housing. [applause] >> president breed: thank you. next speaker. supervisor peskin, to be clear, my comments regarding the displacement was to focus on clarifying what was in the legislation. but i have made it clear to

senator wiener that my recommendation of amendments would be to make sure that no housing where people live are included in this legislation. and he has been open to making sure that that occurs. so, i want to be clear there are two different things. currently in the legislation, there was information about displacement. i have made it clear that we don't want to look at parcels with housing currently on them and focus instead of empty lots in places where there are underutilized properties and underutilized stipulation malls and park -- strip malls and parking lots. i want to be clear about that. thank you for your comments. part of the reason why i think it is important to make the recommendation around the proposed amendments is to send a message. but to just outright propose a opposed position rather than try

and work with senator wiener on this bill i just think is not the right approach because clearly based on our read of the legislation and some of the comments here not everyone is completely clear on what is actually in the bill. and i think that what's important for us to do today is to send a message with recommendations of amendments. but again, i'm happy to support your amendments. i'm not supportive of an opposed position and would be open to dividing the file and voting on the other parts of the amendments as proposed other than that. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i want to speak to one issue of fact and this is really more to supervisor safai because i keep hearing this is only going to affect vacant lots and under-- >> president breed: i didn't say

that. i said i'm make recommendation. >> supervisor peskin: i understand. it was more to supervisor safai. senate bill 827 would affect san francisco. almost 96% of the city's parcels are within one half mile of the major transit stop, meeting the definition in senate bill 827. i want to be clear it does affect 96% of san francisco's currently written and that was more to supervisor safai. i wanted to get that point on the record. >> president breed: thank you. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: so, you read from a february 5th. this amended verse is march 1, 2018. so it has the language in there specifically and that's what i was reading before that says it has to include and comply with

demolition permit requirements of the local entity. that memo doesn't necessarily apply to the most -- it does not apply to the most updated version. you're absolutely right. when we met in land use and the map you showed based on planning department's memo, that would be 96%. but i would like to see a map based on the amended verse. because our demolition requirements in san francisco are probably the strongest in the state of california. they are almost -- well, you all can laugh. you all can laugh. but we don't live in merced. they have no demolition controls. we don't live in antioch. we live in san francisco. and in san francisco our demolition controls, whether you like them or not, are probably the strongest in the state of california. and so, my point is if you were

to produce that memo again today based on the amended version, what i'm saying is based on our local planning standards, our demolition controls and the other planning requirements that we have, we would probably be reduced to empty lots as the applicability of this legislation. i think what president breed is saying is and what i heard her say is the urging of the senator to amend his legislation to clearly spell that out. to reduce it even further to say we're not even thinking about -- as to senate ronen's point and to your point, president breed. >> president breed: supervisor ronen. not senator ronen. [laughter] >> supervisor safai: senate ronen. we are all still on vacation. no. to your point about amendments and clarification, my

understanding is that this was intended to respond to some of the concerns in other parts of the state of california as well as san francisco about demolition in general. but using our own local demolition controls and displacement controls, i would say going even further would be to say to narrow this legislation as president breed has proposed to clearly spelling out this would affect vacant lots in general. and then to president -- not president. supervisor peskin -- >> everybody is getting a promotion. >> supervisor safai: sorry. i know in its current form it would have a much longer and stronger impact in san francisco. >> thank you. i want to remind the chamber that we have these board rules that prohibit people from verbally expressing how they feel. so, at this point just want to

remind you to use your spirit fingers if you like what you hear. it's visually just as impactful as hearing your voice. supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: i just have to reiterate this point. i go back to the giants because we voted on that deal a few weeks ago. the mandatory inclusionary rate was 12% on site. we could simply up zoned lot 337 and said instead of building 800 units, you now get to build 1,600 units. 12% of 1,600 units is more than 12% of 800 units. the math doesn't work out that way. when you significantly up-zone land, you enrich pockets again of land owners and developers. you have to have them do more than 12%. they do 40% on site.

that is how much we are leaving at the table when we simply increase height and density without asking the developer to share that value back that we gave, that we, the government and the people gave to developers on exchange for them building more housing. every single unit they get to build is more money lining the pockets of developers and land owners. how we conserve value is to ask them to share it back. sometimes it is in the form of building more affordable housing. sometimes it is in the form of increase investments for sidewalks, pedestrian safety, schools, child care centers. we are leaving money at the table if we simply say that sb-827 should just apply to vacant lots. that's the wrong way to build in san francisco. we don't let developers get away with that type of wealth without giving back to san francisco. i think that amendment alone is a humongous giveaway and that should not be the reason why we

stand on not opposing sb-827 today. and if the state wants us to build more housing, give us the funds to build for affordable and middle income housing. building as much luxury and market rate housing is not going to make san francisco more affordable. we simply need to subsidize more affordable housing and that is something the state can do. i look forward to the day when senator wiener introducing that measure. >> president breed: thank you supervisor kim. seeing no names on the roster, supervisor peskin, you would like to propose your amendments? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madame president. i would like to propose the amendments that are before all of you, which i previously described and thank you to supervisor cohen. what i would suggest on page one

at line 18 is to say "nor be ultimately protected from displacement". >> president breed: okay. and just for clarity, supervisor peskin, you have a number of amendments here. some i support and some i don't. so, unless you are prepared to introduce them separately, i will be opposing them all. >> supervisor peskin: okay. >> president breed: okay. thanks. all right. supervisor peskin has made a motion to amend. is there a second? seconded by supervisor ronen. madam clerk, please call the roll on -- supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i wanted to ask supervisor peskin one question. would he be willing to include a clause to urge senator wiener to include additional amendments that might support local control? >> president breed: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i think that is the fundamental

underpinning of this legislation is it takes away local control. that's why the city council voted to oppose it. >> supervisor cohen: the answer is no? thank you. >> clerk: breed, no. cohen, aye. fewer, aye. kim, aye. peskin, aye. ronen, aye. safai, no. sheehy, no. stefani, aye. tang, no. yee, aye. there are seven ayes and four noes. >> president breed: the amendments pass.

and madam clerk, i would like to divide the file without the amendments and take the file previous to the amendments and please call the roll on that without objection. >> supervisor peskin: as a point of clarification -- in other words, you would like to -- so, the first vote would be on urging amendments and the second vote would be on opposing senate bill sb-827? >> president breed: yes. wait, i'm sorry. no. it would just be everything that was previously in here that was urging amendments. then your specific amendments that are opposing. yeah, exactly what you said. so often kim. >> supervisor kim: maybe this is a procedural question. but how do you divide a resolution when that language is no longer in the resolution? you can divide the question and split portions of the resolution and say i'm going to vote yes on

this and no on that. but the language you want to vote for president breed, is no longer in the resolution. there's nothing to divide. they have been stricken. i just don't know how you vote for language that has been stricken. i think you have to vote no on this item. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: you could also divide the portion that remai remains that you like. but again you can't vote on something that is no longer there. >> president breed: thanks. and i apologize. i didn't see this other page with the language stricken from the resolution. and so -- okay. madam clerk, i would like to divide this file to pull out the portion that specifically

opposes the sb-827 and vote on the remainder of the resolution. >> clerk: madam president, this item, 35 has been amended. when you are dividing a file, each of the divided questions have to be able to stand on their own. so, specifically, you're interested in pulling out which line items? >> president breed: i apologize. but i just got the amendments and just saw page three of the amendment, which has those lines stricken from that. so, i don't see specifically where that location is. >> madam president, may i just

recommend that you pass over this item and we can have a conversation about the specific pages and line items you would like to divide and we can move forward. >> president breed: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: can you devoid out resolution -- divide out resolutions? i think you can divide ordinances. >> clerk: i believe that if we are dividing the question, you can divide the question if each of the questions are able to stand on their own. whether it's an ordinance or resolution. the question is can they stand alo alone? >> president breed: without -- supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: i was just going to point out the title of the resolution is now opposing state senate bill 827. logistically i don't see a way to divide the question because it is pretty unilateral in its position. if you would like to take a vote

on this, although we technically is took that vote is to duplicate the file. put in your amendments and have that go for a vote. although that's exactly identical to what we just did, in reverse. >> president breed: what we are going to do is come back to this item in just a moment so we can get clarity. madam clerk, we do have one other 230 commendation and i see that the chief is here now and so, i'm going to move to that and then move back to our agenda so we can get clarity on the particular item. colleagues, today before us we have a resolution that i introduced last week and i know chief joann is here. the resolution is commending the men and women of the fire department for their efforts in addressing march 17, fourth alarm fire. the fire chief is here and i wanted to take this opportunity to thank her and the

firefighters of the department. welcome, chief. as we all know, the four-alarm fire on the night of st. patrick's day burned through a building displacing seven businesses and 15 neighboring tenants. as a former fire commissioner i have had an opportunity to witness the efforts of our firefighters, paramedics and emt's and the fire that note was no exception. i saw firsthand the intensity of the fire and the actions by our first responders who risked their lives by going into a burning building to search for occupants. they help evacuate neighboring building and secured the scene and even with all the extra folks out for the holidays they did an extraordinary job. other 40 fire engines, seven medic units and 130 firefighters were on the scene protecting the public for hours into the early morning. thankfully there were no civilian injuries and only one

minor injury suffered when one of our own firefighters fell from the fire truck. thankfully he has recovered since. it is a challenging night for our first responders and they handled it admirably. i would like to recognize the incredible dangerous work our responders do every day and for all that you did to keep our residents and businesses safe that night. it was a complex fire, under the most difficult of circumstances and you and the firefighters are to be commended for the work that you did and so thank you on behalf of the city and county of san francisco. i wanted to invite you to say a few words. >> thank you very much, president breed, members of the board. very much appreciated. certainly not necessary. i'm proud to be serving as the chief of one of the finest fire departments in the world. it is what we do.

we are on high alert, wanting to assist with what is happening in san bruno if necessary due to an active shooter incident there. i wanted to respond safely and quickly to the scene. what i came upon and you were on scene before i was, president breed, was a very complicated incident at one of the busiest intersections in this city on any given day, let alone saturday night of st. patrick's day. the asis stand chief was sur -- assistant chief was surrounded by many of the great men and women of our department. nearly half our work force were

at the scene and we are grateful no one got injured. that evening to have 40 fire units converging on a really busy intersection, lots of people in the street and to have no injuries associated that night or fatalities was something i'm very grateful for as most of you probably know, the following week in new york, there was a 37-year-old fndy firefighter who entered a burning building and lost his life. usually, it is a game strategy and tactics. but it is the amount of risk you are going to take. obviously life safety is our biggest concern. once that has been removed, then it is saving property. once we realized there was no life safety issues on the second and third floor, we decided to pull the firefighters fighting the fire interior wise and offensively out and go to a defensive or exterior mode. really appreciate your

acknowledgment and support that night. and on behalf of the members, we accept this. appreciate it but it is what we are trained and paid to do. certainly getting acknowledged once in a while is a nice thing too. so, thank you very much. >> president breed: thank you, chief. my co-sponsor of the resolution would like to say a few words. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. let me use this opportunity, chief, to apologize to you for my behavior that evening. i was there when that building burned in 2014 and it has been vacant ever since. it is an important building in the heart of north beach and it really tore me up to see it burn a second time as it was actually two weeks apparently from being reconstructed and the people who were displaced four years ago being rehoused. that is in no way explains my being so upset that evening.

but i want to a, thank you for the fact nobody got hurt and all your men and women came out of there as well as as to apologize for being so upset that evening. >> president breed: thank you supervisor peskin for being the bigger man. >> it was a surprise you co-sponsored but it is appreciated. we love having all of the very passionate district supervisors no matter where you are come to assist. not necessarily assist, but support and observe. you are welcome any time. but certainly an ongoing evolvievolv evolving emergency scene, it is imperative for your own safety that you say in a safe zone and don't engage with our emergency first responders. i know you get it. i know you are very passionate. but that is important for all of you to remember. we appreciate the work that you

do and the work of the first responders is unique. they take big risks and appreciate the acknowledgment. thank you. >> president breed: thank you, chief. and thank you again for being here. with that, we will return to our regular business and i think that we have some clarity now on the issue. are all of our members -- let's return to that item. we have had discussions on whether we could divide the file. in light of some of the new

proposed amendments we could, but it would definitely be challenging. and so, i am going to vote no on this particular item as amended and continue to work with senator wiener to make the appropriate amendments to this legislation so it is something that does exactly what we're hoping it could do. and that is provide more housing and more housing faster here any city and county of san francisco. as amended unfortunately, i will not be able to support this item. with that, madam clerk, on the item as amended, item number 35, please call the roll. >> clerk: and madam president for our minutes we will indicate you withdrew your request to divide the >> president breed: yes. thank you for that clarity. >> clerk: as amended supervisor breed, breed, no. cohen, aye. fewer,