behavioral health services. i have been working in this position for 17 years but only three as a civil service employee. i'm 64 easie 64 years old. i'm ready to retire. i can't because i was hired as a temporary employee. i will not enjoy the benefits that many of my colleagues have been able to enjoy. there's something wrong with that process. the minimum they can do is pay for my hair dresser because my hair has grayed from handling all these grievances. i'm very glad to speak on behalf of people who can't be here today because of not having the same protections. i know you're going to do the right thing. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: next speaker please. >> i'm a san francisco resident and member of the living wage coalition. i think it's important for

public services to be provided by permanent employees. i also feel it's very important to end the temporary status because permanent status lead to the public getting better services and i think it's very important to protect these workers and their rights. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: seeing no other speakers. public comment is closed. i want to thank my colleagues for having this hearing and holding this hearing. i want to thank everyone who came out today. we heard couple of things. inknow i heard things that were pretty astounding. i want to make it clear that our public employees, there's no work more honorable than public service than working for the public if san francisco. those people that doing the job behind the scenes are essential

to serving the residents of san francisco and the city and county of san francisco. we learn today, we always knew it actually that we had to be told that people in temporary positions have no job protections and they do not have full benefits, although they come everyday and do the job and serve the people of san francisco. i think what we saw today is that we have an issue that we need to actually address. i could go deeper into this issue. i know there are lot people waiting for the next item. i want to apologize. i know this took longer than anticipated. there was much more information. i believe that actually there was much more information to be discussing. i think that we want to be a system that actually sets an example for the private sector, if this type of employment practices were practiced by the privacy sector, we would deem it

unacceptable. although there maybe instances where we actually need temporary employees. i know for a fact, that there are employees that work everyday on commitments that we have made to the city so that residents of san francisco and they perform every single day for us, 40 hours a week and they have done it for years under temporary status and there's actually -- we need to get to the bottom where this is happening and what i heard today, actually a way for conversion. i also want to say that overarching reason why we had this hearing, we want to know how this practice contributes to the system of racism within our system and how can we weed out those practices that actually lead and support systematic

racism that plagued our city for years. i wanted to say lastly speaking, i want to thank every speaker who came out today. i know it is not easy. i know it takes lot of moral courage to come to do it, especially if you're temporary employee because you do not have the same due process protections. i want to say, i think i can speak for board members here. i can speak for 11 of our board members that we will not tolerate any retaliation against speakers who come out and speak their own truth to power. they can inform us the legislators of the city and county of san francisco about their personal experiences. i want to say it is not -- it is about a system that we are trying to change here. all the information that we can gather from departments and i want to say this also it department heads. it is not about you.

it is really about the system that we have created here. how we can support as a board of supervisors to help and do some these things that we think need extra and extra look and go back and reform. i'm asking the board my fellow colleagues today if we can continue this item to the call of the chair please? [applause] >> thank you so much supervisor fewer. i want top express my thanks to all the dedicated city workers. whether temporary, exempt or permanent who spoken out today about this issue.

can we continue this item to the call of the chair without objection? mr. clerk, call item number 5. [agenda item read] >> this resolution is cosponsor by a supermajority by my colleagues. sb50 is state senator weiner's bill to build housing and jobs rich and transit rich areas.

additional waivers such as exposure and open space. sb50 undermines the ability of the people of san francisco to plan for the well being of our neighborhoods, our environment and the public good. it restricts our ability to protect communities from displacement and gentrification. before i go into the resolution detail, i think it's important we frame our problems. san francisco has highest income gap one of the fastest growing wealth gap in the world. we are not simply in a housing crises. we are in a housing affordability crises. i support increasing housing density near public tran sis and increasing equity and opportunity through thought full development.

board of supervisors has responsibilitily to evaluate the proposal and publicly express our concerns to the state legislature based on the best data available to us today. the resolution highlights three major concerns community has put forward on sb50. number one, sb50 puts vulnerable communities at risk. sb50 does not protect communities from pressures on gentrification and displacement. we know private market rate development left unfettered has

negative social impact. it also strings public transit and infrastructure. sb50 gives 5-year deferral for sensitive communities the city is not allowed to define this. it is defined by the state. sb50 also does not adequately protect vulnerable communities that experience hidden gentrification and displacement pressures such as tenant and cash for homeowners in my district and other districts that san francisco does not deem to be a sensitive community. because san francisco is such a hot market city, all neighborhoods are vulnerably to displacement pressures. number two, sb50 is the not an affordable housing strategy. it would incentivize market rate development, unaffordable to

most san francisco cans. big box luxury housing. not because it is needed because it is most profitable. according to the planning department report, 94% of the city's market rate through the year 2022 have been met. in comparison, less than 30% of moderate low income have been met. we need housing that's affordable and appropriate for families and seniors. sb50 does not guarantee any affordable housing in san francisco. it makes it much more difficult to meet the need for affordable housing. sb50 will confer land value ahead of time.

sb50 takes away communities control over planning decisions. sb50 would restrict our ability to adopt long-term zoning to ensure affordable development in all our neighborhoods. san francisco has a long and successful history using community plans to envision and guide change in our neighborhood going back to the 1980s with the chinatown in north of market plan adopted just this past year. we've used community-driven local plans to protect existing housing and small businesses and

to advance the public good. sb50 will not only undermine local legislators in our local planning commission, it undermines the power of the public to engage in the public process on development in their neighborhood. one sizes fit all approach will harm other cities. sb50 claims to end inequitable development pattern.

all neighborhoods experience gentrification and displacement risk by being in a hot market city. these amendments are before you my colleagues and i will be later making a motion to amend the resolution to include them. because all these things, sb50 itself needs to be amended to guarantee housing affordability. adequately, protect vulnerable communities and protect san francisco's charter authority. opposing sb50 doesn't mean opposing increased density. we should increase density especially near transit. we should update our zoning to allow this. we community and resident who live here should do this through community-led planning process. san franciscans need the opportunity to plan for development in our own neighborhood. we need to build affordable housing for our community needs not developers bottom lines.

i'm happily to clarify any questions from you colleagues. >> supervisor peskin: you want to acknowledge and appreciate your leadership on this issue mr. chairman. obviously, for those of you who remember, i had the laboring or last year on that. i'm glad that there are other supervisors stepping into the breach. i wanted to say at the outset of this item number 5, unfortunately, i'm the quorum in half an hour. supervisor fewer who is of similar mind as me on this issue has agreed to sit in for me and has been assigned by the president to sit in.

>> supervisor fewer: sb50 does nothing to fulfill affordability in our housing market and housing stock and actually potentially even add to more unaffordability especially in my district. i think that when we look at our housing situation here in san

francisco, we have been -- i understand that this is a statewide issue. this is a statewide bill. i though in there are communities that are not building. but here in san francisco, we are building and we have been building. the majority we're building is market rate or unaffordable housing. speaking for us on the west side, 65% of the people that live in my neighborhood are renters. i know that there are people who say, gee, i hope my children can live here. what my residents saying. i hope i can live here. people that rent-controlled apartments no longer feel safe. you look at the gentrification that happened and unaffordability that hit every neighborhood, in our neighborhood, i know that people say, this is such low density out on the west side. i would like to say this, 65% of

my residents are renters. largest growing residents in my district are seniors. we are losing housing everyday. we maybe able to eliminate a single family home. it will not be replaced by affordable units. it will be replaced by market rate condos because actually it will not fit -- my lot will not allow enough units to be built that would hit the inclusionary level to have affordable units there. i think this sweeping legislation that does not carve out and appreciate what san francisco has been doing already and making us look like other communities in the peninsula and other places that do have good

transportation systems but are not building. this is actually a sweep of the state of california and not looking at what we are doing locally here in san francisco. when we talk about gentrification, actually in what it has happened in our neighborhoods in san francisco, how we are getting less and less racially and ethically and economically diverse in san francisco. we need to looking hard at policy like this that give us no local coal what we do here. i want to thank you supervisor mar for bringing this forward. i look forward today to hearing the public -- testimony. thank you. >> supervisor brown: i'm going to wait until after i hear

public comment. thank you. >> supervisor mar: before we go to public comment, i ask ann marie to summarize the latest residential pipeline on housing report. this is really to give us the most objective data that is available on where we're at in san francisco in housing development. especially it will allow us to look at where we're at for housing development the different tiers of income levels. ms. rogers? >> thank you very much supervisors. i'm the director of citywide policy for the planning department. what i have here is a look at the housing production. i think you're interested in comparison to the rina goals. i will put this on the overhead.

this is a look at various levels of housing production for the different income groups, low income under 50% all the way up to above moderate which is 120% or more. nice little chart shows you a percentage of the units. most of the units about 70% are falling in the above moderate income or below. remainder 30% are divided up among the others. >> supervisor mar: can you state what the actual income level is? 70% of the housing that's being built. what income levels are that? >> i can tell you , the percentages is the easiest way to describe that.

the percentage of a.m.i. what the household income looks like varies. you can be 100% for one percent household or two or three or four. the percentages relate to what the average median income is. these are people that have 30% or less a.m.i. and very low will be 30% to 50% a.m.i. and moderate welcome 80 to 100 percent a.m.i. the bill before you, san francisco does not provide inclusionary housing for extremely low income. they can choose to either deliver housing to the low income very low or extremely low. in san francisco, we don't currently provide to this one at all. >> supervisor mar: thank you.

i'm more interested in the actual quarter to 2018 to residential pipeline of work. i don't know if you have a copy of that. >> we just laur publish quarter. >> supervisor fewer: could we have that made available to the rest of the committee please? >> yes, i can give you this one and the most recent one which will be the 4th quarter. end of 2018. >> supervisor mar: would you be able to very quickly go through this quarter two report? >> with the overhead, what we have here would be the total housing production goalses that come from the regional body.

they give us ta -- targets. these are minimum production numbers. for each these categories we're at a current deficit. this is just looking at a slice in time and how much we've done towards the goals that will be for the years 2015 through 2022. you can see the pro rated goals will be little bit less. we're not all the way to 2022 yet. instead of the total goal will be about 12,000. the prorated goal will be about 5400. what we've produced is much closer to the total goal for 2022. we produced 12,000 as of now. we are expecting housing production to slow up.

>> supervisor mar: i wanted to highlight the column four on the first chart. can i ask you a question about the second chart. this is a little confusing.

it's very -- >> it is. >> supervisor mar: on that fifth column, actual production and titled units as percentage of total housing goals. can talk us through those numbers? >> keeping in mind various income levels we track with the state. for the lowest income target goals very low which includes the extremely low to previously described, we're about less than 50% towards the actual production goal. for the next one for the low income, we're more than half, 58% progress towards the goal and then for the moderate one about a quarter of the way towards the goal. above moderate as you said, over that was 218.

>> supervisor mar: for the above moderate category, not only are we close to meeting goals, looks likes from that 218.9% figure, that would indicate we might be over producing housing at that level. >> the point in time we are over producing. historically, there's big deficit. if you look at our goals overtime, we're not doing that. >> supervisor mar: thank you ms. supervisor brown >> supervisor brown: thank you. can you walk through of the basics of of this bill, what it does and what it does not do in its current form? perhaps what the points of discussion are at the state level?

>> yes, i can. we went over a bigger presentation before the planning commission. i'm going to just do some of the quick highlights. in general, sb50 is similar to the one that we looked at last year. it's changed the way it would try to target the growth areas. instead of looking at the large citiecities that have transit, h is where the last bill focused. this one looks at areas that are jobs rich or that are opportunity zone. places where if children are born in these areas, they have a higher chance of success because there are good school,s, public services that help people do better. this year the bill is targeting those areas in addition to transit areas. it's important to note that the actual geographies have been some of them are legislated and some of them still influx.

we know about some existing maps it steam to be reference. it can give us a good idea of the areas that we're talking about. especially when it comes to the high area opportunity map. on this map, which is similar, this is from the regional agency, looking at high opportunity areas. lot of san francisco has people as some wealth tied with the other areas that marked with high opportunities like successful schools. that's what we showed the commission. since the commission hearing, there have been system additional information this probably gives us a better

understanding of what the state might be inclined to do. this is a map that was produced by the institute, california housing. partnership and two uc berkeley leading housing authority and the urban displacement project. both which do great work. when you start to look at where the high opportunity areas are and also the job-rich areas, you do get lot of the south bay and some of the outer regions in the east bay. there are a few other ways they've looked at places. i won't go into all those. generally, it sounds like they're talking about places where there's lot of jobs and high opportunities. that does mean that the growth will be spread to other places that were not affected by the bill last year. at a high level, there's three different geographies that would be affected.

if-in -- in places where we have job rich areas we would remove the density controls and remove most of the parking controls that were higher. this is exactly the kind of rezoning we done in san francisco. when you go up to the next level ferry stations these qualifying projects will be certain height and f.a.r. controlled. this bill for first time establish a statewide inclusionary requirement. san francisco had a requirement since the early 2000. that hasn't been and is not the case for most of california. it also does this equitable community incentive and it does enable incentives that are tied in sb50 to be layered with the state density bonus and sb35 and

other bills. it's important to note that while sb35 was a streamlining bill, there's nothing in sb50 that waives the review process that we have. there are many question about how to interact with the other state laws. this summarizes what i just described about the changes in density and height. the height is minimal. it doesn't change or it's a 5-foot change for most of the city for 45 feet or 35 feet. when you start to map these, most of san francisco is covered, most of san francisco would be affected by the bill. as we talked about, there are some places that would be exempted. places that were zoned for industrial uses or other uses that don't allow housing would not be affected by the bill.

any property that's this a tenant for the past seven years. areas where we had two thirds of the city subject to renters, all of that housing had a renter, that property would not be able to use this bonus. this is the first cut of maps. when i take away the areas where we either don't allow housing through zoning or where we're estimating there are rental units, the map looks more like this. when you add the sensitive communities areas which have been added to the recent, it looks more like this map.

all the gray areas would not be eligible to use this. that's a summary of the bill and how it would apply to san francisco. i have many rendering if you're interested getting a sense of skill. i can go over that. >> supervisor brown: when we talk about two most pressing issues in san francisco, homelessness, housing, we always talk about it's a regional issue. it's not just san francisco, it's regional. can you speak on what do you think expected effects of this bill across the region and state would be? >> yes i can. since we're looking at this broad area that's not just transit and high opportunity areas, that is a big change. that has potential to adjust zoning drastically throughout the state. also on the west side of the

city where supervisors fewer and mar, their districts lie. this potential of the job rich and opportunity rich is important because in the maps that we've seen, we know this would be a better places for housing and not only transit, there's access to jobs, high quality space. when we were looking at the report at beginning of the month, we used older numbers from sb827. which affected much smaller part of the state but about the same amount of san francisco. when we looked, this would increase capacity for feasible housing production by six fold. it would also increase the capacity for inclusionary housing by 7 fold. that is because of the bill would have this new inclusionary housing requirement.

importantly, there's been a very recent significant new study by done the urban displacement and the turner centre which is this that i'm showing you here. what they've done is kind of confirmed some things we told the commission we thought would be the case. we said in san francisco, we believe, this will mainly apply to low density commercial zones or vacant parcels. in this report by the turner institute, actually looked at how it does apply in a wealthy area versus a lower income area. what is the likelihood development will happen in one versus the area. they pick minlow versus

fruitville. it'll about 40% in total. extremely high. fruitville profit margin will be much lower 11.56. that's looking at some of the hard costs and potential incomes. you can get different rental prices. when you add on the cost of inclusionary housing. what you see it would drop the profitability.

>> supervisor mar: maybe we can go to public comment. we have quite a few. i count the 53 speaker cards that we selected so far. i think there's a few more. thank you so much everyone coming out and sharing your perspective on this important issue. i will call speakers in groups

of 10. if you hear your name -- >> supervisor fewer question, they had three major findings it's short. i can give a copy of this to the clerk of the board so you can read the full thing. there's three conclusions. first though found sb50 around high quality transit site. therefore significant promise in converting parcels into housing. that was one study. it would most likely not be what they refer to as -- instead result in gradual housing in the transit rich areas similar to what we've seen. second finding they found it would not remove all the constraints for parcel. there would need to be other

limitations on setbacks in order attract new development and maximize. they're going tob to be writing future brief. they used an estimate. those were the three maintain -- >> supervisor fewer: so nothing about displacement? >> that's right. >> supervisor fewer: there's surprising there's nothing about displacement. thank you. >> supervisor brown: one more question, did your report find in the sb50, the results that it would produce more subsidize

affordable housing? >> can i have a minute to look at the report? >> supervisor brown: yes, you can. >> supervisor mar: because large number that like to speak -- >> this my last one. ours does talk about that and the answer was question at the time we were estimating inclusionary production based upon the way the bill was drafted at that time. it would apply to all potential development. the bill has been amended and inclusionary requirement currently drafted only applies to buildings that have 10 or more units in the development. we don't have an answer at that time. >> supervisor brown: okay, thank >> supervisor mar: unfortunately , i'm going to limit public comment to one minute because of the large number of speakers. we're facing time constraints here on the board in order to

take action on this item. some of us need to cover other appointments. speakers would have one minute. please state your first and last name and speak into microphone. those person who prepared written statements are encouraged to leave a copy with the committee clerk for inclusion in the official file. speakers are encouraged to avoid repetition or previous statements. i'm going to call speakers in groups of 10. if you hear your name called, please step up and get in line.

physiologica >> one wape to take care of this problem is having housing opportunity. i want to incorporate what palo alto doing. million dollars on apartment building complex or apartment for homeless program people. you do the math for apartment building complex that cost $56 million, that means you can 144 apartment building complexes. from the graph it's three stories tall.

you can build 9-story apartment building complex and house more than amount of people that you want to house at this navigation centre. >> supervisor mar: thank you sir. next speaker please. >> i'm a lifelong union member. i support supervisor mar's resolution opposing sb50. i would ask my supervisor vallie brown todown i to -- join in th.

the office of sb50 know what they are doing. they seek to move over development that will cripple our city ability to ensure equitable housing. sb50 not an affordable housing plan it's a displacement strategy and amounts to a state imposed transfer of wealth from the displaced. the daily model move fast and break things. unfortunately it is people and families that get broken. >> supervisor mar: we're going to be calling speakers group of 10. everyone will have a chance to

make your public comment. >> good afternoon. i'm so glad that you created this resolution that so many supervisors have also signed on. that says to me that you know and understand what san francisco needs.

how do we see gentrification work and what is happening actually with tenants throughout the city. we would know. i support you in creating this resolution. i oppose sb50 and hope that all supervisors will sign on in this resolution. >> we support the resolution to oppose sb50. the word affordability as it pertains to housing is overused often times misrepresented. sb50 overrides the city existing zoning without requiring more affordability. it will further incentivize speculation and make it harder to secure sites for affordable housing.

housing for those people that are most likely to use public transportation. furthermore, sb50 has inadequate control on displacement. this approach is lawed and -- flawed and is lacking when it comes to protecting existing community. we support the resolution opposing sb50. >> i'm stan hayes. i'm here today on behalf of the board of to say we support opposing sb50. we all understand california is in housing crises. we understand that we need to build and preserve affordable housing for those who need it most. sb50 is not the way. we absolutely agree that sb50 would undermine community participation, planning,

encourage speculation and evictions, sb50 is going to upwards 96% of san francisco. all without a hearing. all without the public even having a say, please we can't let sb50 chip away our fundamental right to decide on our own city's land use future. please support this resolution and forward it on to the board. >> supervisor mar: next speaker please. >> i'm richard frisbee. as members of the board of supervisors, you're responsible for protecting the right of san franciscans. also the charlotte -- charter ad out areas for board of supervisors that sb50 would negate. not only would sb50 not address

housing it will exacerbate the afford ability housing. developers, they will not build affordable. it will be a stretch it believe that. it's a gift to the developers. please oppose sb50. follow the money. >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker please. >> hello, i'm christopher peterson. i urge the committee to amend the pending resolution. i agree with the draft resolution that inclusionary housing provisions sb50 need to

be strengthened. that said, the resolution does not acknowledge the imperative statewide need to vastly increase providing more multifamily housing near transit and major employment centres. without doing that, the state will not be able to address either the climate crises or the housing crises.

>> less housing increasing labor land material cost no fee for affordable housing, developer entitlement and prompt value will increase.

thank you >> supervisor mar: next speaker please. >> state federation of labor represent 1200 unions. the resolution point out some really key points. there needs to be more discussion around transit for example. making sure those definitions are appropriate. that said, working families in 4san francisco are spending two and three hours struggling.

>> i come here to oppose this resolution. i think the supervisor mar was right. we are facing a crises of affordability in which our city is becoming unliveable. i'm a lifelong san franciscan. i love the state. i don't know if i will bible to live here when i grow up. that creates insecure situation.

the solution is to build more housing. [please stand by]

-- we've reached our market race having met the rate now. that would make out 100% affordable. we should no longer look at market rate and that's how i look at your legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm chair of the deloweres improvement club so thank you supervisor fewer for standing up to the richmond direct. according to the plan report you already reviewed we are already building plenty of market rate housing and doing less than 40% of our goals and/or seniors and other residents need this housing many need this and this incentivizes developers to replace existing housing with more expensive housing and it's only affordable to those who make above the household median. even a 20% increase supply doesn't bring them within the

reach of the middle-class workers. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> thank you so much in supervisor moore for introducing the legislation. and tell us the difference between maximum buildable in san francisco versus the job-rich communities in the south bay. according to ms. rodgers presented on march 14 the maximum you could build according to the current planning code is 2.0 and 2.25

f.a.r. i you to find any other with the existing planning code without taking advantage of the density bonus. that's what's going to create the extra units in san francisco. disadvantaged communities like excelsior. the recent the study claims it will be more beneficial in the park to build is because they don't take into account they won't let you build nine units. it's impossible. >> thank you. >> i wanted to write a long letters to the board of supervisors. i won't repeat myself but i will say scott wiener was elected to representative san francisco. i know there was a motion last

year from the board of supervisors and it keeps coming back with the same thing. i don't he cares anything about san francisco. he came from the east coast, lived here a few years and came to a big corporate law firm and now off in sacramento. this ruins sacramento. he doesn't care what we think. it's a disaster. thank you for that. no amendments. it's awful. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm jim warshaw and in interest of keeping to my minute, i'll say i agree with some comments made and i agree with planning commissioner richards. i urge you to pass this rejection of s.b.50. there are so many things wrong with it and in addition we

sudden look at s.b.4 where historic districts get special protection. there's so many things here we don't have time to go into what i quarter mile and radius mention four blocks and think of your communities and think of what they'll look like with 4555 or the bonus. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, there. i'm mary he will -- hanibal. developers designed some cities for their profit and citizens were trapped in an unprecedented fire storm and many died. we