plain old apartments, right. and so having anything that's 25%, i mean, they're not building. and that means it doesn't get built. so that's a little bit worrisome for me that number 4, because i'm just really worried that if we put something like that in, we could be killing projects because when you look at planning and i wish that's why we had planning here to report that, and i know when i was looking at and doing feasibility studies for divisive corridor and these were private, all apartments, no luxury apartments and looking how high we could do that. how high could we put up the affordable inclusionary housing as we were coming through the board and 25% killed it, absolutely killed the project. they couldn't build it.

they would walk away. and i know when one of the reasons -- and i did my homework and you remember for two years, i worked in joint development doing feasibility studies in the land use and so i worked with joint development. i worked with planning and i found out that the 25% that the mission had put in place, not one project was built. so when we're looking at that, that's where -- that's the one amendment i'm a little worried about, right? , is having that actually could kill a project, if we put it too high. as far as community process, i absolutely agree with you. we should have that community process, community should be involved. as a neighborhood activist, legislative aid and supervisor, i have seen so many of the development projects come through that are so much better when the community is involved. but i don't want to put a

situation where the community could just kill project after project. i feel like community should be there making a project better. so this is kind of my read on this. i'm absolutely going to support your amendments, absolutely, because i feel like -- and i absolutely agree with president yi, when you're talking to people, people know that we're in a housing crisis and we need housing for everyone. it's just not affordable housing and our definition of affordable housing. we need housing for people. i've run into so many people that aren't going to qualify or they're in affordable housing and not getting the lottery and looking for something they can afford. for us to be building apartments in in cit this city i think is important. but that's the one amendment. i have a little trouble with, number 4. thank you!

>> thank you, supervisor brown. president yi. >> i think i understand supervisor brown, where you're coming from, with this. i think this also -- projects i've been involved with, i've been pushing whatever i can with afforaffordability. if we just take the current situation and have no more additional resources to support affordable housing, i could almost buy into your argument but it's like the horse or the cart. if the state were to actually put substantial funding into helping with affordability, then we could do it. part of it is this is a state mandate, where is it state and let's get the funding? and maybe we could put more

pressure because of that. you want us to build more, then help us with affordability. so there's a little bit -- i understand your argument but at the same time, i could argue, like, this forces people peace'd and put pressure on to force affordability. >> i agree with the state housing. i think that's something all advocates should be fighting for, we should be fighting for more funding from the state for affordable housing and looking at state land in the city, also, for affordable housing. i mean, the dmv lot, the big huge parking lot, wouldn't that be great? but i also think we need a large transportation bond from the state because, as you said, on the west side, and the southeast part of the city, we need better transportation. and i absolutely think we should be pushing for a large

transportation bond in the state, also. and i agree with you, thank you. >> thank you. >> i just wanted to add a brief response to the concerns you raised about the amendment. number 4, which just to restate it, it says that sb50, we should ensure that sb50 projects are required to make affordable housing contributions substantially higher than existing local affordable housing standards potentially applicable for the site. so really, this is just acknowledging the fact that the blanket of zoning, that through sb50 is going to concur significant increase in value for those properties and for developers that acquire those properties. so this amendment is just ensuring that the public and our city is able to capture some of that increased value that we're

basically granting to property owners and developers and redirected to affordable housing development cub whic, which is y one of the stated goats of sb50. >> i absolutely agree with you but what would that amount be? that's my fear with the 25% was home fs and no one has been building with that, barely. and i definitely think, and i just got these amendments last night, so excuse me if it's in here. but i feel they can't double-dip. the developers can't double-dip on the density and i'm not sure if that's in here. like i said, i got these last night and i wasn't able to really go through them. but i think that's something in my last amendment is the developers should not be able to double-dip, like with home ms and with this sb50.

>> i absolutely agree with that? and in terms of how much the affordable housing contributions would be required of a project, taking advantage of sb50, i think that's to be discussed publically with the board and with the public to determine that. as a city and with the board, we've gone through an extensive public process in setting the inclusionary housing requirements in our city and also around the home sf program, our local density bonus in setting those affordable housing requirements, which is kind of the baseline right now. again, this amendment to sb50 is just saying that if we're going to -- through the upzoning we're going to grant increased value to developers and property owners, but we should capture more of that value more affordable housing development, above the baseline that we've

set. >> and i also think that if we're going to -- and i know this costs a lot of money, but we should probably put for some of these projects that we're going to ask for a lot more of the higher affordability. we have departments to do this because that will help us make sure we don't kill a project because, you know, a certain amount of money, they go out and get investors and if they don't, they just leave it or hold the entitlement down. they sell the entitlements which no one likes. and the community gets furious because once they sell the entitlement, you start all over with somebody that doesn't care as much, i feel. i feel to protect the community, we need to get this right. thank you. >> thank you.

>> so maybe we could go to public comment right now. yeah, i have a number of speaker cards turned in, so maybe i'll read the names and if you hear your name read, if you could line up on the right side of the chambers as you're facing us and step up to speak. you have two minutes to speak. please state your name clearly. susan marsh, ilene boken, kevin welsh and terry mccue. >> i'm susan marsh and i'm here on behalf of the san francisco tenant's union. the union remains opposed rite to sb50 targeting at the ten centantslive there.

this will displace tenants both indirectly jen industrification and directly. speculators will simply be able to wait out the bill's time limits and for that and other reasons, these are meaningless. we hold the urban core communities should be able to plan for their own needs, for their own need of affordable housing. given the true goals, the reality of investor demands and simply the legislative dynamics surrounding it. that said, we strongly support the resolution's goal and we

urge the goal for communities and we urge you to pass this as written. thank you supervisor mar and thank you all. thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm with the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, i'm here to urge the community to change the position on sb50 from oppose and less amended to outright oppose. sb50 cannot be redeemed because it is based on a failed economic model and failed priorities. the failed economic model is regonomics with trickled down housing. the failed priorities is that sb50 is a real estate bill, not a housing bill. so far most of the car vouts

have been geographic. they can be rescinded by future legislation or amending future legislation. at yesterday's meeting, there was discussion about the possible quote, unquote, reform of sb375 from 2008. another is increasingly strident rhetoric. it's been the bill's author and medimedia. there's attempting to wrap himself in self-righteousness the way others wrap themselves in the flag. in closing, it appears that the bill and his author are beyond redemption. once again, i'm urging the committee and the board to outright oppose sb50. >> i'm going to read some additional names, loraine petty,

asi roam, anastasia and kyle dewolfe. >> thank you, supervisor. >> calvin welsh, the neighborhood council housing board member. and the difficulty with sb50 is in significant regard addressed in the proposed amendments, except that the proposed amendments, i think, make a misapprehension about the objective of sb50. and i think there needs to be one additional amendment to the city's position. and that misapprehension is that this is actually a bill aimed at developing housing. and it is not. if it was, it would have language that would require any developer exercising a state-mandated density bonus would have to actually build the

housing within a specific reasonable period of time. the use-it or lose-it provision was original pay parly part of e legislation and one of their points was a use-it or lose-it requirement. when the aflcio state endorsed the measure, the use it or lose-it provision was dropped showing, i think, in a significant way, as the previous speaker said that this is not really a housing bill, this is a real estate speculation bill. please add a use-it or lose-it requirement that would say, you cannot exercise density bonus unless you actually build housing. there are 77,000 approved projects in san francisco's pipeline. only 9,000 are under

construction. the others are not. and there is a market in selling and buying approved project permits. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm terry mckuhn, district 7 resident, life-long city resident. you guys are the stewards of the city and supervisor brown, when you said you need to get this right, you do need to get this right. times change through the years and san francisco, people want to live here and one of the big reasons is because of the differences and the different neighborhoods. you can go over to the marina and do something, be in the sunset doing something else. in bayview now, that's certainly changing and that is good and bad, depending on how they do it, ok. how you do it is right and

giving away, which sb50 does, local control and resident control to developers and to the state is not doing it correctly. that's not a sanfrancisco thing to do. so i oppose sb50 all the way around but if we have to have amendments to it, then i support those amendments, thanks. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good morning. i'm loraine petty here. i'm a long-time voter from district 5 and i'm a member of senior and disability action and sb50, to me, is a danger to seniors and everywhere else struggling to stay in san francisco. i don't say this out of malice or fear or political viewpoint or desire to stop change. i say this because i have read the bill.

every word of the text. the words of the bill speaker louder than any opinions, any same-sex marriage pitcsales pit. it shows a biased towards markrate development, scarce protection against displacement or for sensitive areas. it shows flaws that cannot be corrected by patchwork amendments. the bill needs to be completely rewritten from scratch to reflect our need more affordable housing and meaningful, local input and control. the city needs time, a cooling-off period to allow careful public analysis of the scores of housing bills thrown at us all at the same time. no one really knows how the bills will affect the city or

how they interact. we do not need an sb50. we're well on the way of creating affordable housing and the state density bonus bill, sb35, sb3330 and the account ability act gives them the tools to create this. don't let them have sb50, as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. it bypasses a california quality act and i can see hunter's point with san francisco footing the bill when it comes to light and

there was a thing in there about municipalities having to provide density bonuses for low income or affordable housing rather than making it our choice and our requirement that they provide it in a sense without giving them something back. and i have to agree with the majority of speakers that say 50 should be killed outright rather than amended. it's too flexible and even after amendments, those amendments can then change again and so i think it needs to be written from scratch. thank you for your time. >> thank you. i'll read additional names, garry wise, suzanna parsons, jeff rego and peter cohen. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm with the san francisco coalition. i'm just echoing the same thing as everybody else said. this is a very flawed bill but i am grateful to supervisor mar for having these amendments that

are going to be desperately needed if this bill is ever going to pass. and i just want to bring up one thing that supervisor brown brought up about the planning and whether or not they weighed in on this. while the planning publishes this thing called a nexus studies. studies. in the past two, they did state for every 100 units you build, you need 25 units for low income to house the people that will be supporting the 100 unit market rate residents of those 100 unit brand-new luxury condos. if you put in the middle-class, that number raises to 37 units. so if we cannot put at least 37% for affordable housing, we're not even going to cut a dent in our affordability crisis. and one other suggestion that i have with respect to the

amendments is maybe it is too radical but maybe we should try to amend the bill to include areas that were precluded as part of the deal that scott weiner struck with senator mcguire. i don't understand, you know, why should so sosilito is exclud while the outer sunset which takes a good 55 minutes from downtown is included. maybe it should be amended to include the entire california. suburbia won't get hit at all thanks to lack of busing, lack of rail and lack of adequate transit and it will be us. it's mostly the urban areas. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> i'm a tenant advocate. we're gravely concerned that sb50's broad rush zoning will further incentivize je gentrification by creating a windfall to developers by failing to capture affordable housing or other benefits in return to address community needs. we need real affordable housing and protection from the risks of displacement impacts of the massive imbalance towards market rate housing, which the amendments in the resolution help address. our san francisco neighborhoods should be able to create a community-driven planning process as they organize and collaborate with their local representatives and city planning departments. i support the amendment to address sensitive communities, so sort out a definition in sb50

so it covers the areas of sensitive communities and exempts them from the bill. and the amendment to address strong enforceable tenant protections, also, with sufficient programs, sufficiently funded to enforce those provisions in sb50, to truly protect tenants from displacements. and also, the amendments that ensures affordable housing, values capture above the inclusionary limit. and an amendment that the bill needs to ensure affordable housing value capture, as i said. and allowing sufficient time for local community plans to be done to achieve upzoning and community development goals. sb50's top-down approach would undermine our community's ability to work with the elected

leaders and to plan our own vision. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is suzanna parsons and i'm here on behalf of spur. thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on supervisor's mar's resolution to oppose state weiner's sb50. this is to overcome barriers to the creation of infill homes in the right places, close to major transit and in high opportunity areas throughout california. and spur supports sb50, the more home's act and opposes this resolution. we are concerned that this resolution undercuts key san francisco you haves and aligns the city with some of the most exclusionary places in the state. passing sb50 is a much-needed step for california to take support of the environment and support of equity.

it presents places close to transit and does not change san francisco's ability to do community planning and nor does it change the entitlements or sequa process for projects. this establishes state-wide inclusionary housing in cities that do not have policies like san franciscos and allows higher, local inclusionary areas like san francisco's to prevail. this will increase the number of affordable housing units produced in other less responsible cities and also increase the affordable housing units produced in san francisco. sb50 respects local tenants in respecting local inclusionary requirements and provides for planning processes and communities at risk in gentrification and displacement (please stand by).

service to those who need it. thank you. >> next speaker. >> . >> i have lived in the city since 1976. i basically totally oppose sb50. it is so flawed it shouldn't be considered. i support the resolution opposing it. i think it is a good way to deal with a bad thing. i think we have a housing problem decades in the making, and now it is an emergency. that emergency is being used to basically just create or developer give away. i agree it is capitalism out of control, i think. a bigger problem we keep digging

deeper into the hole. we keep building more and more office space that we don't have housing to support people working in the offices. i think what we should do is stop the development of the offices, play the same game the developers are playing with us, and threaten them with loss of work and huge amounts of money they are making for themselves and investors and get them to the table with us. another thing that bothers me -- the only good thing is getting housing close to transit. as another speaker spoke earlier, i feel the people supporting sb50 for nearness to transportation, it is like wrapping themselves in the environmental cause to put a different flavor on what is about agreed. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning.

our council supports the board's resolution on sb50 as well as the proposed amendments. we were quiet in the spring on this bill. in public i am saying the 24 member organizations that work across the city's neighborhoods and this is about how neighborhoods are affected differently from bayview to mission to south of market, chinatown, fillmore, west side. these are the geographies we work in. there are different issues how it will land. the amendments are smart and rational. aside from the good intention of a number of these state land use preemption bills, and i am sure there are good intentions by sponsors and authors. the challenge in san francisco for five years since governor

brown threw out the first idea about this is that one size fits allstate land use policy that getting into the weeds how to do housing and planning at local level is very difficult. it doesn't work for san francisco. it is difficult to make workable period. we have the largest state. we have nearly 400 cities, 50 something counties, massive geography. figure that out on pen and paper. the amendments before you address very real on the ground issues. this isn't just botto bombastic. it is at ground level. i hope the supervisors respect that. this is a falsebinenary of pro or it has made san francisco a model. let it was figure out what the

state can do to help, not hurt. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. george wooding, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. i support affordable housing, and i also am in very much agreement with the board and supervisor mar's resolution. i object to the false choice that scott weiner presented the board of supervisors saying if you are not for sb50 you must be anti-growth. i think that was a terrible position to put you in because i know that you are doing the best

for the city. as peter just stated, i don't think one size fits all, and definitely the amendments have to take care of different aspects of the city and the character of san francisco. i think sb $50 billions the market rate housing much more so when you look at arena than it ever did build affordable housing. there is no profit in building affordable housing so it forces developers, even well-meaning once, to build a market rate. rate. it is a massive give away to developers to incentivize them,

and especially for transportation. when you look at the transportation figures, you see we are running a $22 billion deficit in the next 25 years. that is going to be a disaster. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you. i am from the san francisco tenant's union. the union opposes sb50 in its entirety. it is beyond redemption. we do appreciate the hard work you all have done to come up significant amendments to reduce the harm this bill would cause if it goes forward as it is right now. the reason we think the bill is flawed is that it centers the interests of landowners and

developers and not the people that need housed. this is to increase land values. it is designed for gentrification. that is not a side issue. it is the while point is to make lower priced land become higher priced to make affordable housing more expensive to build. it puttings more pressure on existing tenants on pushing them out. the current lan language is a j. they have to come up with their own plan for when and how they will be gentrified but they don't have a choice. that shows this is on increasing land values. none of this i this is enforcea. it is not a surprise they came up with unusable tenant protections.

they didn't talk to anybody in the tenant movement how to protect the tenants when gentrification happens. scott weiner only talked to people in other jurisdictions and not folks trying to keep tenants in their homes. we think this is beyond redemption. thank you for doing what you can to save us from the worst aspects of it. please support this resolution. >> thank you. next speaker. >> marlene morgan. corridor neighbors, save muni and sf transit riders. i think we have an example in front of us, the area plan that was put together in 1989 under mayor dianne feinstein. that created a high density

housing over ground floor retail along the major transit corridor. this is a great opportunity for 30 years to see how to develop housing on the major transit corridor. for the first 20 years there were redevelopment funds available. in the first 20 years under this up zoned transit friendly corridor there was 1500 units built in the first 20 years. i don't have statistics on the bmr units. starting in 2010, there were 1,083 on the venice corridor with 163bmr units. we also have on the corridor another 670 units that are permitted and about 300 of those are currently under

construction. of those 600 units we have about 90 that are going to bmr. i think we can see if you have something like this in place, it should produce something more than it did. this is why sb50 is not a good idea, not enough control, and we need a lot more better guidelines and better control. thank you. >> good morning. catherine howard. i have a letter from 15 members of the public. it took me two hours for those two signatures and there are more out there. we recommend to the board opposition sb50 out ride. if you propose amendments you are accepting the basic premise the state should dictate housing, zoning and land use.

san francisco must retain the right to develop our plans for affordable housing. we can use the community-based planning system. first we need statistical information not hand waving about up zoning or other developer driven mantras. the city should prepare a study to include the capacity, number of units under construction. the impact of the legislation on zone capacity, elimination of long-term vacancies, enforcements against illegal air bnb and housing used as corporate hotels. analysis of the infrastructure improvements needed to support the increased housing and a plan to pay for it. any community-based plan should have a vision what the city will look like and what it will be like to live here. will iwill it be attractive anda

large percentage of wildlife live alongside us to survive. please oppose sb50. set up a community-based planning process to result in an increase in affordable housing, preservation of family friendly neighborhoods and healthy and liveable environment for everyone. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> theresa flanders. i am so glad that we are here discussing this today. we do support the resolution to oppose sb50. the amendments sound so much better, and it is still about for seniors and people with disabilities it is about the unafford built of housing in the city today. sb50 says you must build deeply

affordable housing. we as the state will also give funding to have subsidie sub sur more family housing with schools, transportation, it would be different. that is not in front of us. speculation, killing our city, our neighborhoods, we would not want sb50 in place. what we need in san francisco may be very different elsewhere. the one size fits all does not work for california. i am really happy that you have these amendments in place. again, the tenant protections that would not be enforceable. this is how people are losing their housing. this is how we are losing so many people as well as losing the housing to become market

rate as rent control at one time. please, we support this. thank you so much and i hope all supervisors will be on board. >> norma, laurie, renee curran and bruce bowen. >> sb50 is beneficial to the local economy. it provides great opportunity for community participation in the housing market through the hands on process of the material development. to the contribution of small property owners and tenants, investors, contractors and suppliers and draftsmen and building inspectors and sales and leasing agents. it provides for the well-being of the individuals and community

by reducing commute times anding traffic congestion between home and workplace. through the increased economic activities, sales activities and employment it contributes to that vacuum pulling individuals into employment. superseding the wage base. contributing to consumer dollars along commercial corridors as it increases opportunities for disposable spending. unfortunately, the contention it prevents public from recapturing an equitable portion of the economic benefits must be examined and dispelled. nothing prevents the municipal government from capturing, contributing and conferring upon

itself substantial economic reward. that increases the house of each new housing unit by substantial initial sum of $100,000, born by the purchaser 10% greater than that of the actual construction. this being prior to the tax and the community benefit district assessments. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. bruce owen, improvement be club and land use coalition. thank you for your continuing leadership to oppose the bill. thanks to all who are sepping us fight this. one way to motivate ourselves is a few things to have in the context. first of all, housing accountability acts and

constraints including demolition controls and the way in which senator wiener ignores it to attack us when we oppose his bill. sb-330 which extends the act in ways still unknown and haven't been analyzed. san francisco plans is trying to do this. it is described as the most far-reaching housing bill in many years. the inner relation with sb50 are unknown. as previously mentioned. existing unused zoning capacity and entitled units is tens of thousands of them and effect on live ability. the additional zoning density from two units to unlimited units. we need to keep this in mind as

sb50 includes four plex which is up zoning with sb50 annual the existing legislation will have unlimited number of units across the city. sb50 waves maximum controls with the four pluses plus the housing accountability act that is unlimited number of units. what do we get in return? conversion of san francisco into an extension of real estate state. we have to stop this. >> thank you. next speaker. >> rick hall. anti-gentrification activist. i support this resolution, but i would much rather see it being an opposed full stop. president yee said we should be

exempt from sb50. that fits with what senator wiener is doing carve outs across the state to sell his disastrous bill. la supervisor paul carrets vowed to keep la opposed even if all of los angeles is carved out. he would do that because it is right for the rest of the state and that carve outs from pieces of this bill in order to sell it and impose it on other parts of the state are just wrong. the premise of sb50 that state mandated top down one size fits all plans is wrong, obviously, one size does not fit all. you have heard speaker after speaker after speaker tell you

what is wrong with this bill, and everything they said is right. but taking the power from our planning commissioners, supervisors and local electives and handing to the developers is wrong. there is so much wrong with is this bill, and with its author. i will read a tweet that came across when i was in the lyft from wiener. supervisors that claim sb50 doesn't be do enough for affordability housing are simply wrong. sb50 is affordable housing. >> thank you. next speaker, please. we can all read the tweets ourselves. thank you. >> next speaker.

laura foot. the future of sb50 is not going to be decided here. we have lost credibility at the state level about our ability to deal with our own problems. that is just the truth. they do not see us as capable right now of getting our way out of our systematic housing crisis. all of our state elected officials are together saying we need to pass statewide pro-housing legislation. the citizens of san francisco elected those people to go represent us at the state level. i understand this urge to say, no, we can deal with our own problems. i deeply understand that because i, too, want to be able to deal with our own problems. i want us to do everything we can to get as much affordable

housing built as we can. this body can do a lot more. the people in this room, we disagree about market rate housing. we do agree about the need for affordable housing. we agree about the need for more funding and increasing tenant protections. those are things this body can put time and energy into working on with people you may never have worked with before and may his at sometimes. we have the capacity to decide we have shared priorities and can make progress on those shared priorities. even if we do not agree about sb50, there is far more that binds us together in our priorities than we have been willing to acknowledge. i ask everyone here and that includes the people who think i am terrible to try to do more for the affordable housing we

say we want. we can do the trailing legislation on prop e to make sure. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> renee curren. i want to echo thanks for the time you have put into these amendments. i support this with one amendment. take out without amendments. this bill was written in bad faith-based on the false smiths that san francisco and -- false myth that we need to build housing for those who currently live on our streets. it does nothing to improve public transit which we need. this is too broken to fix. i disagree with the previous

speaker. i don't think we all have the same priorities. i believe scott weiner his priority is the real estate industry. since i have a little time left i will quote from songer for scotscott weiner. >> you are a liberal, developer, corporate donations must give you a thrill. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> board rule 1.3.1 prevents you from having any audible interruptions of proceedings, clapping, cheering, hissing or any of that. thank you very much. >> good morning, supervisors. i am presiden president presideh

bury council in district 5. thank you for bringing this amended resolution. thanks to president yee for supporting it. i agree with president yee that san francisco should be exempted. i also state that sb50 should be opposed, but these amendments you have proposed are excellent and should be passed by the board. i would suggest two slight amendments. one use it or lose it clause. two, that you put somehow in the title to oppose or a sb50 and similar housing bills. the number can change. state funding for affordable housing is the need, not developer give aways. we also need transit funding.

there may be other things that the state could do like local redevelopment agency. our city is made of neighborhoods, and the people who live here are the people who elected you. you should be working for us, not the developer community. thank you. >> good morning. norma guardianshipsia, director of policy for mission economic development. we thank you for bringing this forward. we think it is very important that sb50 be amended. what is at stake is very high. we are talking about housing, land use. there is a couple of words that haven't come up and that is civil rights. houses is a civil right when you have a low income community and you know what it is like to

have a victim of housing discrimination. we need to talk about how sb50 overlays these issues and how it accelerates displacement and gentrification. hearing the arguments made in favor of sb50. it is not the bill. as it stands it is a prime example of paternalistic policy. mandates are thrust upon the community before they have an opportunity to offer input to the design. community members are told to sit in the back of the bus while self-ap.ed anti-discrimination advocates do the driving. that is not acceptable.

that is not a san francisco value. i am so glad that san francisco is demanding that we have our san francisco values present in sb50 and if not the bill needs to fail. thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> good morning. i am laurie leader man. i would like to thank you for developing the amendments to make the needs of communities primary and for being prepared for the battle. i remain skeptical the bill for preempting public input can be opposite. these are essential roles for government. these assign that to local government and communities where it belongs. california is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world and

most populous state in the u.s. these are further away from public accountability and susceptible to lobbying. this is a recipe for disruption and displacement. compromising is not viable without all of the amendments, sb50 must be opposed. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. corey smith san francisco how, o housing coalition. the authors haven't read the bill or understand what it does. reading some of the inaccurate statementses. page one line 12 less public review this does not change the process. line 15 and 16. market rate housing affordable.

it helps them move in and 70% of low income live in market rate housing. 2 23 and 24 talks about managing growth. we live in the most unaffordable citych. city ever. lines 4 and 5. we can do area plans. nine and 10 talk about specific neighborhoods. previous speaker mentioned concerns in the mission. the reality this will alter zoning on two alleys in the mission as a whole. they were the first developer to use sb35. i hope we can look forward to meta building the housing. we are going to experience

significant barriers to production. this will increase the amount of affordable housing in san francisco. overall, the more home act is good for san francisco. it will result in more housing. that is why the nonprofit housing association of northern california, state building trades and labor federation support this. i am embarrassed by this resolution. thank you. >> policy director for chinatown development center. chinatown is proud of this resolution and thank you, supervisor mar for introducing it. sb50 and we have read it. fundamentally it takes away an

important process right called democracy. we need a democratic process, one that the state does not provide for us to protect local communities against displacement. in 1986 after the eviction of the hotel and the evictions of many residents, chinatown came together as a community and adopted the chinatown plan which has protected it since then from market rate development and protected existing residents and small businesses. that flan will be disrupted and underlined by sb50. our basic zoning in chinatown is 35 feet. everything above requires a c .u. sb50 will up zone everything to 55% and eliminate the c .u.

process. we are told by the legislators we don't have to worry because we have sensitive communities. we will have sensitive communities protection for a five year period during which time we have to revisit. this will include additional development. five years and eliminating existing plan to rewrite that i am possed by sacramento is not what we need. >> next speaker, please. peter with the economic development agency. i will address as many as i could get to of incorrect statements. as far as mission is concerned including what we just