introducing a resolution along with supervisor ronen urging the association of bay area governments, abag, in its up coming regional housing needs allocation, or rhna, to maintain their current housing level needs in san francisco. the california department of housing and community development recently assigned the bay area a new region wide rhna housing production goal that is 2.35 times more than our existing one, or our goal of producing nearly 500,000 new homes in eight years throughout the bay area. san francisco should take a position on how the numbers will be allocated to local jurisdictions, as it will have a real impact on speculative development in our city if the goals are not met. if our housing goal is artificially too high, it will trigger s.b. 35. we know that so-called streamlining would further incentivize land and develop speculation, leading to displacement. san francisco has shareholdeou much of the housing load and are already at 140% of our market rate housing goal in our current cycle, which goes until 2022. we do not need to increase our market rate housing develo

i do believe that abag and h.c.d. look at comparisons across the state. particularly with comparisons to cities of similar sizes. i can definitely look into that further and get back to you with specifics with how other cities compare. >> supervisor peskin: just doing the math here, which is the rina goal was 12,536. the total units built was 17,373. instead of saying that we achieved whatever the math is, 140% or whatever, why do you stop at 100%? why don't you say we overachieved? >> we could look at this multiple ways. i do think that in this case because we are just reporting on whether we've met the goal or not, we measured the progress by how much initial goal we met in this case, we did meet it 100%. you're correct. in report -- in term of reporting to h.c.d., we do state that we met that minimum goal. >> supervisor peskin: i'm not trying to argumentative. couldn't it say in that box, 100% goal met 140% built. it feels a little bit like we're lying with statistics. looks like we met the goal 100%. but in reality, in that category, we overbuilt whil

finally the resolution sponsored by supervisors's mar and ronen urging abag to focus san francisco unmet needs for housing that's affordable to low and moderate income residents and maintain the current allocation levels in this upcoming rina process. it's so important that your collective voice is heard. [please stand by] -- it must be repaired. when a white person with power polices how young people of color organize, that reinforces white supremacy. it centers the powerful white person's fragility and ego while marginalizing actions for justice. when a white person with power have people protest at their home, it reinforces white supremacy by repeating bile racist jokes. progressive politicians and those who attack and punish and shun is wrong. i call upon supervisor ronen and all who piled on to repair the damage they have done to people of color, and to report back to constituents. when repair is made and the details are made public, it will be a learning and a growing experience for the supervisor and the public. this is a healthy way to deal with episodes of white supremacy. let's

so this urges abag and rnha to focus on current housing needs in san francisco [inaudible]. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, mr. president, i have a number of items that i would like to present, none of them earth shattering, but i would like to close today's board meeting in the memory of three individuals. my neighbor, catherine mutter, who passed away today, my condolences to megan levitan and norman carlson. and together, with president yee, for james tang, the former president of the b.a.r.t. board of directors and the san francisco examiner organization, in one of its iterations, and a member of -- i'll say it, the once powerful san francisco political publishi publishing dynasty, fang family, who died on friday. for decades, they held sway with their newspapers, the san francisco independent, asian week, and as i said, at one time, the san francisco examiner. he was a member of the b.a.r.t. for 24 years, elected at the age of 28, in 1990, which was a remarkable run, and particularly remarkable inso

finally the resolution sponsored by supervisors's mar and ronen urging abag to focus san francisco unmet needs for housing that's affordable to low and moderate income residents and maintain the current allocation levels in this upcoming rina process. it's so important that your collective voice is heard. [please stand by] -- it must be repaired. when a white person with power polices how young people of color organize, that reinforces white supremacy. it centers the powerful white person's fragility and ego while marginalizing actions for justice. when a white person with power have people protest at their home, it reinforces white supremacy by repeating bile racist jokes. progressive politicians and those who attack and punish and shun is wrong. i call upon supervisor ronen and all who piled on to repair the damage they have done to people of color, and to report back to constituents. when repair is made and the details are made public, it will be a learning and a growing experience for the supervisor and the public. this is a healthy way to deal with episodes of white supremacy. let's

i do believe that abag and h.c.d. look at comparisons across the state. particularly with comparisons to cities of similar sizes. i can definitely look into that further and get back to you with specifics with how other cities compare. >> supervisor peskin: just doing the math here, which is the rina goal was 12,536. the total units built was 17,373. instead of saying that we achieved whatever the math is, 140% or whatever, why do you stop at 100%? why don't you say we overachieved? >> we could look at this multiple ways. i do think that in this case because we are just reporting on whether we've met the goal or not, we measured the progress by how much initial goal we met in this case, we did meet it 100%. you're correct. in report -- in term of reporting to h.c.d., we do state that we met that minimum goal. >> supervisor peskin: i'm not trying to argumentative. couldn't it say in that box, 100% goal met 140% built. it feels a little bit like we're lying with statistics. looks like we met the goal 100%. but in reality, in that category, we overbuilt whil

i do believe that abag and h.c.d. look at comparisons across the state. particularly with comparisons to cities of similar sizes. i can definitely look into that further and get back to you with specifics with how other cities compare. >> supervisor peskin: just doing the math here, which is the rina goal was 12,536. the total units built was 17,373. instead of saying that we achieved whatever the math is, 140% or whatever, why do you stop at 100%? why don't you say we overachieved? >> we could look at this multiple ways. i do think that in this case because we are just reporting on whether we've met the goal or not, we measured the progress by how much initial goal we met in this case, we did meet it 100%. you're correct. in report -- in term of reporting to h.c.d., we do state that we met that minimum goal. >> supervisor peskin: i'm not trying to argumentative. couldn't it say in that box, 100% goal met 140% built. it feels a little bit like we're lying with statistics. looks like we met the goal 100%. but in reality, in that category, we overbuilt whil