grant programs and allowances for jurisdictions to impose private sector development impact fees, sequa exemptions for land-use changes transferred by sb50 and finds for local community transportation planning. i'm grateful for the time and attention of my colleagues on this important issue. and welcome president yi for joining us. >> thank you, chair mar. i just want to say that right off the bat, i hope that my colleagues on the committee will support the amendments. you know, for several months, we've had, like, heated discussions about sb50 and s sb827. we're trying to plan for things in our district and many of updatof theamendments would be l to our efforts that's been ongoing for a little while. you know, we have bills and does not take into account the nuances and unintended impacts that comes with upzoning the entire neighborhoods and in the area of, like, in the west side, there has not been much resource put out there to help us plan. i've been talking about this for seven years now and saying, what are you talking about? we're not building anything, this is ridiculous. puwha

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

. >> i missed the first part of the presentation, are these only for a rated structures under sequa? >> -- ceqa? >> we are thinking these would apply to nonhistoric resources. they would not apply to article 10 or 11. they could apply to individual resources that are a rated resources, but they would not meet the secretary of the interior standards. we would see them as causing an impact. >> i think where i am going is i would have loved to have this on 450 farrell when we did the e.i.r. and it would be the faÇade alternative. when we looked at the mitigation and all of that, we had some liver age with the developer -- leverage with the developer. this is really, really good. i seen it applying to some a-rated structures. i am happy to see it. the question i have is if it is a housing project and we ask for this, will it trip up any state laws? >> i mean if we are going through the normal review and it would come here. i think the main one would be if it was sd330, we are limited to public hearings. if you are talking to restrictions on development potential, that would also maybe de