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 were looking at that, thats where thats the one amendment im 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 dont 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. Im absolutely going to support your amendments, absolutely, because i feel like and i absolutely agree with president yi, when youre talking to people, people know that were in a housing crisis and we need housing for everyone. Its just not Affordable Housing and our definition of Affordable Housing. We need housing for people. Ive run into so many people that arent going to qualify or theyre 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 thats 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 youre coming from, with this. I think this also projects ive been involved with, ive 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 its 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 lets 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 theres a little bit i understand your argument but at the same time, i could argue, like, this forces people peaced and put pressure on to force affordability. I agree with the state housing. I think thats 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, wouldnt 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 were 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 . Thats 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 its in here. But i feel they cant doubledip. The developers cant doubledip on the density and im not sure if thats in here. Like i said, i got these last night and i wasnt able to really go through them. But i think thats something in my last amendment is the developers should not be able to doubledip, 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 thats to be discussed publically with the board and with the public to determine that. As a city and with the board, weve 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 were going to through the upzoning were 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 weve set. And i also think that if were going to and i know this costs a lot of money, but we should probably put for some of these projects that were 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 dont kill a project because, you know, a certain amount of money, they go out and get investors and if they dont, 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 doesnt 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 ill read the names and if you hear your name read, if you could line up on the right side of the chambers as youre 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. Im susan marsh and im here on behalf of the San Francisco tenants 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 bills 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 resolutions 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. Im with the coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods, im 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 yesterdays meeting, there was discussion about the possible quote, unquote, reform of sb375 from 2008. Another is increasingly strident rhetoric. Its been the bills author and medimedia. Theres attempting to wrap himself in selfrighteousness the way others wrap themselves in the flag. In closing, it appears that the bill and his author are beyond redemption. Once again, im urging the committee and the board to outright oppose sb50. Im 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 citys 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 statemandated density bonus would have to actually build the housing within a specific reasonable period of time. The useit or loseit provision was original pay parly part of e legislation and one of their points was a useit or loseit requirement. When the aflcio state endorsed the measure, the use it or loseit 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 useit or loseit requirement that would say, you cannot exercise density bonus unless you actually build housing. There are 77,000 approved projects in San Franciscos 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. Im terry mckuhn, district 7 resident, lifelong 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, thats 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. Thats 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. Im loraine petty here. Im a longtime voter from district 5 and im 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 dont 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 samesex 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 coolingoff 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. Were 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. Dont let them have sb50, as well. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. It bypasses a california quality act and i can see Hunters 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. Its 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. Ill read additional names, garry wise, Suzanna Parsons, jeff rego and peter cohen. Good morning, supervisors. Im with the San Francisco coalition. Im 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 brandnew luxury condos. If you put in the middleclass, that number raises to 37 units. So if we cannot put at least 37 for Affordable Housing, were 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 dont 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 wont get hit at all thanks to lack of busing, lack of rail and lack of adequate transit and it will be us. Its mostly the urban areas. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im a tenant advocate. Were gravely concerned that sb50s 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 communitydriven 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. Sb50s topdown approach would undermine our communitys 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 im here on behalf of spur. Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on supervisors mars resolution to oppose state weiners 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 homes 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 muchneeded step for california to take support of the environment and support of equity. It presents places close to transit and does not change San Franciscos ability to do Community Planning and nor does it change the entitlements or sequa process for projects. This establishes statewide inclusionary housing in cities that do not have policies like San Franciscos and allows higher, local inclusionary areas like San Franciscos 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 requi