San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 09/11/2025. When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed two minutes today. And when you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person cued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. This will be strictly enforced today. We ask for your patience and respect for the process. At this time, I would like to take roll. Commission president Soh?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Present.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commission Vice President Moore?

[Speaker 2.0]: Here.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Campbell?

[Speaker 4.0]: Here.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry? Present. Commissioner Williams? Here. Commissioner Braun?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Here.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: And Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Here.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, commissioners. Rusty, after a long break, I failed to open an agenda. First on the agenda, commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item one, case number 2025Hyphen005009CUA at 1511 Haight Street. Conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance this 09/18/2025. Item two, case number 20Fifteen-twelve40Nine-oneENV for the San Francisco Gateway Project at 749 Tollan Street and 2000 McKinnon Avenue. Certification of a final environmental impact report is proposed for continuance this 09/25/2025, as are items 3A through fifteen-twelve 491, E and V, PCA, MAP, DVA, CWP and CUA for the SF Gateway project are also proposed for continuance since 09/25/2025. I have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar,

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Only on the matter of continuance.

[Ellen Lee Zhou, Public Speaker]: Good afternoon. My name is Ellen, e l l e n l e e z h o u. The agendas and continue continuation of your agendas has nothing to do with San Francisco. Now we learn United States have two parts. The one is for the republic, and the other one is cooperation. So this agenda in here is working for United States of America corporation.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: To any specific item on the continuance calendar? Which one?

[Ellen Lee Zhou, Public Speaker]: All of them. You said continuation agenda. I am here to oppose what you are doing in here at City Hall because you are working for the United States of corporation, but you don't work for the California Republic Constitution. You, this department, planning department, has been violate many rights of San Francisco residents. You do not follow the law of United States Of America Republic. You did not and you have not followed the law of California constitution 1849. And you have been fooling Ma'am,

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: this has been a

[Ellen Lee Zhou, Public Speaker]: long time

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: of the continuance calendar. Please take a seat.

[Rudy Gonzalez, Executive Director, SF Building & Construction Trades Council]: To the commission and staff, my name is Rudy Gonzalez with

[Speaker 9.0]: the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. I rise in support, respectfully, of the continuance for the SF Gateway project, specifically. There have

[Rudy Gonzalez, Executive Director, SF Building & Construction Trades Council]: been really productive conversations that have happened since the last continuance. We're really excited, as is the project sponsor, as are the Teamsters, in fact, to be before you in two weeks in full community and labor support of that project. So respectfully request support of the continuance of the SF Gateway. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 10.0]: Good afternoon. My name is Baxanette King. I'm from SEIU. I'm a part of the SEIU Workers' Home for Better Housing and Better Report. I take care of my brother, and he's mentally disturbed. So in the house and I've been in this house now for twenty years. Paying when I moved in there, I was only paying $91,800. Through section eight, now I pay 3,800. My brother only get $12.30 a month, and then in in my life, that is $500 a month. So I'm begging and pleading and understanding. Can y'all please maintain a better home for working us out here? Because it's too hard to have two jobs and take care of someone. So I'm standing in honor of SEIU and all the hard workers of San Francisco and this one dream and this one body that I know we can do because I got my section eight in 1994 and

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: really proud.

[Speaker 10.0]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Well okay. I just didn't hear anything associated with the continuance calendar. Last call for items proposed to be continued only on the matter of continuance. You need to come forward Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner vice president Moore.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Move to continuous nodal.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Second.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue items as proposed, commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Soh.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Placing us on your consent calendar, all matters listed here under constitute your consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item four, case number 2025Hyphen002907CUA at 2064 Union Street conditional use authorization. Item five, case number twenty twenty five hyphen zero zero five six seven eight, PCA development impact fees for residential development projects, planning code, and building code amendments. Item six, case number twenty twenty five hyphen six two five seven PCA accessory dwelling unit fee deferral planning and building code amendments. Item seven, case number twenty nineteen hyphen zero one seven zero two two CUA Hyphen 022839 24th Street conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these items on consent be taken off and heard under the regular calendar today or a future date? You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Move to approve items on consent calendar.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Second.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: There's a motion that has been seconded to approve items on consent. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Placing us under commission matters, item eight, the land acknowledgment.

[Speaker 4.0]: I'll be reading the land acknowledgment. The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from the living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you. Item nine, consideration of adoption draft minutes for 07/17/2025 joint hearing with Rec and Park. Draft minutes for July 17 regular hearing and 07/24/2025 regular hearing. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. Your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Move to adopt the minutes.

[Speaker 4.0]: Second.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, commissioner Campbell. Aye. Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Soh.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously. Seven to zero. Item 10, commission comments and questions.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: So good afternoon, everyone. While today is many ways just another planning commission on just another Thursday, today is September 11. I'd like to start our meeting in remembrance of September eleven, as well as the recent gun violences Of the lives taken too soon, the first responders and civilians who shown extraordinary courage and the heroes whose sacrifices will never be forgotten, we honor them with gratitude, and we carry forward the resilience and unity that define us as Americans and as San Franciscans. It is now my honor to invite our San Francisco chief fire marshal, Chad Lau, to lead us in a moment of silence as we memorialize those we lost and reaffirmed our shared commitment to unity and patriotism. Thank you.

[Chad Lau, Chief Fire Marshal]: Good afternoon. President Tsao, planning commissioners, director Dennis Phillips, director of planning Liz Waddy, and members of the public. I just want to thank you for this opportunity to just speak a couple moments about today, twenty one years ago twenty four years ago.

[Speaker 15.0]: I'm just going to

[Speaker 16.0]: there you go.

[Chad Lau, Chief Fire Marshal]: All right. Thank you. I'm a third generation San Francisco native, twenty seven plus years in the San Francisco Fire Department. We face many challenges every day on this day. I will talk about in 2001. On the morning of 09/11/2001, two planes crashed in the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. A third plane struck the Pentagon just outside Washington DC, and a fourth plane crashed into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 people lost their lives during the nine eleven terrorist attack. On the twenty first twenty fourth anniversary of these tragic events, we remember and honor all those who died and all those left behind. Among the many heroes on that tragic day were the brave men and women of the New York City Fire Department, FDNY, who played a vital role in emergency efforts. As soon as the planes hit the Twin Towers at the World Trade Centers, firefighters across the city rushed to the scene, risking their lives to save others. Tragically, three hundred and forty three firefighters lost their lives that day. Seventy one law enforcement personnel, eight paramedics, and 55 military personnel. Although the event was across the country, members of the San Francisco Fire Department immediately sprang into action. Our own fire chief Dean Crispin jumped on the first flight to New York City with other members of the fire department to assist in rescue operations and recovery without hesitation. I share this to highlight the incredible spirit of San Francisco Fire Department, our first responders, and the identity and spirit of our city. Just as we came together as a nation back then, I encourage all of us to continue to work together with the spirit of unity, kindness, and service. I would like to take this moment to honor those who died in the line of duty and those who continue to protect and serve every day as first responders. I now ask that we all observe a moment of silence in honor of those who lost their lives. Thank you very much.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. I'd like to now like to, have our vice president Moore to make another statement in memory of someone very special to San Francisco.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: I'd like to ask the commission and the public to close today's meeting in memory of senator Burton. This is a very, very sad day, and on top of that, we lost a giant who stood for everything San Francisco believes in, including those matters which are somewhat being touched on today. I ask that we will remember him as we close today's meeting. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's no further comments under commission matters, I'm gonna ask the gentleman in the corner. Sir, if you can't find a seat, you can't be in the chambers.

[Speaker 10.0]: Oh, okay. Good. Sorry. Yeah. Didn't come.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, that'll place us under department matters. Item 11, director's announcements.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Yes, please. Good morning.

[Sarah Dennis Phillips, Planning Director]: Afternoon. It's been a long morning. Thank you all. We have what I presume will be a relatively long day in front of us, so I'll keep it brief. But there were two things I wanted to highlight just under my director's announcements. Number one, related to our item number three on our calendar today, this week, the San Francisco planning department received a letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development letting us know that they have given us preliminary approval on the family zoning plan package of legislation that you will hear today. We'll talk more about that at the item, but it I did wanna note for the public that we received that item. It is posted on the planning department's website as of now. We will have copies for all of you. It is not final approval. It is just letting us know that when you hear that item, that that HCD feels good about what is before you and wants to make sure that what is carried through the legislative process is relatively consistent with what you are hearing today. My other item that I just wanted to share was really just an acknowledgment and appreciation of our democratic process of what you commissioners here and this this forum that you're providing for public comment is an enormous piece. We are I think the commissioners here today and our staff here today have have provided forums over the years and recent months on many topics, including the family zoning plan that you'll hear today. I'm really proud to be joining this body, to be working for this commission and the planning department in the processes that we've brought forward that have allowed voices to be heard and allowed us to continue to work and shape public policy according to those voices. So I just wanna note, and this is this is a a request

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: for our our all

[Sarah Dennis Phillips, Planning Director]: of the members of the public who are here today for us to uphold it's important for us to uphold that democratic process, that we have the forum to speak at the microphone, and that we respect that forum for all others. It is a cornerstone of our democracy, which I know we all care about very deeply, and I'm looking forward to seeing that respected today. Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Commissioners, if there are no questions of Director Phillips, we should move on to item 12, review of past events of the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission. I don't see staff members related to any of those items, so I believe there are no reports and updates. So we can move on to general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. Again, you need to come forward.

[Speaker 19.0]: Hi. My name's Mike Nor. I don't know if this is appropriate, but I think it's in line with what you're talking about. One of my questions would be, we know why most of the people are here, but it's the last item. Most of us have jobs and stuff. It's very hard for us to take time off to come to these meetings. It'd be appreciated if the items that people are coming here for were put to the front of the meeting. Thanks.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Next speaker.

[Speaker 20.0]: May I leave these copies for people here?

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: You may.

[Speaker 20.0]: Okay. Here. Thank you. So I originally thought it was three minutes, so I'll cut out part of the second page, but you'll have my testimony. My name is Mark Bruno. I'm here to report on why don't I wait till you give it to them because it's hard to follow. Sorry. Well, I would like to start over if you don't mind. You're passing something out that's not fair. I'm here to report on our group's complaint to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force because the planning department never produced the documents we requested on July 6. We merely asked how many rental units are likely to be affected by upzoning. They still have not answered that question. In response, the Sunshine Task Force last week unanimously agreed that the department did not respond in a timely manner. And one task force member said, quote, it seems like the question before us is, mister Bruno's question, what is the number of rental units affected by the family zoning plan? Yes, that is our question. I don't understand, said the task force member, how there is a zoning plan to create more units based on a shortage of units and to have what that number is to know that there is a shortage and then to say that number doesn't exist to the public. In preparation for that meeting, a friend of mine and I went to the planning department desk at the permit center, you know where that is, and we were told by Trent Grennan, a senior architect and designer with the department, when we asked if we give you these partial tables, can you tell us the answer to the question, how many rental units are likely to be affected? And mister Grennan said, that document is not enough, you also need to have the property information map. Well as much as the planning department would like to deny it, the property information map which we all have used, PIM, which mister Grannon referenced is part of the planning department. It's on their site as is the parcels table. So those two documents together answered our question, but the department never responded, they still haven't. And with that in mind, I'm asking that nobody should be should be considering legislation on up zoning until the city is forthcoming with this information. Thank you.

[Ellen Lee Zhou, Public Speaker]: Good afternoon. My name is Ellen, e l l e n l e e z h o u. Your department is running under the United States of America corporation. It's not the republic. In our constitution, we never had a word democracy. We have republic. So every time you use democracy, you're lying to the public. I have been living in San Francisco for almost forty years. I came here to your department many, many times. For example, I oppose the planning department that approved so many cannabis stores, marijuana stores, and look at the city. A lot of people dying on the street, a lot of people drug dealing supported by you, the representative, the fake people here. I don't think that I don't mean that you are fake. I'm talking about you are fake government in here. San Francisco has running by a group of dictatorship in here. There's only one party in San Francisco. It's called Democrat. No other party but Democrat, and the word democracy is stealing from that party. The Democrat party is nothing but a bunch of liars, murderers, and destructors for the city. Any zoning that you approve or not approve is according to the people behind the scene under the table. Many people have reported in the community. If you have money, you get permit earlier, faster. If you don't have money, it take years, years, and years to get something done. I am here to oppose your fake commissioning department in here that you have not done a good job, nothing but destroy our city. If you do not if you continue to support agenda twenty thirty, which is a fifteen minute city with high rising buildings and within fifteen minutes, people can be killed and you have nothing to eat if you don't agree with them. Any Trump supporter in San Francisco has been targeted for violence. Anybody who do not agree with your department and the people in city hall get targeted in San Francisco. So wake up, people. Thank you.

[Speaker 21.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Paul Wormer. I hadn't planned to talk on this topic, but the director raised it in the issue of outreach. And I wanted to say that back 2006, there was the Japantown Better Neighborhoods plan. And planning came down and talked to the community in a charrette, and they said, where do you want the big buildings? And the community said, we don't want the big buildings. Where do you want the big buildings? We don't want the big buildings. This was the community wide. Well, if you had to have them, where would you place them? And so we said, well, if they absolutely had to be. And we identified a couple of opportunity lots which were closer to the towers from the Philmo development. When this came to the planning commission and I believe Ron Miguel was president then that plan was soundly rejected because the community said, this is not what we said. And what would happen after that was actually quite wonderful. And I think the commission at that time did a wonderful job. We ended up getting the Japantown organizing committee. And we had excellent support from people like Steve Wertheim and Paul Lord from the planning commission. First one, and when he left for another task, then the other. And we were able to drill down into real complexities of planning and find space in Japantown to more than accommodate the RHINA allocation for that proportional area of the city, more than accommodate that within existing zoning for the most part and with reasonable modifications to the zoning plan. That was real outreach. That was getting engaged with the community, getting into the details before coming up with a major piece of legislation. And I really hope that the planning department will be able to return to that sort of dedicated resource to do local outreach. Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Last call for general public comment. Items not on today's agenda. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. We can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners. For items 13 a, b, and c for case numbers 2019 hyphen 017622 DNX, CUA, and VAR for for the property at 570 Market Street, downtown project authorization, conditional use authorization, and variance. Please note that on 05/01/2025, after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this to 07/10/2025 by a vote of five to two. Commissioners Campbell and McGarry were against. And then on July 10, without hearing, continued to today's date by a vote of seven to zero. We'll hear from staff, and then we'll get an update from the project sponsor for five minutes and then public comment for one.

[Jonathan Vemmer, Planner (SF Planning)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Jonathan Vemmer, department staff. The applications before you as stated are requests for downtown project authorization with certain exceptions pursuant to Planning Code Section three zero nine, conditional use authorization for a hotel use for the property commonly known as 570 Market Street, a through lot that as confirmed by the zoning administrator principally fronts along Market Street with additional frontage at the lot's rear along Sutter Street. It is located within the C 30 Zoning District and 300 S Height And Bulk District. The zoning administrator will separately consider whether to allow an elevator penthouse extended more than 16 feet above the height limit. As a reminder, you previously considered the project on May 1, denying a CEQA appeal of the preliminary mitigated negative declaration and continuing the project entitlements with direction for the project sponsor to, generally speaking, for the sake of brevity, explore potential design changes around the proposed building's massing, elevator core, light well slash setback from the neighboring Chancery Building, and the location of the Popos. At this juncture, CEQA determinations have been completed. Further consideration of related matters may occur should the project be approved and subsequent CEQA appeal is made to the board of supervisors. To reiterate for the record, the site's currently occupied by two story non historic commercial structure that is proposed for demolition and redevelopment with a 300 foot tall 29 story building with approximately two eleven guest rooms occupying approximately 126,000 gross square feet with roughly 3,000 square feet of lower level retail and a Popos Terrace on the 15th Floor with ground level access covering a total of approximately 4,200 square feet. After a thorough consideration exploration, the project sponsor team has determined that barring strictly aesthetic considerations is not feasible to make any substantial changes to the design, both from a constructability and programmatic perspectives. Their analysis is well detailed in documentation including your packets, and they are in attendance today to speak to these studies. Department staff continue to support the proposal as it reflects replacement of a two story building at the heart of the city's downtown with a new commercial structure that principally complies with heightened bulk requirements, features a thoughtfully designed POPOS as well as lower level retail, and seeks exceptions that are fully in line with the purposes of section three zero nine as it relates to narrow site constrained sites in the downtown area. The building has little to no effect on the skyline as it is largely tucked within the contours of a variety of higher, immediately, or nearby neighboring structures. New renderings and studies demonstrating this have been provided. As previously detailed, the real estate services firm CBRE published a detailed report and subsequent addendum projecting that this type of high end view oriented hotel would open into a strong and viable market, particularly in light of the fact that it cannot realistically be delivered for several years. Alongside some signs of downtown recovery having already appeared, these factors are further reflected in recent approvals and applications for other high rises in the Financial District and near South of Market. The same representatives from the Chancery Building and 44 Montgomery that spoke in May hearing remain in opposition and have submitted updated letters, one of which was included in your packet and the other having been emailed directly. Chancery representatives also submitted another brief letter pertaining to CEQA mitigation measures and structural concerns that was received this morning and has been distributed. NorCal Carpenters Local twenty two, the Downtown SF Partnership, and Unite Here Local two remain in support, with Unite Here having also recently submitted an updated letter. This concludes my presentation. As mentioned, the project sponsor is here with their own. We're both happy to answer any questions you may have and dive into the weeds however deep you may desire. Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Project Sponsor Representative (570 Market Street)]: We have the presentation queued up.

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: Hello, Commission. How are you? My name is Danny Forster. I'm the architect of the 570 Market Street Tower. We have a presentation to be pulled up for you, which will come up momentarily. But generally speaking, we're going to address the comment of the massing of the building and its impact on the kind of urban fabric where it's located. We'll address the issue as it relates to the encroachment on the light well of the adjacent building, and then fundamentally talk about the access to the POPOS and how does that work for the public. The presentation is coming up shortly. But in the meantime, perhaps you can refer to the PDF we've provided you with. First and foremost, you'll see if you refer to we're coming up. Great. Let's just kind of click ahead if you don't mind, Jason. So there's the building in context with a series of massing movies. But fundamentally, what I want to show you is where does the building live within the fabric beyond just Market Street. So if we zoom out for a minute, looking down from here, next slide, to the ferry view. Next slide. Yeah. So here's the building within this broad context as you can see relatively diminutive in scale even at 300 feet tall. But from a view corridor standpoint, because of the setbacks we're doing, it's actually not that visible from adjacent streets. So if you can see here the view from the ferry Building, it's hard to see the project itself. Next slide. The view from the Embarcadero BART Station, you do see the side of the building, but we're happy to say that in addition to windows on the Stutter Street and Market Street side, the facade turns the corner. So it's actually gonna be a nice part of the facade expressed from the street. Next slide. Again, also from the Powell Street station, hard to see the building. So there's a lot of small individual massing moves and facade detailing happening that relates to its direct context. But as a building overall, it has a fairly modest impact on the skyline. Next slide. The question that was proposed to us is can we encroach less on the light well you can see just to the plan south of the building on the Chancery Building? We looked at it three ways, from a space planning, structurally, and in terms of the elevator and the performance of the building. If you go to the next slide, you'll see if you if you look at Sutter Street to the right and kind of bring your eye to the left, the question is, could we compress the right side of the building to encroach less? So if you go to the next slide, you'll see on the guest rooms, from a hotel standpoint, from an ADA, from a turning radius, from clearance to the bed, to the requirements for the hallway, that's not a discretionary distance we have there. That's the requirement to make a hotel room work. If you look at the next slide, you'll see from the fire service access requirements, the eight foot stretcher dimensions of the elevator and the width of the stair, that too is not a discretionary width. So from Sutter to the edge of the elevator core, we're kind of as small as we can be. That being said, you asked us to look at it further. So we said to ourselves, let's remove an elevator. And in doing so, you can see minimize the encroachment. Unfortunately, our consultants, VDA or elevator consultants, ran the analysis. And the wait times, the speed, and the performance of the building would not function for a hotel. And you can see franchises would accept good as an elevator study goes. We fall below that threshold. From a structural standpoint, we flipped the core and said, okay, what if we took the elevators to the right, took the stair outside of the core to, again, minimize the core on that side of the building? I'm sorry to say it generated a 70%, a catastrophic loss of structural capabilities in the lateral system and giving us three inches of creep on the tower. Remember, it's a 30 foot wide site, 300 foot tall building. So that elevator core is doing a lot of work for the lateral system. So we don't have a lot of flexibility in that department. I hope that clarifies that. Lastly, let me just jump over to the POPOS. My understanding was there was a question about the the visibility, the ease with which someone might find their way to the POPOS. We hope we've clearly identified a vibrant opportunity for two story retail, but a very separate, slender, clear, independently dedicated POPOS entrance. From that entrance, you have one way to go down the hallway to an elevator. There's no other right turns or left turns. And then from there, as you arise up on the 15th Floor, that vegetative wall that greeted you at grade now happens yet again on the 15th Floor. You egress out from the elevator directly to the popo space and then hopefully to a really dynamic interesting outdoor space that is partially covered, partially open, hardscape, softscape, wood and seating throughout. If we go to the next slide, you can see there is an ADA ramp. There's some steps. There's some vegetation. There's a cool viewing platform at the point where you can look down the street as well as look down the screen wall. I also would make mention next slide there was a comment that I'd read that the concern was having that small food and beverage coffee station might make it feel like it's a commercially focused space. I hope it's clear that we've tucked the food and beverage area under the overhang. Primarily, this is about being outdoors, beautiful vegetation, and dynamic seating opportunities. So with that, I'll just say if we go to the next slide as well, here you can see again the POPOS with a number of different ways to occupy the space. So I hope we've addressed the issue of the building in the urban fabric, our capacity to encroach less on the light well of the adjacent building, and hopefully the public feels that they can readily access the POPOS and have a dedicated public space. Happy to answer any questions the commission has.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you. That concludes, project sponsors presentation. I will suggest that if any members of the public, in the North Light Court wish to make public comment to make their way to the chambers and notify the sheriffs that you're here to make public comment on the current item. Otherwise, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. Please come forward, line up on the screen side of the room or to your right.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: You'll each have one minute.

[Anna Shimko, Attorney (for Chancery Building)]: One minute?

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: One minute.

[Anna Shimko, Attorney (for Chancery Building)]: I'm Anna Shimko representing the chancery next door. We believe it's important for the city and the commission to respect the historic building and keep the historic building operating. This project will not do that because of the light well in particular. We ask that the developer invest some additional creativity and time into figuring out a solution to that, such as how really structurally to swap the stairs and the elevator. In addition, there are numerous findings, including the priority policies with respect to historic buildings and conditional use that cannot be made as to the general welfare of people in the vicinity and not being injurious to property or improvements, you have the opportunity to deny or condition the project to make these issues go away. For instance, finding a way not to block the light well, to add green walls, diffuse lighting, etcetera. And our noise consultant will explain why the neg deck needs to be opened up.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you.

[Brian Flynn, Attorney (Lozar Drury) for 44 Montgomery]: Good afternoon. My name is Brian Flynn. I'm an attorney with the law firm Lozar Drury here representing 44 Montgomery in opposition to the project. When you consider this project

[Speaker 27.0]: yeah.

[Brian Flynn, Attorney (Lozar Drury) for 44 Montgomery]: Thank you. When you considered this project back in May, your main concerns were clear. Mismatched light wells, the hotel room window distance to neighboring offices, the location functionality of the POPOS. Now we're back here four months later and the same exact project for May is being put back in front of you. The POPOS are the same. The light wells are still mismatched. It still practically abuts the neighboring offices and the only difference is the applicant's claiming that any changes are infeasible. But in other words, that just means that this project as proposed doesn't work, and there's no reason to shoehorn this project into the site. The requested conditional use permit requires a finding that it's desirable as proposed. Nothing has changed since May, and as a result, the commission's decision should be the same. Either continue it and give them another chance to redesign, or if it can't be redesigned as the applicant claims, the commission should just go ahead this afternoon and deny it. Thank you.

[Rudy Gonzalez, Executive Director, SF Building & Construction Trades Council]: Good afternoon, commissioners and staff. Again, Rudy Gonzalez with the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. I represent approximately 7,400 blue collar workers in the city, of which about 700 across our crafts are out of work. And that includes CityBuild graduates, that includes pre apprenticeship graduates across our trades who have been out of work due to the hollowing out of the downtown core. This project represents an opportunity to kick start our economic development, but it also provides an opportunity to bring about economic recovery for the actual blue collar workers in the city. I have limited time, but I just wanna urge you not to try to treat this developer in a way that discourages them from bringing this project forward. It is a really good and well designed and well thought out project. It won't appease everybody's interest. But in terms of the conditional use authorization and the variance, this is the right place for this project. It is zoned appropriately, and the project will be delivered in the coming years. So please, support the project.

[Ty Hudson, UNITE HERE Local 2]: Good afternoon, commissioners and staff. I'm Ty Hudson with Unite Here Local two here to speak in support of the project. As a union representing hotel workers, we are always concerned with whether new jobs created in this industry will will serve to lift up the community by providing good wages and working conditions for the hardworking people, who work in our city's hotels. Hotel developers have historically supported the creation of good quality jobs by agreeing to remain neutral and present no encumbrances to efforts by their employees to form a union. These agreements ensure that jobs created are good quality jobs, and as such, they set a standard that we believe should be followed by all hotel developers. That we believe should be followed by all hotel developers. This this project is is such a project, and we support it for its guarantees of good quality jobs in this critical industry for San Francisco, and we we urge you to grant all the necessary approvals. Thank you.

[Mauricio Chavez, NorCal Carpenters Local 22]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Mauricio Chavez. I'm an organizer for Carpenters Local twenty two here in San Francisco. We represent approximately 4,000 carpenters across this county. The proposed development at 570 Market has the potential to create severely needed union construction jobs that pay area standard wages and benefits, as well as providing opportunities to local apprentices to include women and minorities to begin or continue their career in the construction industry. As we continue to emerge from the global pandemic and significant downturn in the economy, construction is the second largest industry in the world behind health care. It is important that we support projects like 570 Market Street because they exist as examples of how development can support labor during construction and operation. NorCal Carpenters Local twenty two is excited and honored to take part in San Francisco's economic recovery, and we strongly encourage you to, advance this proposal. Thank you.

[Lisa Knowles, Wilson Ihrig (Acoustics/Noise Consultant)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Lisa Knowles. I work for Wilson Eric. We're acoustics, noise, and vibration consultants. I am here on behalf of the Chancellery Building. The negative declaration, for from the CEQA report, we feel is an error. We have done some analysis to show that there would be an impact during construction on the louder into the there would be an impact to the the occupants of the Chancellery Building during construction from a noise basis. It would provide an environment that would not be conducive or or healthy for a from a noise standpoint for the occupants of the Chancellery Building during construction at practices unless there are noise mitigation measures implemented during the construction process.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Again, if you're in the North Light Court, please come to the chambers as soon as possible. We'll be closing public comment. Final last call. Public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner vice president Moore.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: I was gonna jump right in. I expressed my interest in the building. I think it is a fun building, and I think it would not be inappropriate to see it in its location. However there's a however. I went to visit the Chancellor Building on Tuesday just to do justice for me to see the other side. The Chancellor Building is an extremely well maintained historic building with lovely, lovely office space. I'd love to have an office in there. It's occupied by architects, by small interior design firms, I assume graphic designers, people in tech. It's a young building, a historically old building, but a young building. And it's fun to be in there. The office spaces I saw on different floors are innovative, and people are having a good time, although they don't have the greatest views. They're looking against the facades and light bulbs of older buildings. They have sufficient light to have a good workspace. And in reality, when we see that this new building, as fun as it is, is starting to really take that away, I appreciate what the architect has examined and tried to do, but I personally do expect a little extra tweaking on maintaining some resemblance of the light well in order to not completely make the office spaces that are fully occupied in downtown and have been throughout COVID become less valuable. So I feel sitting between two chairs and two responsibilities. We are to maintain downtown office occupied buildings. That is our primary responsibility for an active downtown. And I'm not going to say I can feed Peter and steal from Paul. So I leave it up to other commissioners to comment on it. If we could do a little bit more work around the, opening up, the light well, as you are showing in one of your drawings, we were dealing with a five foot two overlap of, elevator core and light well. I would appreciate that extra work, and you have my support, but I need to see a little bit more. And I do believe, as we are encroaching, no matter what, that a green wall would greatly help to bring some more positive energy into the working environment in the channel rebuilding, which will definitely be changed. Those are my comments. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: So I believe the developer has made a commitment that they're gonna build this union. My employers, the NorCal Carpenters Union, while my day to day work is wages, benefits, working conditions for blue collar workers throughout the city and county of San Francisco. I do not select a general contractor, and the fact that this developer has made a commitment to build this union is a testament to the to the project itself. Plus, in San Francisco, something of this size and magnitude can only be built by a union general contractor. I don't believe I have a conflict of interest in in this, decision today, but the fact that it was put out there, that there is, there is, basically support from my employer, I'd like

[Speaker 10.0]: to mention that. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Thank you. Could someone from planning remind me what the mitigations were for the Chancellery Building? It's been a while, and I'd like to kind of go over and refresh

[Speaker 32.0]: Say it.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Refresh myself with the with the mitigations and and and the impacts. Is there anyone to give a summary of that?

[Jonathan Vemmer, Planner (SF Planning)]: I think the project sponsor might be the best one that I did not work on the environmental review on the current planner and seek was just not up for consideration today. And so it wasn't staffed by environmental review Okay. Staff. But Melinda may have a little bit of a curse. Yeah. We don't have the MMRP in front of us because the appeal was already denied.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Yeah. So yeah. No. I'd like I'd like for you, if you could, could if you could speak to it a little bit. The only reason I mentioned it is because I remember last during the last hearing, there were some concerns about the air quality and things of that nature. And so I just wanna kinda see if you could refresh the commission.

[Speaker 33.0]: Yeah, absolutely. I brought a copy of the MMRP from the negative deck with me. So if you'd like it, I can submit it, to look at. But we have mitigation measures for archaeological testing, tribal cultural resources during excavation, fixed mechanical equipment noise, so construction equipment noise to minimize the extent you can during construction, protection and vibration monitors for existing building, which are sort of heightened standards for this site because we are next to an historic building, and also, clean off road construction equipment to reduce air quality emissions that could impact adjacent properties.

[Speaker 34.0]: Okay.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Can I have somebody from the the Trans Transitory Building come up here and, I'd like to hear from their point of view if if the, the error mitigations, to to the building, during construction? Is that still an issue and

[Speaker 2.0]: speak speak to that?

[Anna Shimko, Attorney (for Chancery Building)]: It is an issue. As to air emissions and dust, we believe that there needs to be at minimum more frequent monitoring and reporting in order to have real time monitoring so that you can have real time response as opposed to the MMRP that requires, say, monthly reports because that's simply not going to assist our tenants.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: And and so what what time frame would you would think be appropriate for for for report backs and

[Anna Shimko, Attorney (for Chancery Building)]: It is possible to have real time monitors for dust, for noise Mhmm. And to make sure that somebody similar to archaeology, if you're concerned about that, you have a monitor there at all times. You can have active monitoring going on such that if certain levels are reached, actions are taken then and there. So continuous is what we would request.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: So continuous air monitoring? Yes. Thank you.

[Speaker 32.0]: Thank

[Speaker 35.0]: you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Following on Commissioner Williams' questions and the responses, I have a question to the project sponsor team about I understand the reporting is monthly, but how frequent is the air monitoring that was just being referenced? Is is that process continue? I imagine you wouldn't just monitor the air once, and that's the monthly report. But I don't know. What's the

[Speaker 33.0]: Yeah. For I believe and, again, I have to review the condition because this was a CEQA, item question. I didn't, look at it in detail before the hearing today. But usually, there is some sort of routine interim monitoring that goes on for vibration in the air quality and then reporting. I don't know what the duration is of those. But the project is also required to use the least emitting forms of construction equipment and prevent vehicles from idling and things along those lines, if that's all

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you for that. And and we did take action on the environmental report previously. So I'm not trying to reopen and kind of do that all over again. My my other question here is about the compatibility of the light well with the project. And so I I appreciate all the work that went into this detailed description of the challenges in shifting the the core the elevator core a little bit to make that work. I guess my I have a sort of design question about the building in terms of we're gonna have the chancery buildings windows facing they have this light well, and then you're gonna have your hotel buildings windows facing them. And, what's what's the current sort of plan as far as the amount of of windows that are looking kind of directly at each other? And I ask this partly because that could affect the amount of light that ultimately is getting to the light well of the chance rebuilding as well.

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: Yeah. Can we pull up the rendering if that's okay?

[Speaker 36.0]: Just to

[Speaker 37.0]: refer to it?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Wonderful. That's fine. Sure.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: SFGov, can we go to the computer, please?

[Speaker 32.0]: Yeah.

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: I mean, first and foremost, the the distances are the code mandated distances. Right? So everything that you're seeing is as of right as per code. So the standard light and air requirements is what's being provided. So can we go to the where we zoom into that rendering perhaps? But so

[Speaker 38.0]: yeah. We've got a better view, I think.

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: Yeah. That's good. If we can zoom in, great. If not so the the I'm gonna I'm gonna walk away and just point for a second if that's alright.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Oh, I'm sorry. Actually, if you're not speaking to the microphone, folks watching can't hear you.

[Speaker 20.0]: Yeah.

[Speaker 32.0]: Mhmm.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: That's okay. It's it's a space adjacent to, like, one

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: Understood. So, yeah. So the so the hotel rooms that you see with the sort of zigzag facade are the ones that are looking directly into the Chancery Building. The the distance there is the same requirements as you would if you're looking out on Market Street or Sutter Street to an adjacent building, in other words. So you have your lot required distances. I think it's 30 feet.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Well, no. That that's six feet. That's that's

[Lydia So, Commission President]: the Can you speak to the microphone when you speak

[Speaker 2.0]: just for that?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you.

[Jason (Project Architect, 570 Market Street Team)]: Right now, there's a six foot more than six foot distance from that facade to the adjacent Chancery Building. The chancery windows are incremental. There's only x number per that portion. I think that there's two that would be looking out towards the shortest distance to the windows of the hotel. And then the hotel room facade actually is angled with the windows also being angled in that manner. So it's not that you're going to have a window directly across from you that you'd be looking directly into, but instead always looking at an angle in regards to any adjacency there. And in terms of the actual locations, I'm pretty sure we'd have to study this in detail, but right now there's not like a window directly across that would be

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: Yeah. If you look at the actually, if we jump to the elevation page, what we've also done, you'll notice, is that the windows are kind of hopscotching and they're staggered. So the idea is that they're avoiding that sort of condition of the Hitchcock rear window situation.

[Speaker 32.0]: Okay.

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: Yeah. So if you look kind of at at the central elevation there, the kind of darkened lines there are the ones that are you know, that's perfect if you state the elevation page. Yeah. Here. So that so that the the sort of the ones that are doing this, this sort of folding zigzagging is what Jason's referring to. The idea being that at a minimum number one, you don't have this condition. Right? You don't have perpendicular glass looking at. It's an angled glass. Now that doesn't change everything, but it's a gesture, right, to stop that rear window condition. And then to Jason's point, it's further exacerbated, or I should say it's further helped by the fact that we hopscotch the window. So you don't have a window to window condition.

[Speaker 32.0]: Okay. Thank

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: you for that. I appreciate that. I you know, in looking at this, I think after seeing the analysis, I can support the project except I would want to include a requirement that the the facade of the building that faces the light well be painted in a I don't usually like getting into paint in these level of design details, but in order to provide more light for the that light well, I would request that that be painted a light color, white or light color. And, yeah, I'll leave it at that for now. I know there's another commissioner comment or questions. I don't wanna make a motion just yet, but that's that would be my my one change or requirement on this. That's accommodatable.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Alright. Thank you. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: One quick question before I go to my comments is, a question around item 13 a where in our brief, it says, there's a requirement for interior lot setbacks under section one three two one, for off street freight loading spaces under section one five two point one and one six one, and for off street tour bus loading spaces under section one six two. Could you just walk us through those?

[Speaker 41.0]: I'm sorry.

[Speaker 20.0]: Could you

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: I I couldn't hear you.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: I know. It's so loud

[Speaker 42.0]: in here.

[Speaker 32.0]: I'm sorry.

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: It's very loud. Yeah.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: In in our briefing, it it reads, request for downtown large project authorization pursuant to planning code sections oh my god. Three zero nine with exception from requirements for interior lot setbacks under section one three two one, for off street freight loading spaces under section one five two one and one six one, and for off street tour bus loading spaces under section one six two to allow the construction of a 29 story approximately blah blah blah. Could you walk us through those?

[Jonathan Vemmer, Planner (SF Planning)]: Certainly. At least at least a little bit. So, yeah, so the I think the most notable here is the tower setback, interior allies. So basically, section 132.1 stipulates that once you get above a certain height, there is a mandatory like, under the base code, mandatory setback from your interior property lines with adjoining sites. Section three zero nine, understanding the specifics of downtown lots and their variability, especially one like this where it's exceptionally narrow for a downtown site. Section three zero nine says you can get an exception that from that provision provided you meet certain findings. One thirty two point one is saying you can get out of the hard limitations of that setback if it's found that overall, so on balance, kind of access to light and air is not impaired, and that the granting of that exception will not result in a group of buildings, the total street frontage of which is greater than 125 feet without a separation between buildings that meets the requirements of chart a. This block has various setbacks that meet the requirements of chart a. So on balance, we think that there's enough relief between the new tower and the adjacent buildings that it does meet that exception. The other ones are just simply they're you have to have certain, you know, curb colors for loading spaces. There's a tourist bus one and there's another one. But to meet those, again, given the nature of the lot and that they can't go subterranean because it's above the BART Tunnel, it would pinch in they would have to create a space within their already narrow site to accommodate that, and suddenly the whole program doesn't work. They simply can't accommodate it. And those are like those are just there's no specific findings around those. They're just saying through three zero nine, you can get exceptions from those loading requirements.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: That's helpful. Thank you so much. Alright. Okay. So I'm in full support of this project. You know, this is in the heart of downtown. This is our primary commercial corridor. This is where we welcome tourists, visitors. This is how we can accommodate conferences. If there's a business model here that's gonna make this hotel survive, then I think it's irresponsible to turn down this project, if it's got economic livelihood. It's a completely code compliant project. It creates harmony with the context. I know there's sensitivity around the adjacent buildings. Construction's messy. There's some some structural concerns. That is up to DBI, in my opinion, when it goes on to go we go get our our building permits. I don't feel like that's our purview, really. So I appreciate I know I remember when you were here in May. I appreciate all of the hard work you put into demonstrating the constraints. This is a tricky site, and you're trying to pack in a lot here. So thank you for doing those studies. I think the POPOS is a very nice gift to the city, and I would make a motion to approve with conditions on, I think, the two items we can because the third is a variance, and that's that's you, right, Corey? Okay. So on the two.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, Commission Campbell. I do wanted to state that, thank you for coming back, and thank you for spending the time to actually investigate all the different scenario. Really appreciate your responsiveness on looking really try to flip the core around, really try to enabling, minimizing blocking the light veil. But it is actually looking at your really tall building, 300 feet, swinging it like that, it is causing quite a bit of structural re what do you call it? Like a seismic up not even upgrade. Like, really a huge add to the burden of the team and design. So but I do, however, understand and appreciate your investigation. So I I do wanted to ask you a question when commissioner Braun mentioned about these fenestrations that you are proposing to do, fenestrations like window openings, specifically to the light well area. When you mentioned when you're hopscotching, what does that really mean?

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: Yeah. I just meant that if you if you look at the elevation, contrary to conventional hotels where every window is the same on every floor, so it's like a series of pancakes stacked. In our building, the windows switch every single floor. So that's the hopscotching I was referring to. I apologize. But that is partially to produce some texture and some aesthetic dynamism, but it's also to quite literally avoid that condition of looking into windows adjacent.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: So in other project where there is really close light well to the neighboring building, some designer actually show, like, overlapping images of these openings of the window from the neighbor, superimposed it to your proposal. I'm not asking you to do that again. I'm sure you have done it already. So, you're it's safe to say that, you hopscotching the pattern so these windows are not actually directly seeing your neighbor's existing window.

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: Yeah. Yes. I would say to to the extent that we can do so without, like, customizing every hotel because the hotel rooms are still the same hotel room stacked up on every single floor. But within the confines of the demising walls of hotel room to hotel room, we've tried to be sensitive to locate the windows to avoid the condition that was described.

[Speaker 15.0]: So you

[Lydia So, Commission President]: try the best you can.

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: That's correct.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: And also notice as in just I'm looking at just your renderings. Right? Your renderings actually showing that the window is actually not flat with the exterior wall. Your window is at an angle Correct. Meaning that your view from the guest room aren't actually, like, right in front of somebody's desk.

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: That's exactly right. And I would say, look, anyone can say, like, if I take a piece of glass and angle it, you can still look out straight. Obviously, it's glass. But the point is from reflectivity, from orientation, kind of the idea is it minimizes the relationship in that proximity to the extent that we can. That's correct.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Good. Thank you. I just wanna make sure that

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: we are

[Lydia So, Commission President]: on the record with this and appreciate your effort.

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: I appreciate the question. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: And I will bring it back to commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Yes. I actually have a question for department staff. And so I am wondering, I would like to try to include this requirement that at least the portion of the building that is at or below the level of the chance free building facing it has a light colored facade at minimum. I would encourage them to do a living wall, but that's very expensive. So I don't know if I wanna go there. But I don't I don't wanna preclude the opportunity to do a living wall. So, you know, I'd I'd like to find a way to still make that a possibility even without requiring it. Either way, I'm wondering, am I getting on over my skis here? Or is there, you know, latitude to make this a condition of our

[Speaker 32.0]: effort?

[Jonathan Vemmer, Planner (SF Planning)]: I Jonathan, our department staff, I believe it's perfectly fine. I don't think it ever skis at all. And I think at least when it comes to the paint color, that's pretty straightforward. I think crafting language around investigating feasibility of living living walls a little more complicated, but not impossible. I think for the paint color, if you wanted to specify light traditional color, even going into something like buff or or stark white, I think specifying that is perfectly fine. I don't believe that the paint color in that light well is a huge issue. It's kind of not visible from street. If you are truly interested in a condition around a living wall, I think it could be something around investigate feasibility from a financial and programmatic perspective and defer to department staff. I'm I'm that that's a little more boutique of a custom condition. So I'm curious for Liz or the sponsor to speak on that one maybe.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Yes. Please go ahead. I mean, I I don't wanna I'm not I'm not just mandating that. I just I don't wanna preclude the opportunity by saying an s p l like colored wall. That's all.

[Speaker 43.0]: Can can I respond to that comment if you don't mind?

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: I think absolutely the idea of having a brighter material in that space can be accommodated and work within the aesthetic logic of the building. No questions asked. I do wanna say the living wall issue is one where you're going to have the living wall not living because of the actual sunlight in there. And the scaffolding, the manpower, the replacement, the maintenance will make it a horrendous condition.

[Speaker 32.0]: So I

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: just wanna say I don't think it serves the purpose the commission is trying to support. And therefore, I think bringing light in through a color change is a really effective pathway and we'd love to support that.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you very much. I know that, commissioner Campbell, you made a motion and and I don't think it was seconded. But I'd be happy to second it if you include the, requirement around, the portion of the building facing the Chancery Building being painted in a light, traditional color.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Paint or whatever the it's integrated into the yeah.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: It's a

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: light color.

[Speaker 44.0]: Color facade.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Yes. I'll add that to my motion.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Second.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. And great. And then we have Commissioner Williams, and then Vice President Moore, and Commissioner Campbell, you wanna speak again?

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: I'm gonna ask you

[Lydia So, Commission President]: a question. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Yes, I'd like to make a friendly amendment just to add the continuous air quality for the Chancellery Building as construction, during construction. And so just wanna.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: And Jonathan, you might wanna On

[Jonathan Vemmer, Planner (SF Planning)]: that, I do. I think I hopefully have a helpful note. I'm getting some messages from our EP staff. And so they are saying sorry. This is all happening live. Any additional air monitoring can be added to the conditions of approval since we didn't find an impact in the MND. And we can't reopen the CEQA document for review as it's already gone through the appeal, but you can add additional air monitoring as a condition of approval.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank

[Lydia So, Commission President]: you. And, commissioner vice president Moore?

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: I'd like to take another tack at materiality and color of the light well. For those who in the room who were present when we were having the fight between the W Hotel and the expansion of the modern Museum of Modern Art with Snyder being the architect, there was a long discussion about exactly what we're having here. And they actually had a wonderful creative they had a wonderful creative discussion by also talking about texture and potentially light effect on that wall, which added indeed something which made the light felt Lightwell become an architectural element, which really understood the impact on neighboring hotel or whatever it is. And if you would expand that discussion or thought about it into that level of evaluation, I would greatly appreciate that. Perhaps even listen to the then discussion way back when when that discussion was held in this room.

[Speaker 43.0]: May I respond to that

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: now, or are you asking for a study?

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: You can respond just to what

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: I'm saying. Maybe if you could bring the rendering back up. I I I think if we're talking about the experience of someone looking across from an office building to a light well, I would say the least compelling condition would be a flat wall with a window looking directly into your space with a metal panel or a cheaply painted or a stucco facade, right, that would absorb the light. Prior to any discussion about the light well condition, the design of the building took into account that condition and generated a series of architectural moves. The first of which I talked about, which is the zig zag wall. The idea being you're not looking at a flat wall, you're looking at an angled wall, which will, over the course of the day as the sun moves, generate reflective lights in a more dynamic way than would a flat wall, number one. Number two, as Jason pointed out, the windows are also angled. Thereby, you don't have that rear window condition. And lastly, I would say, although I hear the note about a brighter finish color, I would say the cementitious panels that are proposed are reflective and glazed and and and will produce because they are at angle and they are not pancaked up, I e continuous floor to floor, you're gonna have that kind of checkerboarding hopscotch condition where you'll have dynamism of reflected light that will be different throughout the day, throughout the seasons, and so forth. So I would just say intrinsic to the logic of the building where every facade was considered relative to its context, I would say baked into the design as you have it right now, there is a dynamic, thoughtful, neighborly relationship to those across from the light well, within reason, understanding that there's still repetitive hotel rooms that have a certain kind of, homogeneity to them.

[Speaker 32.0]: Yeah. I

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: think you have the sensitivity. Have you been in the adjoining building doing working hours and see who's in the building and what the spaces are like? You're an architect. You probably love the space. I suggest you go in there and just have another creative look and see if what you're saying to me, which I think is a great explanation of how to do things, indeed resonates with you when you are in that space. That's Yeah.

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: I'm I'm happy we've been we've been that great the site in the building. We have not been in the in the transfer Building.

[Speaker 32.0]: Happy to do so.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: I would suggest that you do go into your colleague architect's office just to see what it's like. Yeah. Absolutely. Imagine what if you would be sitting there working

[Speaker 45.0]: at one

[Speaker 46.0]: last call.

[Speaker 32.0]: Be be

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: thrilled to do that. Absolutely.

[Speaker 47.0]: Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Well, San Francisco welcome another hotel, bringing more businesses and economic resiliency and generate more tourists. So, I think we're ready to vote. Right? Okay.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: There is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions as amended to include that the portion facing the chancellery building material be of a light color.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: On that motion, commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Sorry.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Sorry, Jonas. But what what about the so is the the amendment that I is that already included?

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: It is not included. I did not hear the maker of the motion accept the amendment or the seconder.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Okay. I just I wanted clarity. So you you didn't accept the amendment. Okay.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. On that motion, commissioner Williams?

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Zoning administrator would say you.

[Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator]: I will close the public hearing for the height modification and grant with the standard conditions.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you. Okay. Members, excuse me. Okay. Planning commissioners, we are now on, our main event, items 14 a, b, and c for case numbers twenty twenty one hyphen zero zero five eight seven eight GPA, MAP and PCA. I'm gonna give the folks that were here for May market an opportunity to leave, and members of the public to line up.

[Speaker 49.0]: I know. Yeah. We'll always have

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Members of the public, we are still in the middle of the hearing. If you could be so kind as to refrain from speaking. Members of the public, if you could refrain from speaking. We're still in the middle of a hearing.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: People can't see the screen but so whatever.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Members of the public, as soon as you calm down and stop talking, we will proceed. Okay? And just FYI, staff has a very long presentation. You might be standing for about a half an hour. Okay. I missed 14 a, b, and c, commissioners, for case numbers twenty nineteen excuse me, twenty twenty one hyphen zero zero five eight seven eight GPA, MAP, and PCA for the family zoning plan, general plan amendments, zoning map amendments, and planning code amendments.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: Excellent. Good afternoon. Thank you all for being here. Thank you so much. We're really excited, commissioners, to bring before you the family zoning plan for consideration. You know, over the last two and a half years, we've had many hearings, some in this chamber, some with other commissions, but in total 17 public hearings that have been informational to inform us and to help us, get guidance and your feedback and others' feedback and input on the plan. We're very, very excited to present it for you today. We're gonna start out with a little bit of procedural insight from Austin Yang, who's also been along with Audrey Pearson, one of our chief city attorneys working with us, so we're really glad to have him here today. We're We're then actually gonna have supervisors Melgar and Chan to present some additional thoughts and amendments and suggestions that they have. We also are joined by aids from President Rafael Mandolin's office and supervisor Steven Sherrill's office. So we'll have all that, and then we'll turn it over to Lisa Chen, our principal planner and project manager for the family zoning plan, to get the staff presentation. We know there's a lot of information, that will be has been exchanged and will continue to be exchanged today, so we're excited, for your wisdom and guidance and, eventually, your decision, today. And then also grateful for the members of the public who are gonna be here as well. We do wanna remind members of the public that everybody is here to give their input. We wanna be able to hear from everyone, so just be be mindful and respectful of everyone who's here. And then also, we have a lot of folks who need to come into the room in order to give their comment, and we're grateful for the sheriff who's gonna help make sure we can monitor that in a safe manner. With that, I'll turn it over to, deputy city attorney Austin Yang, and then over to the supervisors.

[Austin Yang, Deputy City Attorney]: Okay. Thank you, Rachel. So, commissioners, deputy city attorney Austin Yang, I've been asked to provide a little bit of guidance about the legal context of the proposals before you today. As you all know, under state law, the city has to rezone to accommodate additional capacity required under the housing element. That rezoning effort has to be done by 01/31/2026, and the rezoning is comprised of three actions today. You have planning code amendments, zoning map amendments, and an amendment to the general plan. Under the charter, the commission must consider all amendments to the planning code, and the planning code requires the commission to act or to make a recommendation on each proposal within ninety days. If the commission fails to make a recommendation, either because the ninety day deadline expires or because there is not agreement, the proposal is deemed disapproved. And under the charter, the board can still adopt a disapproved amendment by a majority vote. Also under the charter, only the commission can initiate a general plan amendment, which it did on July 17. Following the discussion today, the department will forward the commission's recommendations to the board. And lastly, I wanted to provide some context based on the scope of the actions before you. Because the proposed changes will affect so many parcels throughout the city and make a significant and will impact a significant segment of residents and property owners, California's ethics laws allow all commissioners and city staff to participate in the legislative process no matter where they rent or own property. As always, our office is available to help explain the legal framework for these decisions. I'm here to answer questions. Thank you.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: Thank you, Sudeshwani Yang. And then we have, again, both supervisor Melgar and Chan here. We're so grateful for your presence today. I don't know if supervisor Chan, you wanna go first, and then supervisor Melgar, we know they have to leave quickly after, so they may not hear all of your comments, but I know they will be listening.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (District 1)]: Thank you, commission president So and, commissioners. Thank you so much for having me here today. I think we have submitted a letter to you earlier of this week. And to just be considerate of everyone that's here to make public comments, I want to be sure that I am precise. And therefore, I'm going to read parts of the letters. And just in case you have any questions, I'm also here to answer. But I want to make sure that I'm reading this and that you can also follow as well. Commissioners, I think we can all agree that we need more new housing to accommodate San Franciscans now and into our future, specifically housing that is affordable to our workers, families, artists, seniors, and students. We know we can build housing while simultaneously stabilizing existing communities and protecting our small business. This is why the board of supervisors, which I was part of in voting and continuously, unanimously adopted a state approved housing element with over three fifty implementation actions developed primarily through this very planning commission with the focus on affordability, tenant stabilizations, and equity. Now I do wanna say, you know, we've been having conversations. I've been having conversation during the summer. Many have asked me what I've been doing this summer. I've been studying and learning quite a bit just from the legislation itself that is before you today, as well as just talking to many different stakeholders. And so the letter before you today is not quite just from me and my team, but really from something that I have learned over the summer as well as from many stakeholders and their feedback. Today though, I am asking you to look at this letter. I really hope that by by you opining all elements within this letter, We'll open the opportunity for us, myself and my colleagues, and with the mayor and his team that we can have conversation about these topics specifically. I am not here to say you must be opining specific of what we're proposing. You are not I'm not asking for you to say you're agreeing or disagreeing. So of course, you're welcome to, but I do hope that you will pick all these topics and opine on them specifically. That will then allow us to be abiding by the timeline that we can actually have these conversation and specific potential amendments should we be able to come into agreement without coming back to you again and potentially delaying the approval process. If I may, I just wanna make sure that for the sake of the public too, in case they do not have the copy of the letter in front of them, I'm just going to quickly go over the topic, just for the public record. And of course, the first one is to talk about affordable house affordable family housing, and this is really about, potentially pretend percentage of two to three bedrooms, for all these units that we can be in discussion, particularly about our housing choice program and what that could look like. Of course, a meaningful tenant's protection. I know that my colleague, supervisor, Shayan Chen, has legislation that will also come before you about tenants protection. But what I really would love for you to address and to really opine on during this discussion is also about the prohibition of the demolition for rent control units and potentially further restricting the demolition of residential flats. That is also before you in discussion. That is the residential flats demolition policy, of course, involving conditional use authorization with or without. Really important, this is a part where priority equity geographies that was really before you and, of course, the board supervisor has adopted. What we have noticed though with the commitment that we say that there is a particular set standard that we will want to see when it comes to development for the priority equity geographies. It seems to us though as we are learning about this proposed plan that there seem to be overlapping with the well resourced areas and the priority equity geographies is now included into that very plan. What we ask you is to carve them out and that lets that discussion to stand alone as approved for the priority equity geographies. And of course, small business support, and this is a wide range and but it's, again, legacy business, neighborhood anchoring business. Those are actually small business that are thirty to fifteen years, been around for a while. But I also ask that you consider small business of of all any years, especially the new ones that they actually have invested in our city during the pandemic, and they're here. And I really hope that you will consider, protection for them, not just about relocation, which this plan kinda address, but I wanna flag for you that as currently in this plan, that even for legacy relocation, there is no impact fee required as proposed in here. So I I hope that you can consider that. And of course, historic preservation, I'm gonna combine that with the utilized San Francisco survey. I wanna say that I'm so glad to see the letter coming from before you, you know, from the historic preservation commission. Please do note page three of that letter that actually indicating all the recommendations that they have. They're asking very similar what we're proposing here, the completion of the San Francisco survey. And, you know, potentially really figure out how do we protect the existing historic buildings. And, of course, you know, having this continuing conversation about the adapt and reuse. How do we incentivize adapt and reuse program and that we can make this work, both protecting the characteristic of and the history of our city and neighborhoods, but also we can continue to build housing. And this is a part that I think after conversation with city attorney, we wanna really make sure that we be clear about this piece of affordable housing special use district. You can see that here we're actually talking about both public land and private land that providing a a different kinds of local density bonus and incentive. If they are building affordable housing on public land or land that is 8,000 square feet or larger, and that's also inclusive of anyone's that and that is a merger lot. I am not here to speak on behalf of labor and including trades, but I am here to speak in support of them. And this is the part where I do hope that there is a consideration of prevailing wage and labor standards, which currently is not clear, particularly in the local density bonus program. There may be some standard that is coming with the state density bonus, but it's prevailing wage. I think we can do better on the local program, and I certainly urge you to do so. And, of course, there is the Nexus study and the infrastructure capacity. This is truly the one that I really urge you to consider, and I think you know better than I do that why we need it. Westside has never really been, quote, unquote, developed. It is time for us to learn more about what that impact is. And I I say I say Westside, but technically will be the well resourced areas. And how do we do this in a way that is thoughtful, both understanding the infrastructure that we actually need? And I am not saying that this is just about impact fees. I'm saying that for the consideration of what does the city have to do, meeting its financial reality, like, be it for bond dollars, be it for certificate of participation, and potentially utilizing our debt tools that can be provided by office of public finance under the controller's office. What else we could must do to build this infrastructure to accommodate future growth. Of course, the protections for our coast could because it is part of this plan that talks about a coast a local coastal program. I just ask for you to just, again, evaluate, opine, what we must do while, you know, protecting our environment, facing our coast, and coastal problems, what has to be done? Last but not least, in fact, in my opinion, very critical piece of this entire plan that I ask you to most definitely spend your time to opine upon. Because I do believe in conversation with my different colleagues that, this is one of a common concern. I am not saying that we're in agreement about how we address it, but I can tell you it's a common concern not only that I hear from my colleagues on the board supervisors, but also outside in the community, which is really the form based density and base height increase. It's not just about one, just about height increase. It's a combination of the form based density. Now I must say, I am not an expert, clearly not, of density and definition of it. But as I have learned, you know, in this proposal, the file of two five zero seven zero one, on your page one sixty five, that clearly has really redefined density. And by be it by form based, which means, as I learned, there is no limit of size of the units. And, of course, the density numeric also, again, redefining a number of units that can be built. I think that really changed the dynamics of what we're talking about today, what we typically understand, how many units per lot, you know, per understanding with the base height no longer is it's no longer clear to me and to many. Help us understand. Help us understand why this is being proposed and what that actually means for the residential transit oriented zones, particularly the residential transit oriented zones RTOC. Why RTOC? It's very critical, at least for me representing the West Side, representing the Richmond. It's really impactful for us, And you can see that from the zoning map, what that means for our neighborhood commercial corridors, Gary, Clement, and Balboa. And so with that, thank you so much for your consideration today. Please address, opine these topics. I look forward to learning more. I'm not gonna take more of your time. I know my colleagues, I wanna say, supervisor Malgar, who was a former commissioner here, as well as our land use chair and the chair of our county transportation authority certainly has way more expertise in this in this matter. Therefore, I want to say, you know, today I'm really speak on I'm speaking on behalf of the constituents and stakeholders that I have have conversation with over the summer and also previous time, and that these these are the things that I have learned from them and that I'm coming back to you and hope that you will consider for potential amendments and recommendations. But I also wanna acknowledge the mayor and his team and Ale Bondi here. You know, that I wanna say that I also look forward to working with mayor Lurie and to find ways and common grounds that we can make this plan better for every San Franciscan. So thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you.

[Sarah Dennis Phillips, Planning Director]: Do you wanna call

[Lydia So, Commission President]: supervisor Malgort, please?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (District 7)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I am here before you today in my capacity as one of three Westside Supervisors. Thank you. Supervisor Chan representing District 1. I'm representing District 7, as you know, also former president of this commission and currently chair the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the board where this item is headed. I am here to ask you to pass this item with recommendations for modifications today, paying special attention to the preservation of rent controlled housing, which has been one of the most effective stabilizing tools in our toolbox and one we are losing and not replacing every day. I am not a cosponsor to this item, but it is fair to say that I am the supervisor who has spent the most time and energy and most staff time on this effort as a supervisor and throughout my career. So I am looking forward to successful adoption of a rezoning plan that adds more housing, more rental housing, more affordable housing, and more access and opportunities on the West Side Of San Francisco, specifically, and more broadly to well resourced areas to the city. We must add more housing on the West Side. In District 7, seventy 5% of our housing units are in single family homeowner occupied structures. My family has lived in one of these for fifteen years. Our house has appreciated threefold in value since we bought it. And my daughters, who all grew up in that house and went to school in District 7, could not afford to live in the West Side today were it not for this house. Housing choices and opportunity for young people are very limited on one hand. And seniors who wanna downsize, whose kids have left and have no longer a need for three, four bedrooms in those single family homes have nowhere to go if they wanna stay in the neighborhoods where they have community, friends, people they love. Additionally, proposition 13, as we all know, gives a great economic incentive to stay put. I will not talk about the historical wrongs that would be corrected by rezoning. The staff will do that. But I want to talk about our tomorrow. I'm not gonna dwell how in January 1990 we began a process that rezoned the Eastern side of the city under the premise that we no longer used needed to use a manufacturing space. But that decision led San Francisco to concentrate all of its development, density, height, disruption to the Eastern neighborhoods while making a deal with Western and Northern neighborhoods to preserve their status quo. But what I am gonna concentrate on is the repercussions that will come fifteen, twenty years from now, stemming from the decisions that you make today because you're the planning commission. If we rezone the highly resourced areas in the future, we can expect more housing and that the population of the West Side and Northern neighborhoods will increase and include younger folks, more diversity, more politically progressive, more urbanist, and more car dependent and less car dependent. It will also provide opportunities for people to have better access to our factually better schools, more parks, better health outcomes. If we do not, our economy and our workforce will continue to grow while concentrating all population growth on the Eastern neighborhoods. Chinatown, Mission, Bayview, SoMa, or worse, miles and miles away from people's jobs. That would be the outcome. And I want you to think, who does this benefit and who does this harm? That being said, I have not yet signed on as a cosponsor to this legislation, because as a planner, I see the immediate challenges it poses. Number one, the potential demolition of rent controlled units. Number two, the potential displacement of small businesses through evictions and disruption because of construction. And number three, the obvious lack of dedicated funding for affordable housing development, which is one of the goals of the housing element that has quantifiable numbers that we have agreed to. We must meet, with any attached funding. Most of the things, in this little short list are not under your purview, and they're not even in the jurisdiction of your department. My colleague, district eleven supervisor Cheyenne Chen, and I have both introduced legislation tackling different aspects of of this list. They're not under your jurisdiction, and we remain committed to addressing these challenges. The one thing that I do ask of you that is under your jurisdiction is that is that you add modifications to this plan, that any demolition applications or new projects must meet a finding that is consistent with the housing element as approved, that the project does not result in the loss of rent controlled housing. This is something that we all agree on, and that is because s p three thirty provides a replacement of units, but it does not guarantee that they be rental units. They could be other units and not accessible to the people who are in those units today. So in conclusion, I ask for your approval of this legislation with modification in that you allow us and expect us as supervisors to legislate as we have been elected to do. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: And, commissioners, we're also joined by Melanie Mathewson from, president Rafael Mandelmann's, office, and she'll share a few words. And then we have Lorenza Rosas from, supervisor Cheryl's office.

[Melanie Mathewson (Office of Board President Rafael Mandelman)]: Thank you. Good morning, planning commissioners. I haven't met many of you before. My name is Melanie Mathewson, and I'm here on behalf of president Rafael Mandelmann. I wanna thank you for your service on this body and particularly for your work on the family zoning plan. Since taking office, president Mandelmann has been an advocate for building more housing, especially near transit. He has authored legislation to curb the growth of monster homes in favor of more units and greater density and allow the development of fourplexes and simplexes in every neighborhood in San Francisco. He has supported reducing or eliminating impact fees and advancing other incentives to encourage office to residential conversions and broader housing development. Looking forward, we need a real path toward meeting our state mandate of 82,000 housing units, but at the same time president Mandelmann has emphasized that while we clear a path for more housing, we must take steps to protect the historic resources that could be threatened in the process. In that regard president Mandelmann is grateful to planning director Sarah Dennis Phillips and her staff, in particular Rachel Tanner, Rich Sucre, and Melanie Bishop for their partnership over the last few months in considering ways to address this concern. He supports the proposed amendment to section two zero six, which would provide a square footage bonus and greater code flexibility for projects to preserve historic resources and comply with preservation design standards. He also believes that there's more work to be done before and after adoption of the family zoning plan to protect our historic resources. Although supportive of eliminating eliminating density controls, president Mandelmann also has concerns about opening our neighborhood commercial districts to state density bonus projects. These projects could result in the ministerial demolition of historic resources and the replacement with buildings that are out of scale, not just with the existing neighborhood commercial districts, but with the denser and taller development allowed by the family zoning plan. Although some merger of lots may be necessary and even desirable to produce the housing units we are hoping to get from this plan, it may make sense to consider reasonable limits on the aggregation of parcels in these districts to avoid large blocky buildings taking over entire blocks or significant portions of them. This is a pattern that is common downtown, but not appropriate for our neighborhood commercial districts. Finally, president Mandelmann believes we should be using every available tool to encourage developers to take advantage of the local plan in the families in the family zoning plan. Yesterday, the board's budget and finance committee forwarded to the full board a proposal to waive impact fees in the market Octavia plan area for pipeline projects. Supervisor Mandelmann is a cosponsor of that legislation. He also supports allowing such waivers for future projects in the market Octavia plan area as well, but only for projects that comply with the local plan under the family zoning plan. Supervisor Mandelmann is considering including such a fee waiver proposal in this family zoning legislation when it comes before the board. Our office looks forward to continue working with planning staff, this commission, mayor Lurie, and president Manelmann's colleagues on the board to pass a historic upzoning that meets San Francisco's legal obligations, encourages production of new housing the city desperately needs, and protects our historic city and cultural resources. Thank you.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: And if mister Osoz wants to share a few words on behalf of supervisor Cheryl, I think that will round out our presence of supervisors, which for this historic day is historic, I think. We thank you all for being here.

[Lorenzo Rosas (Legislative Aide, District 2 Supervisor’s Office)]: Good morning, commissioners, president So, director Phillips, Dennis Phillips, and director Tanner. My name is Lorenzo Rosas. I'm here on behalf of supervisor Cheryl. First and foremost, I want to echo many of the topics and concerns that supervisor Melgar and Mandelmann brought up, and that their modifications are part of the conversation you have at today's hearing. Equally as importantly, the supervisor and I appreciate director Tanner, Lisa Chen, and the planning department staff and team for the months and months, almost amount amounting to years of back and forth with the supervisor, the district two constituents, and me especially. These conversations have been instrumental to answering our questions, clarifying components of this program, and ensuring that the family zoning program is the best San Franciscan housing plan we can put forward that will also meet our state obligations. And to be clear, these conversations are ongoing. The supervisor and I look forward to more work to come. And to that end, I'm here to speak in support of a few key amendments recommended to be added to the plan by the planning department listed in today's briefing. In particular, supervisor Cheryl wants to be clear that he is in support of recommendation six, seven, eight, twelve, and 16, in addition to some other recommendations, but we wanted to be here to offer a full throated support. Six and seven touch on the bedroom mix incentives to make sure that our family zoning plan is indeed a family zoning plan creating bedroom unit mixes that will house our families for generations to come. Childcare incentive. As a young father, supervisor Cheryl understands how important it is to have more childcare opportunities in the Western side of the neighborhoods the Western

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: neighborhoods

[Lorenzo Rosas (Legislative Aide, District 2 Supervisor’s Office)]: Western neighborhoods. Excuse me. Supervisor Mandelmann through Mel just touched on the amendments, recommended in recommendation 12, which will help preserve our historic resources. And supervisor Cheryl and I also want to extend, that we look forward to the ongoing work following this plan, to look at District 2 landmarks in particular and our historic resources to make sure that we're supporting the SF survey as best as we can. I recommendation six is or 16, excuse me, is the early notification for commercial tenants. And I wanna say that having a conversation with director Tanner, a couple weeks ago with many different small businesses on the Union Street corridor, that was an extremely important provision for the District 2 merchants, and we wanna say we're very grateful that that is an amendment recommended by the planning department. Lastly, we are grateful for the work that supervisor Chen is spearheading alongside mayor Lurie and supervisor Melgaard too to codify local tenant protections in as part of this plan's adoption too. So thank you again for the opportunity to speak and offer our support for these key recommendations that will further the work to making a local program that will truly benefit our city for years to come. Thank you.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: Thank you. We're so happy everyone's here. And now to the president, I think we'll have, miss Ali Bondi just say a few words on behalf of the mayor, followed by Lisa Chen, who will give us our long awaited staff presentation. Thank you, Al.

[Ali Bondi, Deputy Chief of Staff to the Mayor]: Good afternoon, planning commissioners, chair So. I'm Ali Bondi. I'm the deputy chief of staff for the mayor's office. Thank you all and to everyone who came here today to discuss this important topic. I'm just here to listen and be supportive as the process continues. So thank you all

[Lydia So, Commission President]: very much. Thank you. Lisa?

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: Good afternoon. President Tsao, Vice President Moore, and Planning Commissioners. Sorry. I know there's a lot of noise in the background. I'm Lisa Chen, manager of the family zoning plan. Many members of our team are here today. Please wave your hands.

[Speaker 57.0]: Thank you.

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: And we're thrilled to be here as you consider adoption of the family zoning plan and associated legislation. If we could get the slides. Today's presentation will start with background on the family zoning plan and why we must adopt a rezoning plan that is compliant with state law. We'll then provide an overview of the draft legislation followed by department recommendations and policy considerations. Finally, we'll close with some informational resources and acknowledgments. The action before you today is to consider adoption of a package of legislation to enact mayor Daniel Lurie's family zoning plan in accordance with our housing element and state law. This includes adoption of general plan amendments, a map ordinance, and a planning business and tax regulations code ordinance. Collectively, the family zoning plan and our past six plus years of work on the housing element and rezoning have been about confronting change head on and taking decisive steps to address our housing affordability crisis. I was reminded of this at a recent meeting I attended with small business owners and neighborhood leaders in one of the commercial districts proposed for rezoning. It ended up being an incredibly heated and contentious debate, which went on for nearly two hours. It was maybe the hardest meeting I've had on this project, which is saying a lot. Afterwards, one of the attendees came up to me to thank me for being there and shared that amidst all the polarized dialogues, he finds himself in the middle. He said that he loves his neighborhood and doesn't want to see it change, but that he recognized that sometimes that you can love something to death. He then went on to talk about his family raising two kids in a home that's bursting at the seams and about how nearly every other family he speaks to is in the same boat, dreaming of that elusive second or third bedroom and wondering if we'll be able to stay in San Francisco. His story is like so many others that we've heard over the past six years from thousands of residents across all walks of life who tell us that our housing system is broken and that we need to start doing something differently. These stories also reflect the fact that our housing crisis has gotten steadily worse over the past twenty five years. I won't read out the facts on this slide, but we've shared many of them in past hearings, such as high rents, low vacancies, extreme demand for affordable units, and a persistent crisis of unsheltered individuals and people living with housing insecurity. Right now, there is a national housing shortage, but California and San Francisco have been especially hard hit, with the state estimating that we need roughly 2,500,000 housing units across California to meet our needs and make housing more affordable. San Francisco's fair share of that is 82,000 units shown here in blue. This is our regional housing needs allocation, or RHNA, which specifies the amount of housing the city is required to plan for. The green bars on the right show how we will get there. We can count a significant portion of our current pipeline, around 60,000 units in various stages of planning and construction. This leaves us with a gap of over 36,000 units that we need to plan for at all levels of affordability. While we will continue to see housing built throughout San Francisco, the family zoning plan is required to focus on the housing opportunity areas shown in blue, which represent over half our city land. In these areas, restrictive and exclusionary zoning rules that are fifty years old make it too hard to build apartment buildings, four and six plexes, and other housing types that can provide more affordable options to live in. Instead, we've concentrated 90% of new housing outside of these communities. It's clear that we have a moral obligation to plan for more housing in San Francisco, but we also have a legal obligation, one with dire consequences if we fail to take action. If we fail to adopt a rezoning plan that meets state requirements, we could lose control over local permitting, and the builder's remedy would kick in. This means the state would force us to approve all housing projects, no matter the height, as long as they meet basic safety standards. Just like this 440 foot Builders Remedy project proposed in Menlo Park that's under review right now, and it's six times taller than the zoned height limit. We would also become ineligible for hundreds of millions in state funding for transportation and affordable housing and could be subject to lawsuits, fines, and other penalties. These are real and credible threats. Cities like Palo Alto, Beverly Hills, Davis, Sonoma, and others are grappling with builder's remedy projects in their communities right now. This slide shows the ripple effects of losing our housing element certification. We've made a conservative estimate that San Francisco receives over $110,000,000 per year in state grants for affordable housing, transportation, and other vital infrastructure, including the funding sources listed here. One example is the $30,000,000 grant that the Kelsey Affordable Housing Project received, on Van Ness just a few blocks away, which provides an inclusive community for people with disabilities. To avoid these consequences and keep our local control, we must adopt a rezoning that meets state law. This means three things. First, we must zone to create realistic capacity to meet our deficit of 36,000 units. Second, we need to focus the rezoning in the housing opportunity areas. And third, we need to identify sites that are good candidates for low income housing and make them eligible for ministerial approval. With that scope in mind, we spent the last three years meeting with as many people as we can to discuss their hopes and concerns about adding new housing. Some of these meetings have been as small as a few neighbors gathered around somebody's living room. Others have been meetings hosted by neighborhood groups and merchants associations, and still others have been larger town halls and open houses hosted by the planning department, members of the board of supervisors, and others. We've also had 18 it's actually 18 public hearings at various city commissions and the board of supervisors. The map before you today reflects three eight years of iterative work, discussion, and compromise, working with the commission, board of supervisors, mayor's office, and members of the public. Although it has changed over time, it adheres to some common sense principles. First, our main priority is to meet state laws and avoid the biller's remedy. We are extremely relieved by the recent letter from HCD, which affirms that this proposal, if adopted in its current form, would satisfy state requirements. Second, the proposal maintains local control and accounts for the state density bonus by setting our base heights lower and creating the optional local program with incentives for projects to meet our height limits and design standards. It means projects will get more flexibility while we will get predictable development. Next, it puts taller buildings near transit and services, primarily mid rise buildings of six and eight stories but with some areas with taller heights. And finally, it allows for small apartment buildings everywhere, allowing property owners to easily build more units within their existing 40 foot height limit. This map shows the base height limits to underscore and provide clarity on how we are accounting for the state density bonus. On the corridors, projects have choices. They can either use the base height shown here and I know we sorry. We just lost the slide. But we do have the maps also in in the chambers for people as well. So they can either use the base height shown here and add the state density bonus, or they can just use the taller local program heights. In the residential districts off of the corridors, projects may not use the state density bonus. They can either build what's allowable under today's zoning, whether it's RH one or RH two or RM three, or they can use our local program to remove density limits and get form based zoning, meaning they can simply build more units within their allowable building envelope. These diagrams show the specific geographies of the plan. Most properties, nearly 80% of sites, are in these gentle density areas, meaning that they will not get height increases but can build more units in their 40 foot height limit under the local program. Again, state density bonus is not available for these projects. The commercial transition areas are very similar, but they get an additional one story or 10 feet through the local program. The next most common zoning change is the midrise corridors, which will allow six and eight stories. These are modest but meaningful changes. About 8% of properties in the plan will just get one or two stories above today's zoning, and another 8% get three or four stories. For the midrise corridors, projects can either choose our local program or state programs, though we do hope they will choose local program. Finally, just 7% of properties are planned for high rise development and will get five or more stories of additional height. These projects also get to choose either the local program or state programs. The next slide steps through the package of ordinances that are before you today as well as the department's recommended amendments. Again, today, you are considering the following actions in this order, adoption of the general plan amendments, adoption of a map ordinance, and adoption of a planning, business, and tax regulations ordinance. The first action is to adopt the general plan amendments that this commission initiated at the July 17 hearing. As noted at that hearing, the main purpose of these amendments is to modernize various general plan elements and area plans by removing outdated maps and updating language so that it supports more housing. In response to commissioner comments at that and other hearings, the department developed an analysis of the proposed changes in each area plan, which is included as exhibit five c in your packet. The zoning map ordinance establishes the overall structure for the family zoning plan. It amends our zoning map and our heightened bulk map to do the following. First, it reclassifies some parcels to various other districts to allow more housing, including mixed use NC and a new RTOC zoning district. It also renames the existing RTO districts to RTO 1, though this change is mostly for the sake of clarity, and most zoning provisions in that district will remain unchanged. The ordinance also creates height limits or changes height limits on about 20% of parcels, as I noted previously. It also creates a new r four height in bulk district. Parcels in this district will become eligible for the new local program, which is called the housing choice SF program, and they will receive both a base height and a local program height. The ordinance also adds various SFMTA parcels to a noncontiguous special use district, which will allow for future housing to be planned on SFMTA properties. Finally, it makes conforming amendments to the small number of properties in the local coastal program and directs the planning department to refer these changes to the California Coastal Commission for review after the rezoning is adopted. The third ordinance before you would amend the planning, business, and tax regulations code and would establish the main planning controls and processes that will shape new development. It sets rules for the new residential transit oriented commercial district or RTOC, which is a form based district that allows but does not require commercial uses on the ground floor. The ordinance also establishes the review process and incentives under the local program. It also includes various policies to ensure efficient land uses near transit, including minimum densities for housing and office uses, updated parking standards, and rules for curb cuts. It also sets code standards applicable to the SFMTA Special Use District, as I mentioned. And just to to note, the ordinance is changing the rules on those MTA parcels to allow for more housing in the future, but any proposals on those actual sites would still have to go through a public process. The ordinance also includes policies to make it as easy as possible for legacy businesses to relocate by waiving conditional use, hearings, and impact fee requirements. It also establishes a housing sustainability district or HSD, which provides another pathway for qualifying projects to get ministerial review. It modifies height and bulk bulk limits to be consistent with citywide design standards, and it revises wind review standards to be more consistent across different zoning districts. Finally, it makes other code cleanup changes as well as changes to the local coastal program as described earlier. Over the past year, we've paid special attention to our local program to make sure we're really getting it right. Again, this program is optional. But in our many conversations with architects and housing developers, both market rate and affordable, we do think we've struck a great balance of providing flexibility but with guardrails. Projects in our local program will adhere to height limits and to our design and code standards. And in exchange, they get this menu of code flexibility on a variety of topics. Many of these items mirror what we see in actual state density bonus projects in order to be competitive with those state programs. But the menu also includes some items that go beyond the state density bonus, like our inclusionary housing options, the 15% catchall flexibility, and the additional height bonus for 100 affordable projects. As we near adoption, the department is recommending additional amendments to refine several policies in the family zoning plan. I won't go ever over every single detail, but I've tried to group them together by general topic. The first set of amendments relate to senior housing and include some simple fixes that can make it easier to build homes for seniors. These include making usable open space requirements more flexible, reducing bike parking requirements, and changing the definition of senior housing to remove minimum density requirements. The next set of recommendations relate to support for small businesses, and all of them respond to recommendations from the business commission as well as many conversations we've had with the small business community. These include extending the conditional use and impact fee waivers from just legacy businesses to all displaced businesses. It also includes adding an incentive for the local program, for projects to provide tenant improvements, also known as a warm shell, which can make it much more affordable for a restaurant or other similar use to occupy a new commercial space. Finally, we also recommend codifying the early notification requirement so that whenever the planning department receives an application for new housing, we would properly notify any commercial, active commercial tenants and the office of small business. We're especially pleased to recommend a slew of amendments to the local program to require and incentivize family friendly features in new housing. The first amendments would modify the unit mix requirements in the local program. If you recall, we originally proposed to relax the unit mix requirement slightly as an incentive to use the program. This amendment would reestablish a requirement that's somewhere between what's in the draft ordinance and what the rules are today under existing zoning. But in addition, it would offer incentives for projects to go further. This incentive would be a square footage bonus for providing three bedroom and four bedroom or larger units. In residential districts, the extra square footage can be accommodated horizontally, as in you can't increase or exceed the height limits, but you can build into the rear yard in setbacks. In other districts, it would be accommodated either horizontally or vertically not to exceed one additional story. Finally, we are recommending a similar square footage bonus for providing family amenities in the residential districts. This could include community rooms, shared kitchens, storage for larger objects, and in home childcare. The recommendations on this slide all relate to the local program and provide even greater flexibility to ensure it can truly compete with the state density bonus. This includes waiving the ground floor requirement for projects ground floor height, excuse me, requirement for projects proposing nine stories in an 85 foot height district. This would help us maximize housing production within the mid rise height limits. We also recommend removing the usable open space requirement in the local program. Project massing will still be controlled by rear yard requirements, setbacks, and step downs, so this simply removes the requirement for private or shared open space. Similarly, we are recommending removing planning code requirements for unit exposure in the local program. Projects would still need to meet the minimum exposure requirements of our California building code. Finally, we are also recommending that the local program allow projects that are at least two thirds residential to replace existing tourist or motel uses up to 75 rooms without needing a conditional use authorization. This is the final set of staff recommendations. The first is a proposed incentive in the local program that's really designed to encourage adaptive reuse of existing historic resources. This recognizes that we shouldn't have to choose between historic preservation or housing development. We know we need both. This incentive will provide a square footage bonus for any projects that are not in the R and RTOC districts that preserve historic resources. This can include A rated properties, designated article ten and eleven landmarks, and state or nationally listed resources. The bonus square footage could be added either horizontally or vertically. This idea is a direct response to the recommendations from the Historic Preservation Commission, and we previewed this proposal with the commission president earlier this week. Finally, I won't read the the remaining recommendations out loud, but we also have a handful of other clarifying and cleanup recommendations to address inconsistencies as well as ensure compliance with state laws. In considering the proposed ordinance as well as staff recommendations, we wanted to highlight several policy considerations. I'm not gonna review all of the topics, but they are discussed in your packet. In particular, exhibit two a describes other possible legislative amendments that the department did not ultimately recommend, but that present other ideas that we've heard over the course of our outreach that could be considered as either part of this rezoning or as future legislation. I also wanted to highlight exhibit six, which includes letters from other city commissions and a summary of public comments and letters we received. We've had eight public hearings at the Historic Preservation Commission, the Youth Commission, and the Small Business Commission, all of which have issued various recommendations for your review. The packet includes, the recommendations from the youth, commission and small business commission. And just yesterday, we received a letter from the president of the historic preservation commission, which we circulated at the start of the hearing, and are now submitting as part of the public record. We have also consider we have considered the recommendations of all these commissions and have adopted the majority of them, where the department felt they were feasible and in line with the goals of the project and state law. We've also continued to receive many letters from organizations and individuals since the case packet was released on Friday. For your convenience, we did send an email, that, packaged all of the letters from organizations. In the past week, we received 12 letters from various organizations and 219 letters from individuals both in support and in in in opposition to the plan. Next, I wanted to briefly highlight our racial and social equity analysis, which is exhibit two c of your packet, and just recognize the incredible work of our team who developed it over the past year and a half. From our staff, this includes Sarah Richardson, David Garcia, and Milena Leon Ferrera. We also worked with Groundwork Consulting, particularly Miriam Zook, who brings a wealth of expertise and was also one of the lead researchers on the UC Berkeley displacement project. It's an incredibly robust analysis, so unfortunately, we only have space for three slides to highlight their work. But suffice it to say, the RRC analysis has impacted every aspect of the plan. We've been conducting it iteratively along with the rezoning, and much of the research and data from this analysis has informed our proposal. A couple highlights from this report, including part two, which is an analysis of existing conditions and historical context in the housing opportunity areas. That analysis found that the rezoned areas have low housing production and limited and expensive housing choices. Two thirds of residential parcels in the plan area are single family homes, and housing costs in these areas are about 30% higher in than other other areas of the city. It also found that the rezoned areas are more affluent, less racially diverse, and have more homeowners than other areas. These findings were associated with better better educational and health outcomes, including longer life expectancy in the rezoned areas. Part three of the ROC analysis provides detailed research on four key topics that people have raised concerns about, including housing affordability, residential displacement, small business impacts, and infrastructure and community services. For each of these topics, the team provided an extensive literature review to identify the potential benefits and potential burdens or unintended consequences of the rezoning. They also discussed a range of policy ideas that can maximize benefits for equity communities and mitigate potential negative outcomes, And many of these measures have been incorporated in the plan. Notably, the literature review did find that changing zoning and allowing more housing of of all income levels can lead to greater affordability and help reduce market pressures, especially in competitive housing markets. Studies find that this is especially true when rezoning efforts cover broader geographies such as the metropolitan or regional scale, which is what they found in the Boston Metro Area, actually. This is encouraging given that the state laws require cities across the region and state to plan for housing. However, the studies did also caveat that some of these affordability benefits will take time to materialize. Our current housing shortage has been decades in the making, so it's intuitive that it may take quite a while before we really see the full benefits of new housing. And in the interest of time, I'm not going to cover the other topics in the report, but really encourage you to take a look at it, and we're happy to answer any questions about it. Before we close, I also wanted to highlight some public resources that we've recently put on our website, including new fact sheets and some visualizations that are meant to provide an idea of how our neighborhoods will look and feel as we welcome new neighbors. We have copies of some of these new fact sheets here today and in your packet. Some of these resources are meant to address deliberate misinformation that our team has witnessed at various outreach events, and I'll describe some of these topics briefly. First, we have a new fact sheet about tenant protections that I pass on to the commissioners. We have seen claims that the rezoning will loosen tenant protections and result in mass demolitions of rent controlled housing. And that is flatly untrue. We already have strong protections in place that require a conditional use hearing for any proposals to demolish rent controlled housing, and this commission will retain the discretion to approve or deny proposed demolitions. These rules will be strengthened further under the proposed tenant protections ordinance that supervisor Shayan Chen introduced at the board on Tuesday, and that will be at the commission for review in the coming weeks. The good news is that our rules do work, and residential demolitions are extraordinarily rare. Over the past thirteen years, we've seen about 18 units a year cost of demolition. Most of them are single family homes. This amounts to point 00004% of our housing stock and has stayed fairly consistent even during construction boom periods. Second, we've seen exaggerated claims about the impacts of new development on small businesses and historic resources, and so we have a new fact sheet specifically on small business strategies that includes data on what's happened after other air in in other areas where we've rezoned. Looking at Market Street and Ocean Avenue, where we added 2,800 new homes since 2007, we found that most new housing developments are built on vacant and underutilized sites, not on sites with thriving storefront businesses. Similarly, we found that a very small proportion of these projects resulted in the removal of an eligible historic resource. These findings generally confirm what we know from reviewing real projects and talking to developers, which is that housing development will typically happen on larger sites that have fewer risks associated with them. If a developer can, they will tend to avoid sites with businesses and other uses that can make them more complicated to develop. Finally, it's not on our website yet, but we are putting together a fact sheet on how the family zoning plan will address affordable housing. And you heard from several of the supervisors today about the other efforts that go beyond the plan that are really going to be bolstering this effort. As I already noted from our RSC analysis, the research affirms that rezoning will support greater housing afford affordability in the longer term, but it will also create a greater diversity of housing types, which is so critical, especially given that two thirds of the properties in the plan are single family homes today. The plan will generate additional resources for affordable housing, whether on-site BMR units or through affordable housing fees. It will also enable more sites where we can build affordable developments, and it'll help us maximize the number of affordable units on those sites. And by creating a diversity of housing types, it'll also create more naturally affordable units. We know that condos are as much as 30 to 40% cheaper than single family homes. And by building more of these units at scale, we will gradually start to see more units that are attainable for teachers, nonprofit workers, nurses, and others who make too much to qualify for affordable housing. We've talked at other hearings about some of the benefits of the new housing. We try to really share these when we're out in community too, but I so I won't repeat them here. But But our hope is that people will start to see and understand how new housing can really strengthen our San Francisco neighborhoods. We've also added a series of visualizations on our website to give us a sense of how new new neighborhoods will look and feel as we welcome new homes in new neighborhoods. Of course, none of these are real proposals, but they are meant to provide a sense of scale and show how new homes will be integrated in existing communities. This graphic, which you've seen before, shows Geary Boulevard at 3rd Avenue showing 14 story buildings. This shows Noriega at 25th Avenue showing an eight story building. This shows Lombard at Buchanan Street, again, showing eight story buildings. This one shows Lombard with six story buildings further west where Richardson Street comes out of the Presidio. This one shows Ocean Avenue near City College with new eight story buildings close to recently built four and five story buildings. This one shows the northern part of De Visidero Street at Bush with a 14 story building. This one is not actually a real location. We took some creative liberties here. It's actually a composite image that reflects typical conditions in residential areas across the plan. The image shows what a four story gentle density building could look like surrounded by existing three story homes. As we've described at previous hearings, we've taken particular care to consider the natural hills and the beauty of our city, particularly from signature parks and public spaces. In numerous cases, we've even sculpted and lowered the heights around some of these places in response to feedback. Here are the Lyon Street steps showing the view across the marina. Here are a couple views from Francisco Park. This is an area where we brought the height nearby heights down from 65 to 40 feet to minimize impact on views. The images show this image shows the Larkin Street steps adjacent to the park. And this one shows the view from the lawn itself. Finally, this one shows the view from Coit Tower looking over Fisherman's Wharf, primarily showing 85

[Speaker 32.0]: foot development. As we close, I just want

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: to take a moment to moment to thank our incredible team of staff who have made this work possible, often working nights and weekends to make the family zoning plan as strong as it can possibly be. This includes staff across the planning department, our partners at the city attorney attorney's office, the mayor's office, MOCD, SFMTA, office of small business, and others. These are amazing professionals with deep experience. Planners, lawyers, architects, data analysts, affordable housing experts, people with backgrounds in education and community organizing. I feel like I've stood on the shoulders of giants during this time. But I also wanna say for us, this work is personal. We are part of the same housing market as everyone else. We've seen our

[Speaker 32.0]: friends, coworkers, family members

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: struggle to find and struggle to find and keep housing in San Francisco and the Bay Area. We've wondered whether we can afford to stay here, whether our kids will be able to live here when they grow up, and where our parents will live as they get older. I don't think a single person on our team would say that we are doing this just because the state is forcing us to. I want to thank the commission for all your leadership and guidance over the past three years of shaping this plan. And thank you to the many community members and organizations who have come to our hearings, hosted and joined outreach events, sent us your questions, comments, and ideas. We're looking forward to refining the plan as it moves for adoption, and we look forward to your deliberation and adoption. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, Lisa.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioners, with that, we're gonna be excuse me, miss Judas.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: I know. I I I was gonna

[Lydia So, Commission President]: say I'm gonna have to Excuse

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: me, miss Judas. I know. Commissioners, with that, we should open up public comment. We received a request for translation services, and so we've made that accommodation for Cantonese and Mandarin. They have limited time here. I was told there are only about 10 people that need this accommodation. Okay. So we're gonna allow them to speak first. Yeah. If you could translate to request that those in need of translation services come into the chambers, especially those on the 1st Floor to make their way up to Room 400, please.

[Speaker 32.0]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: And I just wanted to confirm we made that announcement already for those in line in the hall.

[Speaker 58.0]: We have one person so far. Great.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you.

[Speaker 58.0]: Also do that in Mandarin?

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Yes, please. Okay. So again, if you're in need of translation services for public comment, please come

[Speaker 32.0]: forward.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: I thought there was a gentleman in the room that needed translation service.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: I think they're getting him from outside. That's maybe what they're doing.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Oh, here.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: Could you ask them to come to the microphone?

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Yeah. Come on up. Come on up. Come on up, please.

[Speaker 58.0]: My name is Jin Lee. Because of short hand short of housing, I would want the no tall building, please. Do not build tall building, please.

[Ellen Lee Zhou, Public Speaker]: Thank you.

[Speaker 59.0]: I think the housing shortage is come from unfair rent control. Many landlords don't dare to rent out their places because the rule are too one-sided. If rent control were fair, more rooms would be available, and the shortage would ease. On top of that, traffic and parking are already a big problem in the city, and more high rise will only make the situation worse. And where will the money come from? If it means higher taxes or higher property taxes, That's just adding pressure on the small property owners, and that's not fair for the small property owners. So please, I against the family resuming plan.

[Speaker 57.0]: Thank you.

[Speaker 59.0]: Thank you. I'm a a small property owner, and I opposed the mayor proposal for rezoning the the building in our city. And because if if there's no limit on the height of the building, and then we'll make the city more crowded and also a lot of air pollute pollution. And this is no good for our health and also make the city more dirty and also not not secure. So I want the city can keep the Songling in San Francisco. Thanks.

[Speaker 58.0]: My name is Grace. I am here to oppose the project. I really love San Francisco. I immigrated here about thirty years ago. I really love the beauty of the city. I live in Parkside, and I really love the special single families over there. It's really beautiful, and I do not want the city to lose the beauty. And I hope that you can keep the existing zoning plan, and I really would think this would be beneficial to especially San Francisco residents. I'm pretty sure you all of you here are, also resident residents of San Francisco, and I don't want it to be like Hong Kong, really crowded. I really don't want to see the city lose the beauty, and, hopefully, there won't be so many multi units, but more single family homes. Thank you.

[Speaker 60.0]: Maintain our single family home characteristic and their beauty. Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Last call for those in need of translation services. I'm gonna ask if our translator could could hang out as long as they possibly can. But, yeah, if you could make the announcement to those on the 1st Floor. Okay. Thank you to both of you. I know you need to leave shortly, but if you could hang out as long as you possibly can. Thank you. Okay. Members of the public, public comment.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Sorry. I jumped the gun before.

[Speaker 61.0]: Yes. I am.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Alright, folks. Look. I'm just gonna lay it out right now. Okay? It's gonna be a long day. It's gonna be a long hearing. I'm going to request that we all respect each other's

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Time here. Okay? We're not going to tolerate any disruption or outbursts. If you want to clap, do it silently with your happy fingers. Wiggle your fingers, your toes, your ears, whatever you want. Okay? But do it silently, please. Thank you.

[Speaker 9.0]: And it is two minutes, not one minute?

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Two minutes.

[Speaker 9.0]: Oh, thank you so much for that

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: generous time. I'm Georgia Shudish. I sent you a lot of letters. I think that the commission needs to use their legislative authority that you have to adjust the demo calculus as I've talked about and also to clear up the confusion between the DBI and the planning definition of demolition. I think that's a big problem. But you have other legislative authority you could use, and the mayor and staff have made clear, as they did today, that tenant occupied housing will not be demolished. They say it's rare and it's continued to be rare. And I think that in order to make sure that that is so, please eliminate section three seventeen c 12 from the proposed ordinance. It's a very large loophole. You need to have the CUA hearings. That's how the commission can actually use your legislative authority. Also, any demolition, merger, conversion of residential flats should have a conditional use of hearing even if the unit of housing is added. Additionally, to prevent any potential mergers or renovictions, there should be a strict numerical limit or an objective standard on the amount of interior demolition allowed in any alteration permit for residential flats. And if it exceeds that, then you have a conditional use. And I'll just say again, the planning commission needs to maintain their legislative authority and to have oversight of residential flats. And I guess I would expand that to say, have your resident your legislative authority on as many things as you can have, because you represent the people of San Francisco. Here is my 150 words for the minutes. Here's my handout, what I just said. And I hope you read my other emails with other things about rear yards and preapproved prototypes. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 62.0]: Have a

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: great evening, and take good care.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Next speaker.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Thank you.

[Speaker 34.0]: I just need no. I'll be there I am. I'm okay. Alright. Okay. Thank you. I'm getting closer. No. I'm I'm okay. I'm okay. Good afternoon. My name is George Wooding. I want to say hi to President Sowell and the Planning Commissioners. On behalf of the west of Twin Peaks Central Council, representing 18 neighborhood associations and thousands of residents since 1936. We want to express our opposition to the proposed up zoning plan. The plan promotes large scale demolition and speculative development in established neighborhoods without addressing the root causes of San Francisco's housing challenges. Demolishing livable homes and replacing them with expensive small units does not create affordability. It accelerates displacement erodes community fabric, and weakens multi generational stability. We respectfully urge the commission to amend the plan to reflect the following principles. Remove density decontrol. Protect neighborhood patterns. Eliminate the 65 foot interior lot provisions. Preserve existing housing stock, especially older and historic homes, require family friendly housing, high density to infrastructure capacity, safeguard small businesses in village corridors, and advance adaptive reuse of vacant office and institutional buildings as better alternatives to tearing down viable homes. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 32.0]: Good to see you. Commissioners,

[Speaker 36.0]: my name is Dennis Moscophian. I'm a lifelong San Franciscan and a lifelong union member since age of 17. Without some real controls on bulk and density, In my view, there's nothing to preclude high rise buildings of small units, demolition of homes and demolition of affordable flats and rent control buildings and displacement of ground floor local businesses. You've heard this already, but I didn't hear anything that but I'm maybe, maybe there's been some amendments that are going to protect, but it appears to me that the purpose of Lurie's density decontrol is simply remove and replace. As precedent to that back in the redevelopment days. Replacement is what it looks like each of you is going to have to judge today who gets replaced, who doesn't. I think the density decontrol is a real estate plan, basically that ultimately will remove working and middle class folks, which is where I live. And I think back to the redevelopment and I look at this and I say, wait a minute, my kids, none of my kids can live here. They can't afford it. They haven't afforded it for decades. I see when I was running local four at the Chronicle and Examiner, when I first joined it, it was in the 1980s, there were some members that still lived here with their families in the city. By, by the time I retired in 2001, there were only six people in the union still living in San Francisco. So I think all this stuff about affordability is is is a lie because the real estate industry is not interested in affordability. That's not what they're about. They're about profit making period. Is that the end of the two minutes?

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: It is indeed.

[Speaker 36.0]: Okay. Well, thank you.

[Speaker 21.0]: Good afternoon again. My name is Paul Wurmer, and this time I'm speaking in my capacity as president of the Pacific Heights Residents Association. We sent you a letter outlining our objections and highlighted that we would really like to work with planning to develop appropriate changes to the zoning in our area. We know there are opportunity sites. We know we need more housing. We know we need more density to get that. That's not the issue. The issue is this is stochastic planning. How many lots have you upzoned? How many potential units are there? How many do we need? We know with certainty that someone will build something somewhere that somebody with some income could afford. That doesn't provide the affordable housing the city needs. And if you look at the RTOC zoning, it's very nice language I heard. It is permitted but not required on the Ground Floor. But when you look at the zoning control table, it doesn't show commercial uses restricted to the ground to the Ground Floor. And indeed, it permits uses that make no sense if they are just permitted to the Ground floor. So the RTOC zoning has a lot of problems potentially pulling desirable housing sites into commercial uses. High end small boutique hotels would be permitted. There are problems with that. More to the point, simple math based on the residential nexus studies. Market rate housing creates a demand for about 30% to 40% of below market rate housing. Do the math. What happens if it's 20% off-site that the conclusionary is? That's at $250 a square foot. How many units does that actually provide for? And how much further behind are we in the need for affordable housing? Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: You can just put it on the projector, yeah. Esa Scott, can we go to the overhead?

[Speaker 63.0]: Alright. Thanks Thanks for your time. Thanks, everyone, for being here. I just wanted to contribute something that I feel is a little bit remiss from most of these conversations, at least from my purview. I want to take you back to November 2020. Like, eight out of nine people in this room statistically for San Francisco. I was watching the swing states and hoping that Biden would prevail. So you could see the you know, just looking at this, not knowing much other than that, it looks like it's mostly red and Biden lost Michigan. And then I was also looking at Pennsylvania, and it looks like Biden lost Pennsylvania too. I was looking at Atlanta. It looks like Biden lost there. But we know I think we all kinda know in the back of our minds that, you know, the cities are where we get the Democrat votes from. So cities in a way kind of manufacture they're like factories to manufacture votes for the Democratic party. We need more, you know, each person gets one vote. More people in the city is more votes for Democrats. So why do like, why is that I was wondering? Is it that people choose to be around others with similar viewpoints? Or is it that people are largely products of their environment? I think it's oh. Oh, thank you very much. Yeah. There's the spectrum there. So, yeah, I I think that it's somewhere in between that spectrum. It's not entirely one thing or the other. And who else knows this is the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation behind project twenty twenty five who says that we need to protect the single family zoning at all costs because they know that that's where the votes come from. And we need to increase housing stock in rural areas. It's the San Francisco Chronicle is, like, a little bit behind this too, but I don't think that this has as much isn't as much of a view as it should be. Thank you.

[Speaker 64.0]: My grandpa's home is where I spend my summers. It feels like my second home. He takes care of us there, and I love being with him.

[Speaker 9.0]: He he

[Speaker 64.0]: If we had to move, we wouldn't have the same time with him. We would lose the place where he'll connect safe and connected to our family. And we don't want to lose the city we love visiting. Please help our grandpa keep his home for him and for us. Okay. And now about my future. I'm planning to go to college in San Francisco, and I can't do that if you demolish my grandfather's home. Hello?

[Ali Bondi, Deputy Chief of Staff to the Mayor]: Hello. I'm, grateful and humbled to be here on this September 11, exercising our increasingly fragile democracy. Thank you for your time. My father does live here. I grew up here. I was sworn in to be an attorney in this room. I interned in this building, and I represented families in the dependency system across the street. And while I can't afford to raise my family here, I have called this home base because of my father's rent control apartment. And what I'm asking you to keep in your mind as you figure out whether this is gonna happen and how it's gonna happen is the peace of mind of elders. My daughter in eight years will be 18, and in eight years, my father will be in his eighties. And our family plan has always been for either my children or myself to be his caretaker, to keep him in his home as long as possible. And so I'm asking you just to consider that there be some guarantee, some protection for those long term residents, those employees that keep your tourist industry working, that they are not sitting here waiting for a hearing wondering, that they can make the same plans that a homeowner can make about their future and that their families can make plans about their long term care. And the services that this city has provided for my father as a senior citizen that I can't afford to provide have been remarkable. And a lot of seniors are thriving here because of that. And they need homes to thrive in. Thank you.

[Speaker 65.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for your time. I brought my family here to put a face on what you are the gatekeepers of deciding. And I hope you will all step up and protect every resident that's in any apartment. Most of us will never be able to afford a condo, ever. You know, most of us will never be able to replace the communities we lose, ever. I've lived in my apartment for half my life, thirty eight years. I had a small theater in North Beach for twenty years. Those base the basement theater I have won't exist in these condos or whatever buildings they're going to build. The idea with real estate is for real estate people develop them to make money, and you don't make money off of low income people. So you folks, you know, you're you're the you're the gatekeepers, and we're all asking you to step up for us. The developers, the speculators, they got plenty of people to speak for them, plenty of them, and deep pockets to speak out of. I appreciate your time. I appreciate your consideration. Thanks for listening to my family, and I hope you'll listen to all these other folks. Have a nice evening. You're gonna have a long day.

[Speaker 66.0]: Hello. I represent the Leather and LGTBQ Cultural District. I'm Paul Dally, chair of the Land Use Committee. I'm here to speak about the Eagle Bar, South Of Market at 398 12th Street, Block In Lot 3522 Slash 014. The district govern governance and myself would like the Eagle to be removed from the family zoning plan because of the following. The city city's housing element legislation determined that upzoning was not appropriate for equity priority areas in order to protect areas that already had experienced displacement, and SoMa has experienced massive displacement for decades, starting with Moscone Center, which displaced over 7,000 individuals. This displacement will only increase with the passage of state laws removing any local control on many new developments. Upzoning the Eagle will endanger the Eagle property for takeover by developers. The Eagle is a legacy business that needs to be preserved to maintain the fabric of San Francisco's character and the leather and queer culture in the city and South Of Market. Eagle is a landmark location landmark location and the up zoning would result in loss of a building that the that the city, the supervisors, the people, both local and many visitors have determined is an important part of life here. The Eagle is a central hub for the leather and queer community, and losing this location would be a dramatic blow to an already marginalized community that is under pressure for many forces, especially developments South Of Market.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Thank you.

[Speaker 20.0]: My name is Mark Bruno, you know that, and I went outside several times today because I was worried about people I know out there who are over 70 years old. I'm getting pretty close to that. The point is at any age somebody could have a ambulatory impediment. There's no chairs out there. No offense, but we all knew because it was in the paper this was a big deal. A lot of people were gonna come. Why is it that the people who are in the overflow room are way down on the 1st Floor? No offense, but you all are not required to vote on this until the eighteenth. That's what I've been told by the, the, senior planner here. If I'm wrong, I'm sure his channel will correct me. You're required to vote on this by the eighteenth of this month, not today. Please delay this, please continue this so that people who have left so I did a count, just curious, 153 people were there originally when I first sat down. Now there's 110 and somewhere people did get to speak, but many of those people just left. In fact, when miss mister Iona asked for another speaker who, was monolingual, that person had left as you can check with your own sheriffs. He had left because it was just too much to wait for this long, long hearing, and I think it's fair to ask for a continuance. Our group went before the Board of Supervisors on July 1 during public comment to make the following amendment regarding rent control. No permit should be issued as a result of ordinances 250,700 or 250,701, which shall diminish the habitability removed from the marketplace or demolish any rent controlled building or rent controlled unit in the City And County Of San Francisco. That's not what's being offered now by this plan. They're saying we're gonna replace those units somewhere else. It's a form of redevelopment. We're against that. We want rent controlled units protected. Thank you.

[Speaker 67.0]: Good afternoon. My name is Terry McHugh from does District 7. Again, along with him, I was wondering why are we voting today. There seems to be a lot of different questions as to what's going on. It seems the supervisors had amendments. Everybody's had amendments. People have asked for different information from different groups, and they haven't gotten it. There's 70,000 units in the system already to be built, and they're just sitting there for various reasons. And what what I think it is is it doesn't pencil out for the developers. And what you're doing today is gonna give a carte blanche to the developers to do whatever they wanna do and build whatever they wanna build. That's gonna be the end of this thing. Weiner evidently put through something during the state that whatever you guys vote on, you know, if you vote to up upsize, that that can't be changed in the future. And that's through the state, not through the city. But if that's true, then what you're doing on, you really better know what you're doing on. And you have, again, 70,000 units that are sitting there to be built, and the number of affordable keeps changing. I'll tell you, I've seen three different times that that number has changed. So so I don't think you're prepared to be able to vote on on something that's this important and affects the city in so long. You know, we're we're going through with, you know, we got Weiner doing his thing in the state, which has nothing to do with, you know, he's got voted down in the city when he tried it as a supervisor. So what we're seeing within the national level is, you know, Trump and the Republicans taking over and trying to do whatever damn thing they feel like doing, And I feel that's what's happening here. It's just the Democrats that are doing it here. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 68.0]: Afternoon. I appreciate you guys being here.

[Speaker 32.0]: I want

[Speaker 69.0]: to take this a little bit different direction.

[Speaker 70.0]: I want to talk

[Speaker 71.0]: a little bit about corruption. How do we know who's developing these properties? How do we know that corrupt money is not distorting the market? I can look at two properties right now in San Francisco under development from the son of a Russian oligarch. Right? Corruption happens in other ways. People build condos, illegal, gotten

[Speaker 72.0]: gains offshore. It's a smart move for those folks to just buy a condo. Who cares about market rate? Who cares who lives there? Who cares if there's a family?

[Speaker 71.0]: We should. You should. We all love this city. You're opening up corruption, international corruption, both in the sale and the development.

[Speaker 72.0]: I see no controls. I see nobody even talking about this.

[Speaker 71.0]: So I think that is something that we really need to look at. Let's talk a little bit about winners and losers. Who's going to win from this? Developers? The one tenth of 1%? Who's going to lose from this? As many have said, people on rent control, people without means. Alright? Many people will come up here and say, I want my child, my family to be able to come back here and live in this city. Well, I got news for you guys. Condo prices aren't going down. They're going up. And I think we can pay lip service that more supply is gonna equal lower prices. But look come on, folks. We're gonna sell to rich people, and that's what's going to happen. And this beautiful, diverse city will change. Shame on the on the city for doing

[Speaker 73.0]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Theresa Dolalas with SomCan, and I live in SomA, Pilipinas District 6. You know, over 280 18,000 residents, nearly one in three, live below 200% of the federal poverty line, even though state thresholds already consider incomes under 104,000 as low income. And you really think that a person who earns about $18.75 would be able to afford this affordable housing. So, you know, time and time again, you know, city leaders sitting there, you know, at city hall allow allow, you know, developers and speculators to dictate our housing market. What happens to tenants, homeowners, and small businesses who will be displaced? Where are they going? Do you think or believe that we can afford the so called affordable units? We want to see these figures printed. Ops zoning does not solve these problems. It risks displace displacing rent control tenants, pushing out small businesses, and repeating the mistakes of Manila Town where our Filipino community lost homes and identity in the name of redevelopment, which is now called upzoning and revitalization. Please, or ask, vote no on the upzoning or delay it. Tenants and small until you know that the tenant and small business protections are guaranteed in writing, Vacant units and existing housing stock are fully utilized and addressed. Infrastructure improvements come first. Improve and invest in what's already there. Make affordable, mean, truly affordable. Our communities cannot afford more broken promises. We've experienced it many times.

[Speaker 74.0]: Good afternoon, and, thank you for letting me address the commission. It's appreciated. We can and we should build new housing. As far as what we build, there are aspects of the new proposed zoning plan that I think makes sense, but there are others that are unfortunate and I believe will create permanent scars in our city. In particular, I'm concerned by the newly proposed wall on the waterfront along the Northeast corner of the city along the Embarcadero at Bay, Northpointe Beach, and Jefferson Streets. Erecting towers on the Embarcadero takes a waterfront from citizens and visitors and sells it to the very few who can afford to take that view for themselves. Why put it there? Why build a wall to greet our number one industry, tourism? Erecting towers takes it away from those visitors as well as the citizens. Is it really about tall buildings blocking the views of the rest of the city? Is that really the face that we want to project to the rest of the world? The previous proposed zoning map left these blocks on the waterfront at four stories as a longstanding smart tiering of Telegraph Hill towards the bay. The Northeast Waterfront should be open to those who view it, not blocked and boxed off from it. This wall, by the way, was not discussed with residents or local businesses and was only revealed when the new zoning map was released. If you approve those towers in that location, everyone, except a fortunate few, will lose that access to the waterfront. Looking towards our city, a good portion of the historic Northeast Waterfront will be hidden and boxed away behind these buildings. Additionally, three blocks of towers are also proposed to extend up to another seven blocks westward and are going to make for some wicked wind tunnels in an already windy part of the city. Those are the buildings proposed along Bay, Northpointe, And Beach Streets. I fully support sense building sensible housing in my backyard, Chimbey, if you will. But let's do this right and build housing while enhancing and protecting San Francisco's waterfront. Thank you.

[Speaker 75.0]: Hi. My name is Emily Faxon. I had some remarks written, and I have to say that miss Chen's, presentation did influence my thinking, as well as the remarks of some other people. I live in District 4. It's conspicuously hasn't been mentioned that our supervisor is facing a recall election in a couple of days, and I believe the subtext of that re of that recall election is, the conflicting views of what the future of the outer sunset will be. I agree we need affordable housing, but I also agree that we should avoid at all costs the builder's remedy that the state will impose if we don't do something about the need for housing. I am concerned about affordability, about evictions, all of the things that have been mentioned. And I really think the gentleman who spoke, about Japantown, or from that neighborhood, was asking the question, is this plan going to is it overkill? Or can we can we modify this in such a way that it addresses the need for housing and and affordability? Just speaking as a thirty year Outer Sunset resident, I the idea that 5 East West Streets are now gonna be upzoned to five to eight stories when most everything is two to three stories, three is a rarity actually, is that's gonna be quite a visual change. And, all of the, policy that's expressed in the planning department's residential design literature talks about visual design, and so I wanted to mention that. Thanks.

[Speaker 76.0]: Good afternoon. My name is Christian and live in the marina, raising a young family and a real estate developer professionally. Much of the Marina area was formerly part of the Bay and named Marina Cove and was filled in completely by 1912. Bedrock is largely about a 150 feet to 300 feet below ground in the marina and located within the liquefaction zone. To avoid what happened with Millennium Project from happening in the marina, we need to require the following amendments. Require developers to have foundations go down to bedrock given the combined increased density that is being proposed within liquefaction zones. Require developers to conduct adjacent geotechnical studies on any adjacent properties and the block and not just subject site within the liquefaction zone. That's a huge I wanna underscore that. It's site specific right now. We should be looking at an entire block or adjacent properties when you're doing in the liquefaction zone. So reduce the proposed height on Lombard Street from 85 to 65 to minimize the combined effect of taller and heavier buildings proposed on the liquefaction zone. Require developers to include three, four, and five bedroom units so families can stay in the in SF. You're not gonna have families if you got two and three bedroom units, so we really need to make that clear. Finally, add that in order to obtain the increased zoning for the Safeway located at 15 Marina Way, the developer needs to include a minimum of a small format grocery store of 15,000 square feet. If this amendment is unachievable, then remove the proposed increase. The existing base zone of 40 is more than sufficient in this location. By upzoning this parcel with prime views, we likely lose a grocery store and would be grossly out of place. Last thing, include historic overlay that developers are required to preserve historical front facades deemed historic on these iconic streets with any redevelopment to not lose the architectural gems every San Francisco loves. Appreciate it.

[Speaker 77.0]: Hi. I'm Catherine Tomlinson, and thank you for being here. I'd like to start by saying I think we need to look back in history. In the 1960s, the planning and zoning department in San Francisco approved the Fontana Towers, which are located right down on the shoreline. This is where this hall has come from. The 40 foot, everyone was in an uproar. The 40 foot zoning came in, and it stayed that way ever since. If you look at the plan you have now, the concern I have, it's a huge swath with a lot of flexibility in the zoning and building department, which can be tough to manage. I decided to go and look. So I'm in North Beach, and I looked down, and I was able to get the owner of properties and the zoning. And I found there are 12 hotels in the higher zoning now by Fishman's Wharf. There are four apartments, huge apartments, that are actually with one company, and the rest is city property. Then I thought, well, let

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: me go look further.

[Speaker 77.0]: So I went and looked on Lombard and the Van Ness Corridor. There are another 50 hotels that are along that that have stayed that way because of the 40 feet. And that's where fifty years ago I would go and stay because you couldn't afford to go anywhere else. Those were the hotels who were there. Those will all be different now. I think that when you look at low income housing let's be realistic. If you're on the waterfront and you're downtown and you say, Okay, 15% is all that required for the affordable housing, but they can pay to change that and and not have to do the affordable housing, the developers. So I think right now, you need to take that 70,000 that you say is in the bank somewhere. You need to put it online, be out in the sunshine. Who owns it? Where is it going to be? And let people see the 70,000 units you already have available to you and also the ones that you may have downtown that that have been abandoned. So I think at this point, I would ask you to rethink this and slow down the process. Thank you.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Good afternoon.

[Speaker 78.0]: I'm here on behalf of the Bel Air HOA down in Russian Hill. We all know that the city needs more affordable housing, but putting up high rises on the slope of Russian Hill facing the bay, though probably highly profitable to developers, will not alleviate the housing problem. First, the city needs to simplify the permitting process even with present bounds as we see that there's a whole block on the South Side Of Washington Square that has been an eyesore for years awaiting development. We also see the block on the Visidero where the car wash used to be still in permitting procedures after years sitting vacant. There's a huge expanse in the sunset where two story family homes would not lose its character if it was punctuated especially at block ends with five or six story apartment buildings. Their buildings could be subsidized by city to help make it affordable, and it's just to defend our rights that we must protest. We must protest because the projection of North Russian Hill will do nothing to alleviate the city's housing problems for ordinary middle class residents. Thank you.

[Speaker 79.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners and directors. My name is Steven Huang, and my partner and I chose to raise our kids in District 4 because we love the neighborhood character and the quality of life. We love having a diversity of neighbors, including other families, young workers, and seniors. But what we've been seeing around us is that many families are moving away because they cannot afford San Francisco. And many empty nesters can cannot afford to make their home safe for aging in place. Some of my neighbors have found their answers by creating space in their homes so that their adult children can stay in the city. Our neighborhood character is already changing and fast. We have to be proactive to maintain it. We don't want unrestricted growth from Builders Remedy. Especially, please no development on the flood zones along Ocean Beach. Please also be mindful to not add new requirements that will further slow down permitting. Please approve family zoning precisely because the best way to maintain the quality of life and community character. I've been to several meetings on family zoning, and and your staff did a fantastic job in presenting and honestly eliciting very heated debates. But I have heard neighbors begging for more housing and more foot traffic for business. But there are working people, and they cannot be here to speak, so I echo their desire to have this plan be approved. I'll end by asking this. Right outside, couples are getting married today. I hope they will have a chance to afford to have their happily ever after here in San Francisco. Thank you.

[Speaker 57.0]: Good afternoon. My name is Becky Lee. I'll I actually came from Hong Kong, but I live San Francisco for fifty years. I'm senior now. Well, I can I actually oppose from my personal point of view, I oppose the upzoning to the high rise building in the residential area? The only thing I I I I was thinking about it to compare. Hong Kong have a high rise, but, you know, most of them, they don't have car. The convenient the bus is so convenient in front

[Speaker 58.0]: of you. But if I want to

[Speaker 57.0]: take a bus, I have to take on walk almost two and a half two and a half long block, and I have problem with my knee. So I oppose the high rise building in our residential area. So I love San Francisco. I I love the way it is. Thank you.

[Speaker 60.0]: Hi. My name is Winnie. I have been living in services for fifty one years. And, 1995, when I was looking for a house in sunset I love sunset. So I I found couple houses sinking down the foundation. Finally, I I bought on 19th Avenue because it's rock and heal. I feel like moss is secure. And then my friend, I bought on 40th between R And S, the house sinking. It sunset is sand. It's not rocks, not soil, that area. And I and also now a lot of house units are available because they're control rent control so bad. Many of my friend, they took their unit back, and they didn't want to rent it because they lost money, like 100,000, this and that. We are really scared. And then so that's why the rent control really curing San Francisco, the the the housing. And, also, we also, there are some, affordable housing, and that's still available. Why still build more? And I feel like the city wants to have more money from the state. And, also, if the rent control change, be fair, probably more unit will come out, wouldn't be that bad. And, also, the street black I mean, the the street closing, some of my friends, the son, cannot drive. No parking space, and they could not find a job in the city. They couldn't go out the city. They are they are a job. A friend of mine told me this morning, my son still cannot find a job because cannot drive outside. He doesn't have a car. So if more building, more people, more crowded, more you know, how's the city afford more job to the residents? I feel like it's not right. And, please consider I, oppose, no zoning. Please keep the city building. Keep the city slow down. Okay? Don't rush. Thank you.

[Speaker 19.0]: Planning commission, my name is Mike Noor. In 1950, San Francisco had 775,000 people and about 200,000 housing units. Today, over seventy five years later, we have about 400,000 housing units. We've doubled. The population's only gone up by about four percent. We don't have a housing issue. We have an affordability issue. They're two completely different things. And just building a whole bunch of new units doesn't mean the price is gonna go down. We've proved that as our own city. We've doubled housing. Number of people living here has not gone up. The price has gone up. And it's the same. It's for New York, it's for Tokyo, it's for any any major city that's desirable, this is gonna happen. So just building million dollar condos isn't gonna fix our problem.

[Speaker 32.0]: The

[Speaker 19.0]: RHNA goal of 82,000 units for San Francisco, we're gonna expect to have more housing units put into our city seven miles by seven than the entire peninsula. And they're well richer than we are. They have many more resources, many more universities, many more hospitals, everything. They're well resourced. Whoever made this decision to shove 82,000 on our city, do you guys realize that's like the city of Sioux Falls, South Dakota dumping 200 and some thousand people on top of our city in a few in a few years. It's impossible for us, one, to build it. Basically, the city is doing this to cut parts of you off so you guys won't have any authority in the future. They want your jobs, basically. Wiener set it up this way. And just down the street, there's hundreds of millions of dollars of affordable housing that we built in the, North Of The Hays Valley in 2000. It's not even 25 years old and we're already tearing it down because it never got managed properly. So before we give you more money to build more housing, you guys need to look at what how are you managing it? Because those housing units shouldn't be torn out.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: That is your time.

[Speaker 19.0]: Thank you.

[Speaker 47.0]: Good afternoon. Jean Barish, president, planning association. I just lost my my oh, Jesus. I'm sorry. Can you turn the clock off while I get readjusted, please? I hate cell phones. Give me a sec. Planning association for the Richmond representing I don't have it yet. Time out.

[Speaker 35.0]: Just talk. Just talk. Yes.

[Speaker 47.0]: Well, I have a really good script that I want you to read. Okay. I'm coming back. Planning association for the Richmond district representing thousands of Richmond District residents, all of whom oppose the mayor's family zoning plan. This misguided plan will have a destructive impact on the Richmond District while providing few new affordable housing units that are so desperately needed. It will result in the displacement of tenants and small businesses, create problems with traffic, create problems with parking, air quality, other environmental concerns, infrastructure, and small business strains. There will be endless construction, and it will lead to a myriad of other neighborhood impacts. We urge the city to change its approach to fulfilling the state's mandated goal of 36,200 new housing units, and we instead support community created alternatives that protect rent control tenants, existing affordable housing, small businesses, multi generational single family homes, and historic structures. While it's encouraging to see today's changes, this plan must be withdrawn because impacted and impacted communities must partner with city hall and the planning department to create more housing, which at the same time will not destroy the qualities of life that make San Francisco 100 units, yet you are considering approving a fifty year plan that could result in 800,000 units. What's the rush? Density decontrolling half of San Francisco and shoehorning tens of thousands of people into small one and two bedroom market rate apartments is not good planning. We need carefully planned affordable housing that'll improve, not destroy our neighborhoods. This plan is merely an opportunity for developers to demolish our homes and businesses and replace them with cookie cutter cracker boxes. Please don't approve this plan. Thank you.

[Speaker 80.0]: Hello, planning commissioners. My name is Glenn Rogers. I'm a landscape architect. And first, I wanted to, suggest that I think it would be a very wonderful idea if you were if there is a loophole regarding the demolition of rent control housing in small businesses that you, you know, that you, remove the loophole. Because it takes, four years for, these people to, have these, buildings, reestablished. And, that's a little too long to wait. So although affordable housing and low middle income housing is, needed, developers often prefer in lieu fees. Now, this is the serious problem with, this housing, development because they only make money on market rate housing. They don't want to make money on, affordable housing and low income housing. And so they pay these fees and they never get built. You'd check into it, see how much of that money is ever spent on on affordable or low income housing. And, the other thing someone mentioned, the vacant businesses here in San Francisco should be the first place that we want to, build housing for the truly, affordable and for low income people. This would be ideal, for for them. Market rate housing obviously can't be built, you know, in a business. And just in passing, I wanted to say, if you have 47% of businesses, vacant in San Francisco, if you have 50% of the storefronts, vacant in San Francisco. If you have Salesforce now down 5,000 employees where they used to have 10,000, this this means housing is not necessarily necessary. Thank you, sir.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Thank you.

[Speaker 32.0]: Thank

[Speaker 80.0]: you for the extra time. Thank you.

[Speaker 81.0]: Hello. I'm Karen DiGiorgio. I live in Russian Hill, District 3. And listening to all of these people, seems to me that the people who have already made an investment into San Francisco for generations are being consideration what the impact of all of these changes are going to have on these existing families. My husband and I worked really, really hard to be able to buy in Russian Hill. That was our dream. So we did. But what's to stop the people who live next door to me from adding two more stories saying they're adding affordable housing onto that unit? Who knows whether or not they're going to be putting it in there? Who knows what's going to be happening to their foundation that's going to affect my foundation? It seems to me there's no checks and balances that are going on that the city is providing to understand the impact on the existing residents. And I it it feels to me like this whole plan is just too big of a plan. It needs to be phased. And the first part of this needs to be that you all go out and examine every single block in every single neighborhood and look at what's vacant, what's existing, what's not being used properly, and and how you can put affordable housing into some of those existing spaces. And maybe incent some of the developers who wanna come in to take over those existing spaces, for instance, the ones at Hayes Valley, from being from why aren't they being used? Why are they vacant? Why are all of these vacancies in in buildings that were overbuilt for the tech for the tech industry who came in and everything went up and all of these towers went up and then they're half empty. Because everybody's working at home and work styles have changed. You need to be considering what's going on in the neighborhoods, who's being impacted, and don't impact negatively the people who have made the investment into San Francisco. And I would say, keep the height limits where they are.

[Ty Hudson, UNITE HERE Local 2]: Good afternoon again, commissioners. I'm Ty Hudson with Unite Here Local two. I'm not gonna speak right now about our bigger picture concerns with the plan. I think you'll hear later on from the San Francisco Labor Council, and and we share a lot of of what you'll hear from them. But I'm gonna I'm speaking right now to object to a detail that is kind of buried in the department's among the department's recommended modifications that you you heard today from staff. Item number 13 on that list of recommended modifications is a proposal that would create an exception to planning code section three zero three g, which is the which is the requirement for conditional use auth youth conditional use authorization for hotels throughout the city. For three decades, this policy has allowed the city to ensure responsible hotel development and a hospitality industry whose prosperity lifts up communities, residents, and workers rather than leaving leaving them behind. While the currently proposed exception may be limited in scope, we see it as a threat to the crucial and long standing policy, that requires, as I mentioned, conditional use authorization for hotel development throughout the city. We urge the planning commission not to adopt that recommendation. And just to underscore this, if the family planning zone the family zoning plan is about creating housing, there isn't any need to include a provision that streamlines hotel development, not housing development. Thank you.

[Speaker 82.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is John Joanna. I am representing the people who own the Park Merced Shopping Center. It's underzoned, and we'd like to see it upzoned, which we could provide over 600 to six fifty new units. I hope you take that into consideration. That six fifty units, you don't have in San Francisco, which we could provide. So, again, we're all for the upzoning, and, we'd like to, go forward with eventually building that. Thank you so much.

[Speaker 83.0]: Hello. My name is Nellie King Solomon. I'm here as a fifth generation San Franciscan, three generations in North Beach. My mother recently passed, in the house where my daughter is an artist. She's a singer songwriter, and I'm raising her there, age 17. I'm an artist, working artist, have been all my life, born and raised in that house in North Beach. And my father is an urban planner and low income architect, low income developer, Daniel Solomon. And my father would go on about the vernacular of the city and respecting it and how to develop a city that lives and is a magnet for good. The area between Bay Street and Pier 39 and Fisherman's Wharf, I mean, I agree with Daniel Leary. It needs some love, but planning towers there is also physically unviable. It's fill from the nineteen o six earthquake and will create wild wind tunnels that everybody's talking about, but it's also just not a part of the fabric of the city. This is a destruction and a rush. My father can't be here. He's struggling with health. My mother is now dead. So I'm speaking on all of their behalves. Generations of people who have committed to this specific neighborhood, It's also not really necessary. I went on Zillow. There's 40 empty two unit apartments right near me. It's hard to rent an apartment. There's tremendous vacancy in both the offices and residential. What these will create is very tall, buildings that require rafts to be built on because it's fill. So it's not a stable foundation of bedrock for building tall buildings there anyway.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you.

[Speaker 83.0]: And then once you do it, you can't put low income housing on top of that. Thank you.

[Speaker 84.0]: Hello, commissioners. We're all hanging in there. My name is Judy Irving. I'm a freelance documentary filmmaker, Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill. And I've lived in San Francisco for forty eight years, starting in Noe Valley, but then I was attracted to North Beach and Telegraph Hill. There's a reason why North Beach and Telegraph Hill are the heart of the city, and why thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousands of tourists come there. For one thing, there are no chain stores. For another, it's human scale. There's a 40 foot height limit. I really urge you to not accept a plan that is going to destroy the Northeast corner of the city, which everyone the world over loves. I'd like to talk a little bit about the historic resources too. Over the last several months, about 700 new parcels were added to this plan that are in North Beach without any consideration of talking to the neighbors or informing anyone. These maps keeps changing keep keep changing. And how do we know that these historic resources will be protected? Because they're currently stonewalling the North Beach Historic District at the same time. To me, it feels like a vendetta on the part of Scott Wiener, our own representative. I'm sorry to say that, but that's what it feels like. So please do not please look carefully at protecting historic resources. Please read the entire plan. I heard through the grapevine that several people on this commission are not going to read the plan. And please continue this until Ma'am,

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: that is your

[Speaker 84.0]: viable and reasonable amendments can be added so that it can work for this beautiful city. Thank

[Speaker 4.0]: you, ma'am.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: That is your

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you.

[Speaker 68.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Quintin Mechkey with the Council of Community Housing Organizations. We made it. Oh my god. We made it to this hearing after all these months. I see Rachel and Lisa and all the hours that everyone has spent on this. Before I say anything further, we also want to stand with Local two and ask that that provision be removed, that hotels as of right without any CU. We certainly support that effort. You know, the city has been having such a bizarre conversation around housing, where we keep focusing on zoning and we are losing absolute connection to production. Who knows out of the 70,000 plus approved units in the pipeline, the 17,000 approved affordable units will ever be built for lack of financing, for lack of funding. And yet we continue to imagine that zoning itself will solve all these problems. And I think that we need to understand that this is the moment that rather than continue a model where we hand over the reins of a the most important issue in our city, which is housing, to private development. This is the time for the public sector to actually move forward into a role that is greater and larger. In front of you in this plan, the use of public lands and public sites is a huge way that you can reduce cost for affordable housing developers. Site cost, land acquisition can be up to 50% of the site cost. That is a way you have in hand right now to actually help affordable housing. Right now, the the pipeline is stuck. And if we're talking about future ideas, we met with the mayor last week. Whether it's a bond, whether it's more permanent sustainable funding, that's what we need to start focusing on rather than arguing about zoning that actually won't build housing.

[Speaker 32.0]: Thank you, members of the commission. My name is Holden Weisman. I am the director of policy and advocacy at Habitat for Humanity excuse me. Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco. I'm here today to to talk in support of the family zoning plan. I've heard a lot of folks today already speak about having made an investment in communities and and in this city. We want to make sure that that is a possibility as well. One of the only ways that we can do so to provide that kind of dream that folks have to be able to purchase and own a home in our city and stay in this city for the long run is by having the kind of zoning that would help us produce the kind of housing that would be able to do that. We are a developer. Many people have talked very negatively on developers today. I wanna assure you that there are those of us out there that want to be able to build the kind of affordable, permanently affordable housing for ownership in this city that wouldn't necessarily be building high rises, but would be able to provide extensive opportunities where they otherwise wouldn't be able to do so. We cannot do that without the zoning that would allow us to build the structures that we need to pencil out these projects. It is incredibly important for us to be able to have the zoning that will support multifamily, permanently affordable homes for ownership. I just want to say one last thing that, again, we are looking to just make the dream of homeownership possible and to keep San Francisco for San Franciscans that haven't been able to set down roots already. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 85.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Abby, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Chinatown CDC. As a place based nonprofit affordable housing developer, we strongly support building more housing, but the plan before you today neither identifies sites for permanently affordable housing nor provides funding mechanisms to make such housing feasible. Once parcels are upzoned, you all know acquisition costs rise and that prices out affordable housing projects. We urge you to incorporate strategies that prioritize affordable housing, such as designating large parcels, including public parcels in the zoning map for 100% affordable housing through through designating a special use district. Without such strategies, San Francisco will continue to fall short of its arena goals for low and moderate income families. Finally, this plan reduces the requirements for family sized units at a time when our communities are struggling to find two and three bedroom homes. We we need stronger commitments to ensure that these units are not only built, but are truly affordable for everyday families. San Francisco desperately needs housing that our seniors and families can afford. Please make and strengthen this legislation so that it meets that need. Thank you.

[Speaker 86.0]: Hi, commissioners. My name is Sharon, and I'm also from Chinatown CDC. As Avi previously stated, we're in support of building more housing that meets the needs and affordability levels for the people in our communities, but this plan doesn't guarantee that either of these will be built. First, with inclusionary housing rates and in lieu fees lower than they were in past decades, we need proactive strategies to make truly affordable housing for our most vulnerable residents feasible. San Francisco's Reno goals state we have to produce approximately 46,000 low and moderate income units, but this plan forces nonprofit developers to compete with the market for sites. We instead urge the commission to explicitly incorporate a non contiguous affordable housing special use district that identifies priority sites most feasible for 100% affordable housing development to allow nonprofit community based developers like ourselves to remain competitive through provisions of the housing choice SF program. And this affordable housing special use district wouldn't prohibit market rate development via existing pathways. Secondly, the plan decreases requirements for two and three bedroom units within the housing choice asset program. Though we understand and appreciate the minimums for three bedroom units reincorporated, the percentage of units required will not guarantee a substantial number of family sized units be built, rather than studios and one bedroom units while families buy for the elusive three bedroom unit. We've heard from our staff and families with housing choice vouchers about the difficulty of finding family sized units. And even then, these units may still not be affordable. This underscores the importance of strengthening the legislation so family sized units are not simply built, but affordable to the people who need them. Details on these points and others are included in the letter that we've just handed out and that we've also emailed you, and we're available to discuss further if you'd like. Thank you.

[Speaker 41.0]: You guys go ahead and have a seat, please.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Just have a quiet here.

[Speaker 87.0]: Good afternoon. My name is Mina Young. I'm the president of Business and Housing Network with thousands of members from the immigrant families who have language barriers and a lot of seniors who are struggling to make ends meet to keep their houses. We are small mom and pop owners. What the the government has been doing is distorting it has been long time distorting the affordability and utilization of the housing stock.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: Could we pause for a second, mister secretary, just so I think Yeah. More people are coming in. Perhaps.

[Speaker 87.0]: As many have mentioned, there are countless vacant units in the city. And even the city knows there are politicians who who make vacancy tax just to punish the owners for not renting out. So you know it's the elephant in the room, but you're not addressing it. I have been going around to the different meetings, hearings, and telling people the rent regulations are killing the homeowners or the the rental property owners, and they are blocking out people who are trying to rent a place in this city. So you you mentioned, like, 3.4% vacancy earlier. I don't know where you got that number from. I checked the census data. The latest is close to 60,000 vacant units. So by going through all the punishments and, you know, to to to put on the the mom and pop owners is not helping. And on the other hand, you keep on passing out cookies, you know, to the developers, the the nonprofits to to to to make it easier for them to take over the land control in this city. So we you are making it most unfriendly unfamily friendly in this city, systematically forcing out as though there will be less of opportunities for mom and pop owners. And renters who want to be mom and pop owners don't have the opportunity. So Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: That is your time.

[Speaker 88.0]: Thank you.

[Speaker 89.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Asia Nicole Duncan, and I am with Build Affordable Faster California. So we all have heard about how there is no path to affordability with this plan. We want housing, but we need a pathway for affordability. There is still no real plan for building affordable housing. This ordinance gives developers new height, density, and streamlining tools, but the only affordable requirements are the existing section four fifteen program and a narrow 20% set aside in a housing sustainability district. That does not amount to the city wide affordable plan. We need to use city government to work with working people. That means investing in and financing housing that is truly affordable to the families, immigrants, and working class renters who make San Francisco home. Without that commitment, this rezoning risks accelerating displacements instead of preventing it. Thank you.

[Speaker 90.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Laurie Lederman. I live in the Inner Sunset. I followed zoning legislation for about ten years, and what strikes me is that each time it seeks to add height and density to reduce requirements for affordability, to reduce or eliminate open space parking, setbacks, and other important elements for the people who live, work, and visit here. And a consistent demand from developers is to extinguish the participation of people who will be directly impacted. While YIMBY's preached the trickle down theory that somehow all these concessions will result in lower rents, the rent is still too damn high, and we continue to see thousands of empty market rate units and thousands of applicants for affordable housing that isn't built. Demolition decontrol is frankly terrifying, and a few nice words about right of return are emptier than vacant market rate units. Developers will always want more concessions, yet they've failed to fulfill their part of the bargain, witness the 72,000 permitted units not built, and how many multi unit buildings where tenants were Ellis acted years ago remain empty, now blight our neighborhoods, until they're allowed to demolish them. Demolition always equals displacement, and this plan invites demolition. It targets small businesses on commercial corridors who are vital contributors to community, walkability, and many low incomes. Density decontrol on this scale without a budget commitment to expanded muni service and updated water sewer infrastructure is a recipe for disaster, and there should be a clear prohibition on the sale of public land for private for profit development. This commission adopted a housing element that recognized the importance of equity in planning. This legislation would toss that plan to the wolves. Please fix it. Thank you.

[Speaker 91.0]: Hi, commissioners. My name is David Harrison, here on behalf of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce to speak in support of this plan. We're representing over 900 members, businesses big and small, and we've had a lot of conversations about

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: housing

[Speaker 91.0]: in the city and a few common themes. One, we've got employers, big and small, frontline employees who are driving over two bridges early in the morning who want to be here closer in the city and cannot live here, cannot afford to live here. We've got talent that is difficult to attract to our city, to retain in our city because of the cost of housing. And we know if we're going to solve that demographic gap of young people in our city, we have to provide housing for those folks. And ultimately, we know that this plan is going to address that. And then finally, I want to talk about small businesses, because over 60% of the Chamber's members are small businesses. And it's really important we all know and we all care and love about San Francisco, that we address concerns that small businesses have raised, and we're really excited to be supporting this plan with commitments from planning, wonderful legislation from Supervisor Mune and Melgar to create a fund that is going to be able to mitigate in the very rare instances that small businesses are impacted, for those costs, as well as commitments from planning for early notifications, as well as incentives to try to build out shells on the ground floor, that will get activity going. So thank you for your amazing work on this proposal, and we're happy to support.

[Speaker 61.0]: Hi. Good afternoon. Nice to see familiar faces. Recently I met with a long time developer in Marin. And using the state bonus high provision, he was able to build 21 stories in a six story zone. The community objected and the developer told them, you quote, you can't you can't fight me. You can fight you can fight me, but you can't stop me. And he was right. You clearly are aware of this bonus provision, but most people here are not. Currently, the state bonus height provision appears in a small footnote and is not very clear. It's important to be clear with residents about this trap. I personally feel deceived. If you need to build more housing in the city, by all means, but remove the many obstacles builders face or reduce their taxes. As a small business owner for the past nineteen years here in the city, I want affordable housing for my employees, over 20 employees who are early career scientists teaching a very unique advanced science to children of San Francisco. Not only will they be displaced, my business will be displaced. Already, I struggle to find affordable location. My own 28 years old daughter just moved into our house because even though she has a very respectable income, rent will represent a very high percentage of of her income. To think that this will only get worse, much worse, means no science education to kids and fewer jobs. Thank you.

[Speaker 92.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Theresa Flandrich, North Beach Tents Committee. I am asking you to please not support this legislation today in its current state because there are no definite tenant protections that will actually mitigate the the bulk of what will happen. We are continuing to work on, on that ordinance, but it's not ready today, nor is there a an ordinance about small businesses and their protections. We have been struggling with so many different maps. I mean, maps changing and then, you know, trying to read through 467 pages of what the upzoning legislation as normal people. Okay? Normal. And and everywhere I'm hearing, I don't understand. What is this? Other calls have been about, oh my god. You know, my auntie is getting all of these calls from a realtor, calling repeatedly saying, I would love to buy your home. And this is this is something we've seen in the past. Right? It's so it's knowing what we know, what comes along with demolitions, what comes along with speculations, and allowing demolitions, allowing mergers, allowing allowing conversions. This is removing housing, and this is supposed to be about building housing. And I know in North Beach, what we need most is actually affordable, truly affordable rental housing. We have a glut of condos. Many are vacant. They are, you know, where money is parked. So I I'm wishing that you would take time right now to actually look at how do all of these different pieces of legislation fit together with this upzoning, and more is yet coming. So how does it all fit together, and what is the harm, and what is the the real benefit? We do need housing, but please be very careful as you look at this. This is not ready for prime time. Thank you so much.

[Speaker 93.0]: Hi. I came today because this is a really important issue. I was not planning to speak, so bear with me. I have nothing prepared. But, you know, I I took off from work today because it was important. But I grew up in this city, and I love this city. But I don't love what it's become. There have been too many promises over the years about all these ways that there was going to be affordable housing for people. I'm one of the few people I work my ass off. I'm a single mom. But it was important to me. I grew up in a high density area in the city in an apartment building. And I want that for my son. So as a single parent, I did everything that I could. I cut corners. And I managed to actually buy a house in Glen Park. And I picked that neighborhood because it is single family homes, because there's open space, because there's Glen Park Canyon, because there's local shopping that I can walk to. And now I feel like I'm under attack because my dream isn't as important as somebody else's. I shouldn't have to feel guilty for wanting to raise my son in a single family home to have all that that offers him. I think one of the greatest things about this city is that there is mixed types of housing. And I want to keep that. I don't think we need a city that's all high rise housing. And let's be real. It's not going to be affordable. That's just BS. I've known that because I've lived in this city. And I've seen all the promises and all the misman BMR is a joke. That has been mismanaged from the start. There are so many people who got fooled into thinking that they had this home only to find out there was a catch down the road and that they really couldn't ever, if they wanted to relocate, even managed it to to to realize a profit because there was a limit on that. But that's another story. My point is you need to really look at the unique topography of this city.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, ma'am.

[Speaker 41.0]: Not of the

[Speaker 93.0]: neighborhoods That's a good time. Okay. Can I just say one thing? This is important. So please do not vote on this today. It needs to be continued. It's too important

[Lydia So, Commission President]: to be consistent with everybody else. Thank you for your time. We heart you. Thank you.

[Speaker 94.0]: Hello, commissioners. I'm here on behalf of the Jordan Park Neighborhood Association, and

[Speaker 15.0]: we are growing increasingly

[Speaker 94.0]: concerned with this plan. Last week, my Marin developer who's planning to entitle what could be the tallest multi unit residential building in Marin at 21 stories in an area currently zoned for six. We have to ask how is this even possible? The short answer, it seems from him, is by stacking all of the new state density bonus laws on top of base heights. The plan before you significantly raises base heights and may actually incentivize developers to bypass the local program. I've asked planning two questions. What's the maximum height on Geary if a builder took advantage of all of the state bonuses? How can the average they've been using to set base heights be reliable if AB twelve eighty seven, which is known as double the density, didn't take effect until January 2024? I have yet to hear back. The fact that there is not a ready independent analysis of this for anywhere that base heights are increasing is deeply concerning. Raising base heights was not part of the original housing element and shouldn't be a part of this one. This plan in its current form creates incentives for developers to run roughshod over our city and neighborhoods, and there are too many unanswered questions. At Geary and Stanyan, very close to my house, we've seen what gets built even at four stories. Luxury. Of the available sales data, nine of 13 units sold for over $1,000,000 That's a 100% of the available sales data. This plan prioritizes developer profits over treasured historic neighborhoods and existing families and does nothing for affordability. Commissioners, I urge you to vote no and at least take some more time to think about this. Thank you.

[Speaker 95.0]: I'm Virginia Barker. Today my comments will focus on credibility, messaging, and substance. I was dismayed to read in the Chronicle that director Dennis Phillips called opponents of the upzoning fear mongers, like all Trumpian projections. Her statement was wildly inaccurate, divisive, and demonizing, unbecoming of a public servant. Fear is the appropriate reaction to the widespread eviction and destruction Mayor Lohrey's plan will unleash. The Loury administration has generated fear and opposition by betraying the residents you are here to serve. Your betrayal of nearly half a century of rent control regulation on which the majority of San Francisco residents have built their lives and your sellout of our small business, cultural, architectural, and social fabric are reprehensible. Alarm is the proper response to the evident capture by industry of this formerly regulatory body. Mayor Lures up zoning will not deliver an adequately housed city. It will deliver only profit to real estate speculators. It destroys trust in city government. I appreciate that, miss Chen, the planner Chen said to today that there's tenant protections and that, protection there, people saying there's no protection for rent control is flat wrong. I will believe that when I see it. Given the planning departments and the city's spin, given the lack of transparency, given the misleading information that's been put forward, I hope that it will be accomplished by the Board of Supervisors. But as of today, commissioners, I think the only conscionable vote on the upstanding plan is no.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: I'm gonna remind members of the public to refrain from clapping. You can wiggle your hands, fingers, whatever you want, but please do it silently.

[Speaker 96.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Yell Hernandez, and I'm a member of Labor's Local two sixty one. It's a construction trade union here in San Francisco. And we're here to well, I'm here to express our support to the family zoning plan. It represents a generational opportunity to build dense housing in an area of the city that was working class people have largely been priced out. We also support our sisters and brothers in the San Francisco building trades as they work with the administration to make improvements to the plan so that it truly lives up the hardworking tradespeople who built our city. Let's, let's build more housing. Thank you.

[Speaker 88.0]: Hello. My name is Alice Williams. I'm a resident of District 7 Of San Francisco. And so not only a resident, but a homeowner. So there's a difference between homeowners and people that wanna come into the city. And so this family zoning plan is a bit of a government overreach in my opinion. San Francisco is seven miles by seven miles. I mean, how many people or housing complexes can this build can can there be built on this land before saturation? What about the resources that we have? Don't we need to build infrastructure? Has anybody looked into that? Is that even possible? 85,000 new units. That's a lot of units. Why does everyone need to live in San Francisco? Since expansion cannot happen horizontally, why must it happen vertically? Now how is the mayor's office and it's zero funds? The mayor's half office of housing and community development has zero funds right now going to subsidize this upzoning on steroids from taxes. Right? Taxing whom? If taxing property owners, do we not have a say in this? We would like to be included in these decisions. It affects us greatly. Is this about usurping property owners' rights? Who appointed governing bodies as kings over us to just decide what they wanna do without any input from us? When property owners leave, who will find the government takeover then? Do we trust the governing body that they will not try to enrich themselves financially? What is stopping this administration from doing the same as the developers who will make a killing creating these eight to 20 foot 20 story foot, 20 story infrastructures.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, ma'am. That is your time.

[Speaker 97.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Catherine Petron. I'm an architectural historian. I'm active with Neighborhoods United SF and on the board of San Francisco Heritage. This week, Heritage submitted a letter to this commission focusing on the inevitable impact that the adoption of this plan will have on the city's historic resources. If the plan succeeds in increasing development value at such an extreme scale, then up zone parcels, both numerous category a buildings and buildings that are historic but undesignated will be in much greater jeopardy. The heritage letter sets out real protections and solutions to balance the impact of the plan in terms of development and demolition to historic buildings. We have been and we will continue to be at Heritage very amenable to working with commissioners, the department, and supervisors to improve this plan before it's adopted. I also just wanted to use my time to acknowledge the big difference between the 2025 plan that's now before you and the 2022 housing element and the associated EIR. On many levels, it's radically different. But in terms of impacts to historic buildings, this is especially more expansive and radical. Unlike the 2022 housing element, which really focused we heard so much for years about West Side development. There's a major shift here moving to the Northeast Corner of the city and other areas. This plan adds 7,000 new parcels in District 3, something that was completely unanticipated until a couple of months ago. This feels like something of a curveball. This will allow and, I would say, encourage new high rise development in the historic districts of Telegraph Hill, North Beach, Northern Waterfront, in Waterman's in Fisherman's Wharf, and along Columbus Avenue, something that was not allowed or analyzed in the 2022 EIR or housing element. Thank you.

[Speaker 98.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Courtney Damkroger, former historic preservation commissioner, a preservation planner, and a supporter of Neighborhoods United San Francisco. There are many potentially devastating impacts to our city from the proposed upzoning, and chief among them will be the loss of historic and cultural resources. I strongly support the requests made by San Francisco heritage, as well as several points made, by the Historic Preservation Commission in their September 10 letter to you. And the highlights of those include, excluding all category a parcels in the proposed upzoning area, Give the planning department the leeway to finish an ongoing survey and designation program without the threatened loss of historic resources. Recognizing the challenge of exempting buildings while achieving acceptable unit capacity, one HPC commissioner recommended exemption of all category a buildings in the neighborhood commercial corridors where the greatest housing capacity is anticipated. This suggestion was not included in the letter, though it is a viable alternative strategy. The planning department's citywide cultural resources survey is a model program. It's also labor intensive and time consuming. Tie the completion of and the support for that program to specific dates aligned with the upzoning plan. This will help protect these resources and support the planning department. A similar suggestion was made by an HPC commissioner. Finally, San Francisco Heritage requested a reassessment strategy of the city's historic preservation program. Their offer to partner with stakeholders is timely and sorely needed. Please include this suggestion in your recommendations. To conclude, I urge you to protect San Francisco's historic and cultural resources while addressing state housing mandate mandates by recommending inclusion of these constructive requests in your recommendations. Thank you.

[Speaker 99.0]: Good afternoon, planning commission. Griffin Lee here, passionate San Franciscan, District 2 resident. I think we need to rethink about the plan. I'll state a quote from Yoda Free Mark. He has evidence from the upzonings that happened in Chicago in 2013 and 2015. Within the first two years of those upzonings, land and buildings increased in value. That means the new constructed buildings that were bought increased rents. I understand there's a need for market rate housing. There's a need for all types of housing here in San Francisco. But this plan does not get us there. We have a lot of speculation already happening in the city. Lucky Penny site, Alexandria Theater, Old Hong Kong 2 Lounge, and nothing's happening. I know people are anxious for more housing. But the reality is 70,000, 71,000 units approved in the pipeline as of quarter two twenty twenty five. We need to continue improving on what Mayor Larry is doing today in Permit SF and getting out of the way so housing can be built in a responsible manner. Thank you so much.

[Speaker 100.0]: Hello. My name is Moe Zhu. I'm here today to urge you to support the family zoning plan. My partner and I recently decided to start a family, very exciting, but not so exciting as looking at the math and thinking about how we are going to raise our family here in SF. And I think this plan will be a really great step towards that. So please support the plan. Thank you.

[Speaker 101.0]: Margaret Dietz, Russian Hill resident. I oppose the plan. One question I have for you, I don't expect an answer, but I would like to get one eventually, is if the rent control building I live in, which is six stories, that parcel has now been rezoned 14 stories, what does that mean for rent control in my building? And I left town for two weeks. I came back. I heard our supervisor, mister Sauder, say that rent control will be fine, but, have you changed the legislation in the last two weeks that I didn't hear about? How rent control buildings will be protected from this zoning, and what is the speculation that this will encourage if you don't do something to protect rent control? Because I don't know even who owns our building at this point. Is it some speculative bank? I'm gonna go find out. But I hope you can answer the question, what will you write into this legislation to protect a rent controlled affordable building, well, somewhat affordable, from being impacted?

[Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator]: Hi.

[Speaker 70.0]: Hi. My name is Arman Dombalewski. I've been a resident of San Francisco for ten years. I have lived in the Bay Area my whole life. My family are my parents are refugees. They fled communist Poland in the 1980s, coming for hope of a better life. My father built hardwood floors since he was very young. My my brother and I spent our summers working on those hardwood floors, building homes around the Bay Area. And if you ever told us that I could live in San Francisco, it'd be like telling me I could live in Disneyland. I'm incredibly lucky to do so now, but I am always afraid that I won't be able to hold on because the city is so expensive. We need to build this housing and we need to support this plan. The Philadelphia Federal Reserve, New York Furman Center, UCLA Lewis, Turner Center, and UC Berkeley are just a few of the places that have found research finding that building more housing, building more market rate, building more affordable housing reduces rents. Even if the new units are expensive, what happens is that affluent people fill those units instead of competing with people for existing units. Instead of losing and playing a game of musical chairs. A previous speaker cited, for example, Yonah Freemarc. But Yonah Freemarc specifically, a follow-up study was asked, does building new housing cause increases in prices? And he specifically said, no, it doesn't. In fact, almost all of the research on the influence of housing supply and housing affordability suggests that increased housing supply improves affordability. So please for the sake of my family and the families like it support this plan let's build more housing thank you

[Speaker 102.0]: Hi. My name's Kent. It's an honor to speak in front of you, president Soh, commission, Rachel Tanner and director, Dennis Phillips. It's an honor to be here. You guys are on the front lines of democracy and abundance. You hold the power to unleash the potential of San Francisco. Imagine, we already have everything else. We're the thought leaders, the technology leaders, the weather, we have really good pho. Imagine if we also led in housing, we'd be unstoppable. The only tiny little thing I wanna ask for is please, please, please don't let this zoning, this family zoning plan get watered down and become less relevant because y'all know the state is looking at us. And if this plan gets watered down and not as effective as it could be, it's gonna become useless because they're just gonna replace it with what they want. Thank you. Thank you for your courage. I know this is tough. I wouldn't wanna be in your shoes. Thank you. Thank you. Abundance. Thank you.

[Speaker 103.0]: It's gonna be hard to follow-up. Hi, commissioners. My name is James Wen, and I'm here to support the mayor's family zoning map. I'm a native of San Francisco, and I've lived in District 7 my entire life where I still reside. Since high school, I've seen many of my friends, really good friends of mine, leave San Francisco as they've been priced out of the city. Of my friends, including myself, who remain in San Francisco, we either live at home with our parents or with five roommates despite making what many Americans would consider a good salary. We need more housing and the West Side needs to do its part to build it. For far too long, we have prioritized the character of a neighborhood, the view of a park, and the facade of the building over the economic future and stability of the city's children. I really do wanna take this time to thank the planning department and the mayor for all of your hard work. And I do hope that especially given the fact that the state of California, a few hours ago, gave you a preliminary approval that this plan is not watered down and voted in unanimously. Thank you so much for your time.

[Speaker 104.0]: Hi. My name is Charlie. I live in District 6. I wanted to give my strong, strong support for the family zoning plan, and also thank everyone for being here and all the work that you've been doing developing this and reaching out to the community for years. I think the first meeting I went to about this was like three years ago at this point. I'm here because my partner, who's just spoken, I dream of starting a family in the city, but we really don't know how the math is gonna work out. And the biggest piece of that is housing, especially for family sized apartments. And it's not just me. If we can somehow do it, I still wonder about where our future kids' school teachers going to. Are they going to be able to live in the city or childcare workers or anybody else who makes the city work? And what about my kids themselves? Like, will they be able to not just survive here, but thrive? Or will they be priced out because we've made it so hard to build enough housing for years and years and years? I've heard a lot of fear mongering, especially from from wealthy West Side homeowners, but I want to call out there's so many things to want about this. More housing would mean more affordability along the across the board. We've seen in cities that have zoned for more housing, places like Minneapolis, Denver, Austin, that rents have dropped year over year, Seattle as well. It would mean more ridership for Muni at a time when that organization is struggling. More tax revenue, more customers for small businesses. SF could continue to be a haven for queer people. It's sort of an empty promise when we say we're very welcoming, but it costs you have to be very, very rich to be able to rent here. And then lastly, I'm very concerned about the fact that California is projected to lose four electoral votes in 2030 due to so many people being priced out. And this is a chance that San Francisco can do to help stem that loss as well. Thank you so much for your time.

[Speaker 105.0]: Thank you, commissioners. Let's talk communication. I'm Romalyn Schmaltz, and I've lived in, and had businesses in North Beach for twenty years, and I oppose this plan and request a continuance because of the following reasons. Even though our already crazy dense district wasn't in the housing element of 2022, as soon as he was elected, in January's or take took office in January, supervisor Sowder, development developer dependent Scott Wiener's acolyte, no less, not only put us all over the map, he volunteered away our waterfront, everybody's waterfront, with zero communication. After seven months, his first meeting with us was on July 21, and he tried to escape right away with, I promised my wife I'd be home by 07:30. And 250 of his constituents felt really abandoned, so we're having problems. He's not listening or talk to or talking or taking us seriously, but he should, and, he should ask district four if we're serious. He's too stumped swamped to talk it out at a town hall, but he has plenty of time for Instagramming pop up wiener stands and slurping flavored sodas. So I invite Danny to come play with us at the and with the camera and shoot some killer PR videos of the many small businesses that will shutter forever because of his map, and the San Franciscans who exist now, now, will certainly lose in this plan. They're going to lose their roots. They're going to lose their homes where they're supposed to go. And you know this is the case. This is always the case. So my sincere invitation to our supervisors to meet with us and hammer out a compromise, and my sincere request to you is to continue this hearing. And Danny and the mayor asked for some for the same courtesy for our historic district when we were trying to, to have that passed. They asked for more time. Well, we haven't had any time yet. These these these maps have just been coming out, and it's a we need to talk about this. So we demand to be heard, and we ask you to please give us some time to talk about this. Thank you.

[Speaker 49.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for hearing me. I am Sarah Cruz. I live in the Richmond District. My parents were both Californians and had to both leave because they could not afford to live in California. I am able to live here because I moved back in the middle of the pandemic, and rent had gone down. And I live in rent control. If I lose my rent control, I am an educator. I will not be able to live in the city. Prior to moving here, I lived in Portland, Oregon for ten years. Portland had an upzoning similar to this. It did pass. It did not make Portland more affordable. It made Portland unaffordable. It made rent unaffordable. It pushed out communities of color. It pushed out artists. It pushed out teachers. It became a tech haven. We already have seen this happen in San Francisco with mayor Lee and the tax breaks that tech companies got. Housing costs increase, homelessness has increased. In Portland, the homelessness rate from the year 2015 has gone up 65%. 26% alone between 2024 and 2025. Pushing through development that gives tax that gives developers tax breaks

[Speaker 93.0]: and

[Speaker 49.0]: incentivizes selling small building to developers is not going to make the city more affordable for anyone. I was speaking outside to Sean from Joe's, ice cream on Geary, who is a small business owner who could not be here because he had to go back to work. I took the day off to be here. The landlord sold the building that his business is in, to developers. It is being torn down and redeveloped and will be three years before he can reestablish his business, and he also does not have the funds of 300 to 500,000 that it takes to close a business, reopen it, and be closed for that duration of time. I urgently ask you to reconsider this. Please consider a continuance. There is not enough of the public. And the YIMBYs are touting democracy. If this is a true democracy Thank

[Speaker 32.0]: you, I appreciate

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: your time.

[Speaker 49.0]: Thank you. It should go to a public vote. Thank you.

[Speaker 106.0]: Hello. My name is Pat Huey. I live in the Haight. I've lived in San Francisco for forty years. I urge you to vote no on this plan. I support affordable housing, but it must be carefully planned, and there's no evidence that this plan is being carefully planned. There's no detailed plan for infrastructure details, such as such as described and certainly such as described earlier, and certainly no concern for historic preservation. The most of the units are going to be one bedrooms or studios. I don't see or and there's definitely no parking. I I don't see how that's gonna be for families. There's not even really real safety concerns. The up zone building at Irving in 26th is being built on toxic landfill. I have no idea how that was allowed, but that was allowed. These buildings will only benefit wealthy investors. I've also heard that one of you one of you, and I hope this is not true, that one of you was bragging that you have not even read the plan, but you're gonna go ahead and improve it anyway because that's what Sacramento wants. And if there's nothing more frightening, it's being in the care of a puppet. I urge you to vote no. Thank you.

[Speaker 107.0]: Hi. My name is James Ousman. The first thing

[Speaker 108.0]: I'd like to do

[Speaker 107.0]: is thank you, commissioners, for giving me

[Ty Hudson, UNITE HERE Local 2]: a chance to speak. I really appreciate all your service

[Speaker 107.0]: to San Francisco. I mean, what you're doing today is truly heroic,

[Ty Hudson, UNITE HERE Local 2]: and I just I just wanna thank you from the bottom of my heart. I'm speaking in favor of the mayor's family zoning plan. I moved here in 1993. I'm bisexual. I felt very unwelcome in the world. And this was a refuge for me. Right? This is a place where I could be myself. And I could love who I loved. We're not a refuge for people like me. We're not a refuge for young queer people anymore. It's because we've priced ourselves out of it. People want to come here. And the NIMBYs have stopped us from building housing. They've stopped it for fifty years. Finally, things are starting to change. I look at transgender people in

[Speaker 107.0]: this country. This is still

[Ty Hudson, UNITE HERE Local 2]: the best place in the world to be if you're transgender. And we have not been able to open

[Speaker 32.0]: our doors or our hearts for them.

[Ty Hudson, UNITE HERE Local 2]: So I urge you to vote yes on this. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 46.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Julian Rappaport. I'm a lifelong San Franciscan. I'm a District 7 resident, and I'm a college student. I rise today in strong support of this plan. I'm here because I'm tired of watching my friends leave. I'm tired of looking at the salaries for entry level jobs and then looking at Zillow and realizing that it's just not going to be able to work. And I'm tired of housing moving at a snail's pace one lot at a time and each time with immense difficulty. To those who worry about neighborhood character I ask, what character is there in neighborhood where businesses close because they can't hire workers, where schools close because teachers and families are priced out? Because this is where the status quo has led us and will continue to lead us if action is not taken. This plan is a principled effective step towards repairing the crisis of affordability in the city and I urge adoption. Thank you so much.

[Speaker 109.0]: Hello, commissioners. As a District 3 resident, I'm concerned that the Northeast section of the city was added to the plan without its significant impacts being studied in the final e EIR. Most District 3 residents don't even know about the recent 650% increase in up zone units in District 3, many of which are in priority equity areas. It's impossible for those who do know about the plan to keep track of it with almost daily changes to the to the maps, to the plan. And I can imagine how difficult it is for you, commissioners, to keep track and follow these dramatic changes and how they would affect existing residential and commercial tenants, infrastructure, historic resources, open space, etcetera. This plan can be improved, and you need to know exactly what it is you're voting for. For these reasons, I ask that you continue this item for further study and outreach. And I know there were many other people who wanted to speak on this issue, but they have had to leave because the line is too long and it's taken too long. So they have not had a chance to have their voices heard. So I do urge you to continue this item. Thank you.

[Speaker 72.0]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Andy Katz, and I'm a lifelong resident of North Beach. And I come here to oppose this massive upzoning plan. The YIMBYs and the developers pushing this so called mislabeled family plan are doing so even though it does not include much affordable housing or housing actually under rent to control. Our supervisor, Danny Sauter, came to one public meeting in our district about this issue. There was no outreach. This 1,300 page up zoning plan and the zoning maps that are included with it have been changed up to the very last minute. We need a real affordable comprehensive housing plan that also protects tenants and seniors, not a constantly changing developer giveaway pushed on us by Scott Wiener. And where are the residents in this consultation process? People like me who've lived here my whole life. Please do your job and protect our city from this scam of a plan. This agenda item needs to be continued to be considered carefully. It should not be treated

[Speaker 110.0]: as a political football. Thank you.

[Speaker 111.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Jennifer Gosselin. I'm a District 2 homeowner, and I have lived in the city for twenty nine years. And my husband, a teacher, and I have raised our family here. I fully support increasing housing. I understand that every urban area in California is mandated to do so. That said, how we do this matters. As others have noted, the specifics for each location need to be studied further. I am speaking today to respectfully ask that the commission delay the plan until more review has been done with regards to each specific location. Specifically, on 300 Lake Street, there has been no communication on the due diligence of the best use of the property accompanying the zoning recommendation. Despite what was communicated in the FAQs on the family plan page, this residential neighborhood street is being zoned similarly to Geary, a major transit corridor. When concerns were raised about the 80 foot five 85 foot height in April and May, assurance was given that the conditions of the site would be carefully studied before final decision was made. No information has been forthcoming. Specifically, these issues are proposed setbacks. The current setback is 30 to 40 feet. The proposed zoning change would allow construction just five feet from the property long, which is more or less this amount of distance. This is completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. It's a large plot where lots of housing can be constructed, but not like this. It is not clear whether the density bonus provisions would allow structures to exceed even the 85 feet and the 50 foot height limits. I understand this would be conceivable along major traffic quarters such as Geary, Venice, or Market, but like Lake Street on Lake Street, it's like dropping a office building in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Within a four to 85 foot structure and a five foot setback, there is potential for significant increase in population data

[Speaker 32.0]: that has

[Speaker 111.0]: not been studied.

[Speaker 112.0]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Christina Brown. I am a resident of North Beach. I have lived there forty seven years. I support affordable housing. But this bill, as applied to San Francisco, will reduce the stock and production of affordable housing. The city is already filled with market rate housing towers that are vacant most of the year, most of the time. People do not want to live in those towers, certainly not at the unaffordable rents that they are all offered at. The city does not need more market rate, in other words, luxury units, built. We need affordable units built. This is a national issue. I know that you feel in the hot seat both from the state and the nation on this. But as this law will be applied in San Francisco, it will reduce the stock and production of housing. Please go in and think about this program, this plan, more carefully. There is no reason to surrender the public good so cheaply. Democrats in the past have allowed zoning changes that did not result in sufficient housing being built for the population. This is a national issue. It has been noted. This plan will not result in a increase in affordable housing in San Francisco. It will not result in there being enough increased housing to lower rents. This will be in voters' minds. Their increased rent or property value, the taxes they will pay on Thank

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: you, ma'am.

[Speaker 32.0]: Will be Thank you, ma'am. Will be

[Speaker 112.0]: The nation is watching. Please don't sell out the public good so cheaply.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you very

[Speaker 112.0]: much, ma'am.

[Speaker 77.0]: And continue.

[Speaker 113.0]: Good evening. My name is Daniel Marshall, and I oppose the upzoning. I've lived in North Beach since 1990. I asked for a continuance until the eighteenth. Some residents had to leave for work and could not be here tonight or this this afternoon to to speak. You do not need to vote tonight. The Democrats, the nation is watching. Do not sell out the public interest without securing real affordable housing. If this zoning creates so much new housing, why is there no guarantee that displaced tenants can return to their prior location? The the law offers no guarantee into this into the same location. We already have a city full of empty luxury units sitting vacant most of the year. Residents of luxury units depend on service workers who cannot afford to live here. Every additional luxury unit only deepens the affordability crisis for all. This law fails to protect protect existing tenants. Please continue the dialogue until the eighteenth. It is the right thing to do. Please do not rush this matter. Thank you.

[Speaker 114.0]: Good afternoon. My name is Gabriel Keith Powell. And as a lifelong resident and student, I am in huge support of the family zoning plan. My whole life, my generation has watched as the city has failed to properly address the housing crisis that plagues our city. We have grown up under the threat of displacement, losing friends and classmates as the city has grown more and more unaffordable. While I do not believe that the family zoning plan will fix our housing problem all in one go, I greatly admire the boldness of this plan coming from a city that so far has let me and my generation down. Also, as a college student currently studying urban planning, I admire the thoughtfulness with which this plan has been created. I truly believe that this plan will create the more vibrant, equitable, and affordable San Francisco that my generation has long been promised. Thank you.

[Speaker 115.0]: One of my greatest joys as an organizer is working with other young people to fight for a better world. I recently asked a 20 year old native San Franciscan from Bernal Heights, what would you say to the adults in the room if you could just scream at them about housing? What do we need to hear? His response broke my heart. With his whole chest, he said, how are we okay with the fact that he and his friends won't be able to grow old here? How are so many of his classmates in SF Public Schools homeless and everyone knew it and just accepted it? His whole life, he's listened to adults bicker about whether we really need to build more housing. Adults who share conspiracies about a housing density boogeyman and scapegoat working people, our neighbors, our community, who are being priced out before our very eyes. And in the meantime, while we failed to take meaningful action, he's grown up in a city with skyrocketing homelessness and record setting economic inequality, in a country being led by a fascist dictator while his neighbors are being snatched up by ice. How can we look our youth in the eyes and argue that building facades and shadows matter more than our community, that neighborhood character matters more than the character of our neighborhood? How can we tell them that letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is more righteous than their dreams of simply growing old in their hometown? Are those really our San Francisco values? I'm proud to support the family zoning plan. This plan is one step forward. It is not everything. We need real avenues for affordable housing financing and protections for tenants and small business. And honestly, this plan doesn't go far enough. It doesn't include our neighborhood in Bernal Heights, which ranks last in housing production across the city and has built just seven seven units of affordable housing in twenty years. That's because 75% of Bernal Heights is still covered by exclusionary zoning, which everyone from Zora Maam Dani to Joe Biden agrees has systemically rigged our neighborhoods. But I know a better world is possible for our youth and for all of us. Today, say yes to this incremental plan. And when I'm back in the future asking you to rezone my neighborhood in Bernal Heights, say yes to finally correcting our racist legacy of exclusionary zoning. Thank you.

[Speaker 116.0]: Hi there. Oh. Hello. My name is Lisa Luje, and I'm a resident of the Inner Richmond. I live, oops, I just lost my notes. Well, I live right by I live adjacent to the Saint Anne's parcel at 300 Lake, and I'm here to express my opposition to the proposal. I feel the new height limits are just absolutely ridiculous. Currently, that neighborhood, the entire Lake Street doesn't have a building with the possible exception of, of Temple Emanuele, that's over 40 feet high, the entire Lake Street. The proposal is, to up zone the site to allow for 85 foot buildings or or a building. I just think that's completely insensitive and unnecessary. It's a huge site with many opportunities for development that could be more sensitive to the neighborhood, and I should say many opportunities for densification. While densification may be a good thing, I just don't think this is the right way to go about it. I think the plan needs more study. I think we, as neighbors, need to know how we're going to be affected by possible 80 80 foot 85 foot buildings. Will, for example, there be setbacks? Will we have will the mid block green space be encouraged and other such questions. So I urge you to and furthermore, we need more communication as a neighborhood and more from the planning department. We didn't receive notice at this hearing, and I think we were all supposed to get that in the mail. And in addition, we need we'd like more input from our neighborhood. So please don't please delay the vote. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 117.0]: Hi, everyone. I'm Sarah Rogers with District nine Neighbors for Housing. We're here to strongly support the family zoning plan. And while we hope that Bernal Heights can be included in a future rezoning, we think that this plan is well designed and a crucial step forward for our city. In 1978, the planning commission approved the disastrous downzoning that removed a 180,000 units or one third of the city's capacity for housing and banned apartments from wide swaths of the city where they had previously been allowed. The city's own environmental impact report predicted that the down zoning would cause housing prices to rise, and this is a quote, affect the low and moderate income groups more than any other group. Community organizations and supervisors serving low and moderate income residents predicted the same thing. Nevertheless, the planning commission at that time struck the EIR's warning from the resolution. But removing a sentence from the written record couldn't prevent the results. Those warnings are exactly what happened with low and moderate income residents priced out of San Francisco. The 1978 downzoning created a legacy of harm. The family zoning plan is a long overdue repair of that calamitous policy decision. We have an opportunity now to start fixing the self inflicted wound and to restore our city's welcoming character. More neighbors, especially in areas that have built little housing, will support stronger communities, small businesses, schools, public safety, and the vibrancy and resilience of the city as a whole. More types of housing will ensure our city has room for neighbors of every background and life stage and will allow people to stay in their communities over time. We strongly urge you to approve this plan, and we deeply appreciate your time and your work on this. Thank you.

[Speaker 118.0]: My name is Philip Raffel. I'm a resident of District 8 in Noe Valley. I implore the board to pass this housing element and the zoning plan with haste. This plan is a break from decades of failure that has brought the city to unaffordability and homelessness, and people of lower income strata is being priced out. I'm from Marin County, and I grew up and I was born there. Much has been talked about using density bonuses to increase a project in Marin to 21 stories.

[Speaker 2.0]: I have one word for that, more.

[Speaker 118.0]: More housing in Marin, more housing in San Francisco. This moment was we must break away from the failures of the past where we treated this city as a museum and apartments as monuments. Historical districts are not meant to be an amber and neighborhoods are about people. This housing element furthermore will enable the will enable carpenters, operating engineers, and laborers of all kinds to find work that will allow them to live in the city instead of having to commute from two hours away. They'll also evolve many skilled tradesmen to become developers themselves, increasing the pool of competition and bringing down prices. The failure to pass this bill will be catastrophic, not only because of state control being implemented if we fail to do so, But because more people leaving the city and moving to states is receiving our power away as a state at the national level. That would be suicide. Thank you.

[Speaker 41.0]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Christian Young. I live in North Beach. Been there for thirty three years now. And there's a building at my corner about 70 yards away. They want to probably make this a 10 story building. Well, that's not possible. And it's been standing empty for seven years. Now the question is, how many more years are we going to be trying to build this and make it happen? So will there be displacement of people living there because the construction's happening, or there will be like no parking at all because of construction trucks. Because I lived over I worked for Virgin Megastore when they were building the buildings right across the street. And there was construction all the time. No parking for anyone. So I'm not saying, hey, affordable housing, yes, that'd be a good thing. But we have over 70,000 units available to human beings. Right now, like you live in San Francisco, there's a lot of empty buildings in the Financial District. Sure, you might have to rezone it and change it. But no one's addressing that issue. So hey, sure it'd be great to have maybe some people work in the city from other cities and displacement. But other cities in the world that we all know of have been commuting from Sacramento to the Peninsula for their jobs because, hey, it pays a lot of money to be working in tech. So do we really need that many more people to live in San Francisco? Do we really want to go up and be at 850000, 900,000, 1,000,000 city? And no one's addressing the fact that, hey, this is an earthquake city. I moved here in '93. We lived here very affordably because everyone was still thinking earthquake. Oh, I'm not going to live in San Francisco. The Marina people were starting to move to finally after four years of it being reconstructed. But a lot of people forget, hey, this is an earthquake city. We wanna build all these tall buildings that weigh a heck of a lot. No one's everyone thinks they're the super architect, but hey, we have a building here that's been collapsing, the Leaning Tower. And they finally figured out to figure to repair it, but it's taken them six years. So that's a long time. Thank you.

[Speaker 119.0]: Hi, y'all. My name is Lila Holzman, and I am speaking in support of the family zoning plan. I've lived in San Francisco for about a decade and was lucky enough to become a homeowner a couple years ago in District 5 after many years in North Beach. As a citizen who's worked my whole career in climate change and social impact at a national and global level, I'm also very concerned about my own city's ability to tackle issues like climate change and, of course, homelessness. The fact that we need more homes here should be obvious, and no plan can solve all problems, but this plan is one step you can help take towards this now. I support the plan, and I'd like to see our city do even more to combat and prepare for climate change, especially with respect to public transit. So please approve this item, and I know you don't exactly have a choice at this moment, but still, thank you so much for your time.

[Speaker 120.0]: Hello, commission. My name

[Speaker 43.0]: is Micah. I'm a resident of Bernal Heights, which I'll note is not part of the up zoning plan, but I wish it was. And I'm here today to express my approval and my encouragement of the plan. If you'll allow me to be frank, many of the people I've talked to today who are critical of the upzoning simply do not understand the depth of the housing crisis we're facing. If you're a homeowner and you bought twenty years ago, you don't get it. You paid 2,005 prices. I talked to a a very nice woman outside at the rally today, and she said when she moved here, she didn't even have a job. She just made it work. Right? Don't laugh, please. The median rent for a one bedroom apartment in the city is $3,500. You say you don't want the city to change, but it's already changed. These people will tell you that they're pro housing, just not like this, not here, not now, maybe next week, maybe another project. These are the people that will march in the street against Trump's nativist rhetoric and then turn around and tell you that San Francisco is full. They'll put up a Black Lives Matter sign in their window, but they won't say anything when actual black people are forced out of that neighborhood. But commissioners, you're all sharp enough to recognize how slow we've been in the city to build housing, and how unaffordable housing has become as a result. And you have the opportunity today to do one good small thing by passing this plan. And I'll be

[Speaker 121.0]: the first to say

[Speaker 43.0]: the plan is not perfect, but doing something is better than nothing. The displacement is already happening in this city every single day. I urge you to support this plan for the future of the city, for young people, and for all the people who have already left San Francisco because they couldn't afford it. Thank you.

[Speaker 122.0]: Hi, commissioners. My name is Mike Hankin. I'm here with d nine Neighbors for Housing. And I'm I'm an SF homeowner and a lifelong Californian. My wife and I are raising a family here, and I'm asking you to enthusiastically pass this crucial step towards a functional, equitable future for our city. Freezing housing will not preserve our city. We're seeing that. It will drain it it will continue to drain it of life, of youth, and of vibrancy. I've spent my whole life watching friends and family forced out of our cities, pulled from their communities, and denied opportunities. We need the expanded housing stock encouraged by this plan. We need it to help prevent dissolution of our existing San Francisco communities. We needed to welcome those fleeing persecution, and we needed to bring those and bring in those seeking economic opportunity. Instead of doing that, California is hemorrhaging population to Texas and Florida where women's bodies are policed and climate change is ignored. We've made it nearly impossible to build here for the past fifty years. We're seeing the results. We need a new approach, and this family zoning plan is a great first step. One thing I would ask is that you take seriously both the issues of small business displacement and and the issues of amazing small businesses dying off for lack of customers. That's something that plagues my neighborhood. And I'd ask you to do so by funding small business relocation support from sources other than new housing development, which is not something that we should be disincentivizing to protect our small businesses. So, again, asking you to please pass this and to please include Bernal, or at least consider it for a follow-up. So, thank you very much.

[Speaker 123.0]: Good afternoon commissioners. Eric Munsing, District eight. I'm here both on behalf of myself and on behalf of the Debose Triangle Neighborhood Association. On behalf of myself, I wanna say I vehemently urge you to pass this for all of the friends of mine who can't be here because they've had to move out of San Francisco, out of the Bay, or out of California to be able to raise friends, raise family. And then also as president and neighbor in the Castro, on behalf of the small businesses who can't find workers to fill their shops and their restaurants, but on the weekends we see the Castro flooded with young, queer, vibrant folks from as far as Stockton and Salinas who would love to live here in the city, but we haven't built the housing to allow them to come here. On behalf of DuBose Triangle Neighborhood Association, really appreciate the last three years of work and deliberation and thought they've put into this. We've gotten this far. We've put in a lot of work. Let's now get it over the finish line. We as the neighborhood association over the course of the summer did a lot of neighborhood outreach and surveyed the neighborhood to the best of our abilities. We gathered about 150 feedback points from over 85 residents. At a high level I'd say those fall into first, encouraging the upzoning, supporting it, and potentially even adding more height. Second, the affordability and protecting tenants and businesses against displacement are really critical. And third, historic preservation is really important for our neighborhood. So really, support the current plan, also support the upcoming legislation packages, addressing that. And then two points that I would like to highlight. One is that we'd like to see a more equitable upzoning of the Western side of the city. While the Bose Triangle is transit rich, the Forest Hills and West Portal, which are just one or two stops away, don't see nearly the same height increases, though they have similar size boulevards and streets. So we'd love to see Geary, West Portal, Terreval, Judah, other transit corridors zoned to where their heights are similar to their street widths, as we're seeing on Market Street. Thank you.

[Speaker 124.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Director Dennis Phillips. My name is Tamsen Drew, and I strongly support the family housing plan. I grew up in the East Bay, and I moved to the big city to attend law school in 2007. My housing journey seems impossible for so many now. First, I lived in student housing over in Mission Bay. Then I shared an apartment with several roommates. Later, I moved into a small studio where for years and years, I saved and saved until I was finally able to afford a duplex with my sister, which afforded me the opportunity to be close by my nephew and a present aunt. Today, I live with my own family in a single family home in District 7, which affords enough space for my parents to live with me as they reach their eighties. Each of these homes, different sizes, different arrangements, gave me the ability to stay in San Francisco through the different chapters of my life. San Francisco family zoning plan is about to is about making sure that people at every stage, students, new professionals, growing families, multi generational households have housing options that fit their needs. This plan recognizes that stable housing isn't a one size fits all. It's expanding opportunities for duplexes, fourplexes, multi unit buildings, and family size homes. We are opening doors for residents across all income levels. We know that the cost of, living here has pushed many families out. Case in point, those folks I started law school with in 2007, every single one of them has left as their families expanded, and I'm the only one who's still here. Family zoning is a tool to create more homes, more choices, and a fairer system. So people who want to build their lives here, whether they're raising kids, caring for parents, or just starting out, can do so. My story shows how flexible housing options can make it possible to stay rooted in San Francisco. This plan will help others write their own stories here. I strongly encourage you to pass the family zoning plan so San Francisco can remain a place where families of all shapes and sizes can thrive. Thank you so much.

[Speaker 125.0]: Madam president, commissioners, director, Kathleen Courtney, Russian Hill Community Association District three. I'm here to speak in defense of alleys. I live at Hyde And Green. There are 30 alleys within a fifteen minute walk from my house. These alleys are between ten and twenty two feet wide. The homes on these alleys are one story flats or two story flats that were built shortly after the nineteen o six earthquake. The current plan calls for six story buildings to be built on these alleys. That is unbelievable. It is as if someone took a yellow magic marker and just marked up our area. The lack of nuance is inordinately disturbing. This is a situation that needs to be addressed before this plan is approved. We all know there are a lot of questions. We've got a lot of other questions about the proposed plan, but really, given my area, I speak in defense of alleys and urge you to take a more critical look at what the planning, the up zoning plan calls for in this area. I also urge you to take the time to really look at the other anomalies. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 126.0]: This is not what democracy looks like. This is not a representative sample of people. This is a room full of people who

[Speaker 41.0]: had one more time, please.

[Speaker 126.0]: This is not what democracy looks like. This is a room full of people who had the privilege and time to show up at a meeting on a weekday at 1PM and then wait several hours in line. This is a group of special interests. If you want democracy and you're scared of the fear mongering that's happened behind me, put this to a ballot. Put this to vote. That is what democracy looks like. But you know what? I think you should instead trust the elected representatives that the people of San Francisco have continuously voted for. Scott Wiener has won reelection several times here, getting a majority of the votes. And I also say for the people scared about density, this city could be denser. I have been to Paris before. Paris is about 41 square miles. You could fit the entirety of Paris inside of San Francisco, and there would still be room for more San Francisco. Yet San Francisco has less than half the population of Paris. Yes, Paris has many six story tall buildings in it, and people love to visit Paris. It's one of the most popular destinations in the entire world. We could make San Francisco better, and I think this legislation is a start to improving San Francisco to undo the effects of exclusive zoning that were invented to exclude racial minorities from this city and from the nice neighborhoods in this country. Let's

[Speaker 127.0]: let's

[Speaker 32.0]: change.

[Speaker 128.0]: Good morning. Oh, no. That's not right. Good afternoon. I'm Julie Fisher, a resident of San Francisco and a member of SEIU twenty fifteen. On on behalf of the nearly 30,000 in home support service providers, as well as the members of community to whom they provide care, it's critical to ensure that any plan to create affordable housing in San Francisco factor in the direct impacts for the quality and future of care for all San Franciscans. We're all familiar with the stats that say how fast the aging population is increasing, and I'd also like to know that to say that that includes people who've developed disabilities, need care, and are best served in their homes. SEIU Local twenty fifteen supports supervisor Chan's residential tenant protections legislation and supervisor Chan's positions on what enhancements are needed to ensure that the existing upzoning plan meets the needs of all these stake specifically, those that speak to boosting affordable family housing, meaningful tenant protections, and protecting the vulnerable populations. How we develop housing is important to avoiding negative impacts to the delivery of care in our county and a future of care that needs to be available to all who need it. The financial eligibility requirement for IHSS recipients to this program rest at no more than a 138% of the federal poverty level. So I know you can do the math on why this is a problem. How are we gonna keep the caregivers and the people they take care of here? We're calling on all elected leaders to center care in any and all considerations of how we go about solving the housing crisis. Thank you.

[Speaker 129.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Part of the job of being a commissioner is that you get tortured before you take a vote. This is your torture. We know you're gonna pass this. I'm Kim Tavolone. I'm the executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council. Labor Council took an opposition position to this zoning measure. The vast majority of our unions who have to live in this housing, oppose this measure because it it does not omit rent controlled units. You could make your life so much easier if you just omit rent control departments. We have some other issues with it, including we do not believe public land should be developed at for market rate housing. That is in the plan, and public lots should be saved for truly 100% affordable housing, no matter what. Public land for public good. We also believe that all housing should be built union. We know the construction workers who want to build more housing, and we believe they should be able to build more housing. But I had a long path to getting to where I am. Most people don't realize that I worked in corporations. I worked for Wells Fargo. I worked for developer. I worked in real estate. And I can tell you, yeah, the MBs are very idealistic and they're like, this is a good plan. But you know what? The problem is that real estate is run by imperfect people. I ran a building not too far from here and they actually told me to keep the units vacant until they got a specific amount of rent offered on it. And I was unable to rent out units to people who needed them, people who actually qualified Because they told me to keep it open until they got x amount. The building was paid for, and that's how real estate works. It's imperfect. It's run by imperfect people. Thank you.

[Speaker 121.0]: Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Rosa Shields, and I'm with the San Francisco Labor Council as well. As our director stated, we stand in opposition to this legislation as written. Our members desperately need rent control protections that are conspicuously absent from this legislation. The West Side has many working families who have only been able to remain in the city due to long term rent control, especially along the dense merchant corridors of the West Side. Many of these people are nurses, home health care workers who you just heard from, teachers, and city workers who provide invaluable services to all of us. Personally, the only way I'm able to afford living in this city as someone who was born and raised here in Bernal Heights, by the way, is through my rent controlled apartment on Geary Boulevard. I personally went through an Alice act eviction as a young child, and I will never forget the trauma of that experience. It is indelibly etched into my consciousness and has inspired me to protect working class residents of our city. Building likes the buildings like the one I'm currently able to live in in District 1 are comprised of immigrants, low income people, and families who this plan purports to help, but who will be pushed out and evicted under this upzoning legislation. We need true affordable housing, not displacement and eviction of our city workers. I have seen with my own eyes how areas like the Inner Richmond where I live now are diverse, multi class, multi ethnic communities only possible with long lasting and strong rent control, which, you know, it's Gary Boulevard is already transit oriented, mind you. This plan will irrevocably alter the demographics of our city and force what few working families remain out. We urge you to vote no as is. Thank you.

[Speaker 130.0]: Hello. My name is Krista Lewis. I am a 36 year old sorry. I'm a 36 year resident of San Francisco who lives in District 3. I would like to share concerns of the inclusion of parcels in the waterfront and Telegraph Hill in the proposed family zoning plan. Large scale development in this area could result in catastrophe. Through CEQA, for one previously proposed area for development, a neighbor with specific expertise in seismology prepared a 15 page report concluding that the area does not have the rock composition to support the proposed massive building of multiple stories. Another neighbor with expertise in sewer treatment systems described how the neighborhood sewer system was operating at 90% capacity when there is no plan or recourse to update the system. Building high rise residential buildings in this area or any area without careful rigorous environmental review puts the neighborhood, current and future residents, families, established businesses and services, workers and visitors at risk. We need housing. Specifically, we need safe, affordable housing. No one deserves unsafe housing. I urge you to remove parcels in the waterfront and Telegraph Hill from the proposed family zoning plan. Thank you for your time.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, sir.

[Speaker 131.0]: Hello. Hello. Hi. My name is Leah, and I am a queer resident of over ten years in the city and a business owner in District 8. My business, Sour Cherry Comics, which has recently celebrated its third year operation, is a community hub for queer women and gender diverse book lovers, comic nerds, and artists. In this current political climate, which is growing more hostile to these groups and to queer and trans people specifically by the day, these small pockets of safety and community are desperately needed. I am against Daniel Lurie's family zoning plan, which puts our community and our space at risk of demolition and displacement. I want to point out that queer women have fewer and fewer spaces in this city, and so making what spaces we do have vulnerable to demolition feels like yet another attack on our livelihoods and our ability to thrive. The Mission District and Valencia Street have a long history of lesbian culture and businesses which have been forced out due to gentrification. So I ask that you please consider our vibrant and diverse queer community, which is already under attack every day by this atrocious federal administration, and vote against this family zoning plan, which could take away yet one more queer community space. Oh, and, side note, fuck ice, free Congo, Sudan, and Palestine.

[Project Sponsor Representative (570 Market Street)]: Good afternoon. My name is Tab Buckner, and I've lived in the city for forty one years. During my time here, I've seen countless seniors, working people, and whole families squeezed out from increased unaffordability here in San Francisco. The plan before you will not improve the situation, but make it worse. A lack of tenant and small business protections would have disastrous results. As others have mentioned, the city already has a glut of luxury units sitting vacant. Giving the green light to increased market rate development with without strong built in affordable housing provisions will only contribute to increased displacement. Where will our teachers, health care workers, shopkeepers, and street cleaners live? Let's not repeat the tragedy of the nineteen sixties when entire communities were displaced by so called redevelopment with the promise of reclaiming their space which never happened. It's time for this body to reject the current proposal and develop a plan for truly affordable housing for the future. Thank you.

[Speaker 132.0]: Esther Marks, I'm speaking as an individual. I and others worked on March 2020 on a ballot measure passed by voters, Proposition e. Proposition e required that any new office development approval be tied to office affordable rather affordable housing production. At that time, it was known we had overproduced the amount of market rate housing, and we were 3032% short of, for the past five years of construction of affordable housing. The regional housing needs assessment goal, which is state mandated, you know, if you are so concerned about state mandated issues, We cannot adopt this particular plan because it will undermine affordable housing.

[Speaker 44.0]: Hello. David Wu with Soma Pilipinas. We are opposed to the upzoning plan and we continue to advocate instead for prioritizing development of 100% affordable housing, preserving and protecting existing housing, protecting existing residents and small businesses, and engaging in community based planning. The addition of Western SoMa into the mayor's upzoning plan illustrates the intentions of the plan as a whole. Western SoMa was added into the plan basically overnight with zero public input or process. The Western SoMa upzoning is overriding the existing Western SoMa area plan that covers this same area. The Western SoMa area plan was the result of hundreds of hours of committee meetings, town halls, and community conversations over a nearly ten year process. The Western SoMa area plan emphasized mitigating neighborhood impacts from new development, stabilizing the neighborhood against speculative land use proposals and developments, and ensuring that new development primarily serves the needs of existing residents and businesses. This upzoning plan steamrolls the existing Western SoMa area plan, and that is what's happening citywide. The upzoning plan has no transparency or accountability and cuts out the public, residents, and small businesses. The plan undermines the city's cultural district program and the Soma Filipinas CHESS report, which was developed in partnership with the city and unanimously approved. There isn't any coherent or cohesive urban planning happening with this plan with the proposed height increases and zoning district changes contradicting the city's own policies? For instance, if this plan is about competing with the state density bonus, why are there any base height increases? Western SoMa is mainly seeing just base height increases, which is blatantly a giveaway to developers who will use state density. The upzoning plan is an attack on neighborhoods of San Francisco meant to satisfy the profit needs of real estate speculators and developers. Thank you.

[Speaker 133.0]: Good afternoon, and thank you for staying late to hear all of us discuss this upzoning. I don't believe upzoning is currently planned has been fully vetted. It doesn't necessarily improve housing affordability when buildings being built are 90 to 95% luxury and five to 10% affordable housing as loosely defined. And this is what has happened here in San Francisco and in other cities that have approved upzoning. In addition, state mandated diversification for

[Speaker 32.0]: an additional 82,069 units

[Speaker 133.0]: by 02/2031 doesn't make sense. We're already very dense. The demand in infrastructure is already stretched. Forty five minutes to get downtown by bus, when three buses pass because there are too many people on to let any new people any new passengers to get on. Forty five minutes to find street parking at night when you get home from work, driving around repeatedly, repeatedly to to find an open spot. The the you've taken $50,000,000 or the city's taken $50,000,000 out of the MTA budget, so that's gonna get even worse for public transportation. Public schools are crowded. Sewer systems are overcharged now. Garbage collection. There's more that can be done with existing unoccupied buildings here to satisfy housing needs as there seems to be a number of vacancies currently throughout the city. In addition, improving the ability to get into the city from other nearby places would help considerably, for getting people into town. San Francisco is a very unique city. It's absolutely beautiful, and it's a great place to be an outdoor person. It's got the benefits of suburbia with the benefits of being inside of a city with all of its resources. Upzoning and densification will destroy and hurt the people that live here now. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 134.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Paul Michael. I'm a neighbor in Coal Valley. I'm concerned that the rezoning will have a negative impact on Coal Valley and other neighborhoods like mine. The new zoning plan changed significantly even from the February 24 plan. The planning department is clearly incentivizing developers to build big. I believe there will be demolition of existing properties because the economics will favor it, especially if developers are allowed to build on virtually the entire lot. The demolition figures the planning person quoted to me are meaningless because they are looking backward from the present. The new rules change everything. In the future, it will become much more profitable to demolish and build big. The planning department worked with the developers on Downtown San Francisco. And they gambled the San Francisco tax base and the downtown of San Francisco on the success of building large amounts of office space, that was not a good gamble. My concern is that the planning department is working with developers, and they're making the same kind of mistake. Once you build these structures, they will not go away. You will have irreparably changed the nature of living in these neighborhoods. It's not just a question of character. It's a question of livability. San Francisco has a density of 18,790 people to the square mile. That is the second most populated large city in The United States after New York. Coal Valley has a density of 24,740 people to the square mile, a 32% greater than San Francisco. The neighborhood is dense enough. And yet it will become more dense as people like me age out and the and the population increases as families move in. Thank you.

[Speaker 9.0]: Hello. Thank you for listening to all of us so late. I am a resident in District 3 Chinatown, and I strongly oppose this plan as it is written. I think all of us here are for affordable housing, but we wanna make sure it's done right. As a senior citizen, I am representing the value of rent control for senior citizens in the city. In my building, I live above a 94 year old woman with no family near her. She's worked all her life in San Francisco, so where is she supposed to go? In my hallway, I've got another woman in her nineties living with her adult daughter. And where are they supposed to go? Rent control has been a beacon for other cities in this country, and it's a feeling of safety knowing we have these tenant rights. When I retired, I was making what was called then a middle class income, which is now a lower income. So, of course, inflation scares many seniors because when they retired, they were making a pretty good income for their day, but now prices and inflation has gone so high, it's very scary for them. And in in my building, we have a lot of younger people coming in as well as the older seniors, and we're all rent control. And some people move out and some people move in, and, of course, some people some seniors move on naturally, either through housing, which will take care of them, or they pass away. So it it's working really well the way it is now. Proud to be a San Franciscan, and many of my coworkers did have to leave with that did not have rent control. They had to leave the city. So please do not, please put in the rent control protections and also the, architectural protections of historic buildings. Thank you.

[Speaker 135.0]: Hi there, I'm Charlie Watson, I live in District 7, I'm a renter and I'm a little biased. I think I live in the best neighborhood in San Francisco and I'm very excited about this plan as proposed, which will lower the cost of housing by building more housing for people who need it, and will allow more people to enjoy the inner sunset along with us. So yeah, thank you.

[Speaker 100.0]: Hi. My name is Dane Willett. I'm a resident in Coal Valley, and I'm here in support of the family zoning plan, and I'm asking you to all support it as well. My wife and I just moved here a few months ago from Texas. We're trying to start a family. It's something that's very important to us. We have family in this area that we wanna live near. And especially with the political situation in Texas and other red states where it is not necessarily safe for someone to be pregnant even if they are trying to have kids, we were

[Speaker 32.0]: able to make it to San Francisco, thankfully.

[Speaker 100.0]: But this zoning plan will help more people who also need to be able to get out of these kinds of situations to be able to live in San Francisco, benefit from all aspects of San Francisco, and help add to the community fabric. Thank you.

[Speaker 127.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Mitch Mandkin, a d one resident, born and raised in San Franciscan, and I'm here representing San Francisco Housing Development Corporation, which is a community based organization working citywide with a focus on the Bayview and Fillmore districts and on the black community. Opening up the West Side of the city to housing construction is one piece of the solution. However, while the rezoning is necessary, it's not sufficient to get affordable housing built. Of the minimum 82,000 units that San Francisco is required to build this reno cycle, 33,000 are required to be low income affordable housing. That's 40% of the total. There's no way to get to that number with 15% inclusionary. We need a 100% affordable housing as well and need a lot of it. And the average city subsidy per affordable housing for per affordable home as of last year was $300,000. So to build those 33,000 affordable homes would require conservatively $9,000,000,000 city subsidy. Now I'm not saying that you commissioners need to find $9,000,000,000 today, but the board and the mayor do. And in the meantime, there are things you can do to help. Affordable housing should get zoning concessions beyond those given to market rate housing to make it competitive. Concessions that are already offered to a range of housing and are included in some of the amendments offered today. Those housing concessions should be especially applicable to affordable housing. We should have an affordable housing overlay zone over the West Side. If affordable housing is allowed to build more efficiently, it may be it stands a chance. It will also be important to maintain the impact fees and transfer taxes that fund affordable housing. I'm also anxious to hear the details of the anti displacement plan that was mentioned in the previous hearing. That item will need to move extremely quickly through the process in order to match the adoption of this plan and protect people when this plan goes into place. This is a generational opportunity to build affordable housing in neighborhoods that have previously kept it out. We cannot afford to squander it. So yes, rezone, but prioritize affordable housing and fund it on the scale that San Franciscans need. Thank you.

[Speaker 136.0]: Still afternoon. Good afternoon, commissioners. Catherine Howard, district four, long time San Francisco resident. I would like to speak to historic preservation and the loss of valuable cultural resources that may result from this demolition friendly up zoning plan. To preserve our significant buildings, I ask that you recommend that all category A and category a eligible buildings in up zone areas and especially in neighborhood commercial corridors be exempted from the up zoning. Category a buildings are listed as a historic resource under the historic preservation program or they are designated as having high contextual importance under the citywide design standards. These planning department designations include, indicate that a building is a landmark, has significant architectural value, or contributes to the city's urban design. These buildings range from the grandness of city hall to the culturally significant Castro, Canberra, and Harvey Melk residence. Now why has San Francisco gone to the effort and expense of evaluating and protecting these resources? It is because these buildings are an integral part of the fabric that makes San Francisco a beautiful, vibrant, and inviting city. Protecting these buildings shows respect for the past and educates future generations about the daily lives and contributions of those who came before. San Francisco is not a museum being preserved in amber, as one critic of preservation mistakenly stated. Our historic features are an integral part of the daily life of our city. They are also a major reason that tourists and convention goers alike visit our city and spend their money here. Prevent preserving them is a matter of not only aesthetics, but also a practicality. To prevent this irreplaceable loss, please exempt all category a and category a eligible buildings in upzoned areas from upzoning. Thank you.

[Speaker 137.0]: Hi, commissioners. My name is Gwen McLaughlin. I'm a born and raised San Francisco resident. I live in District 1. And I'm here today with small business forward. I'm going to read a statement from a small business owner that was here today waiting in line for several hours to make this comment himself, but he had to go back to his store to keep working. His building was actually just bought by a real estate developer based out of Texas, And he is facing imminent eviction and fears that his business will be forced to close permanently since he will not afford a relocation. So this is on behalf of him. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Sean Kim, owner of Joe's Ice Cream, a San Francisco legacy business. I'm here to tell you small business eviction is not a fear. It's a reality that is coming. When developers buy buildings, family businesses like mine are pushed out. We cannot compete with the profit margins on new condos. And moving is not an option. The cost of moving, rebuilding, reopening are crushing. Most small businesses don't survive that kind of hit. Once we're displaced, we're gone forever. What hurts most is that these businesses are more than storefronts. They're where families celebrate birthdays, where kids grow up, where neighbors see each other every day. If we lose them, we don't just lose businesses, we lose community. If this family zoning plan is truly about families, then it must protect the small businesses that serve them. Please give us a surviving chance through relocation support, fair treatment from developers, and protections that keep community serving businesses in place. Otherwise, San Francisco's future will be housing without neighborhood life, and that's not the San Francisco that we love. Thank you.

[Speaker 138.0]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Jesse Alawalia. I run a few laundromats in the Richmond District. That while maybe not essential by a strict definition is definitely a need and relied upon regularly. I'm here to implore you for permanent protections for small businesses. And I wanna stress that I don't see these protections as a way to prevent or subvert San Francisco's development and progress. A city without development is not a city in progress and we all want to keep on the side of progress in San Francisco. Our mayor is doing their part in bolstering downtown but in the push for progress, we cannot sabotage the cornerstones of our neighborhoods. There has to be processes or programs that we can put in place that don't leave small businesses which by no action of their own are forced to close and the customers without the use of their services. I'm asking you all to take this seriously, come together with this as a focus to implement the proposals that work for the city and its small businesses. Get them in place before it's too late. I stepped into one of my laundromats specifically because I saw the potential in it and with plans to revitalize it. The next step is a remodel that doesn't actually grow my business. It will add years to my plan for stability but I still think it's the right thing to do and it's my choice to do it. It's my business in my hands. Without protections in place, the long term stability of my business is not in my hands. Thank you for the time to speak and your attention on this matter.

[Speaker 139.0]: Thank you, commissioners. My name is Barbara Heffernan. I'm a homeowner in District 2. I'm on the board of the Cow Hollow Association and also a member of NUSF, which you've all heard about. A lot has been said today, but I read an article this week that really sort of told the whole story. It was in the 48 Hills, and I believe it was by an individual called Colin Calvin Welch. I may have said that incorrectly. But I highlighted he talked about six reasons why there these are called flaws in this plan. And I'm just gonna go through them quickly. Lurie's rezoning proposal fails to meet the affordable housing needs for San Francisco. It will probably destroy existing affordable housing, demolition. We keep hearing that word today, and that's going to be the way it happens. It will displace local businesses. I live in a neighborhood with a lot of small businesses, and I've some of these buildings have been bought up recently by developers. And I've been speaking with some of the merchants, and they are being told that they will be evicted. So it's happening. It's happening on our streets right now. Go to Chestnut Street. Go to Fillmore Street. West Portal, you will hear the same story. It's happening. And why is it happening? It does not need to happen this way. So what we want is for you to put a hole on approving this plan, and really dig in and stand with your residents, and develop a plan that really supports affordable housing, because high end development does not do that. Put protection in place for displaced residents, renters, and merchants. And why not build on sites that are underdeveloped? Why are we focusing on high density neighborhoods, and the only way to develop there is to tear down buildings? There are a lot of areas in this city where development could be happening. Thank you. Commissioners, my name is Brooke Sampson. I live in the Cow Hollow neighborhood, and I'm on the advisory board of the Cow Hollow Association. The family plan that is before you talks about affordability. We've heard a lot about affordability today. But are there any guarantees in this plan that any affordable housing will actually be built? Why is that not called out? Thank you.

[Speaker 140.0]: Thank you, commissioners. My name is Robert Ho. My wife and I have lived in Ingleside, Terraces for the past twenty years. I sit on the board of Ingleside, Terraces Home Association, and our organization is a member of the West of Twin Peaks Central Council. Both my wife and I came from poor immigrant families. Being able to buy our house in Ingleside Terraces was a major achievement for us. Single family homes have allowed hardworking people to realize their American dreams, and society as a whole has benefited. I am against this rezoning plan because, one, it is an extreme plan that will encourage the demolition of any house that exists on the west and north sides of the city and be replaced with six to eight story building if it is a corner lot or combined 8,000 square foot lot. Also, this extreme plan will lead to displacement of many long standing small businesses located along commercial corridors. Places like the Chinese deli on Noriega that my family loves, these small businesses will not come back after they are forced to leave. Two, the justification for the rezoning plan is the current RHNA goal of 82,000 new housing units. This current RENA goal is grossly overstated as a result of SB eight twenty eight that was introduced by senator Scott Wiener and passed in 2018. All parties agree that the 82,000 unit goal is clearly unattainable, but it is being used by city government to justify this extreme rezoning plan. Three, this plan is unnecessary because there are plenty of development downtown office building. The plan is instead focused on redeveloping the west or side of the city where developers can make the most money.

[Speaker 15.0]: Thank you, sir.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: That is your time.

[Speaker 140.0]: I'm against the rhetoric that is falsely built by hardworking families in single family neighborhoods at

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: That is your time, sir.

[Speaker 141.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Solange Cuba, and I'm here with Coalition of Homelessness. I'm here to express our opposition to the proposed up zoning plan. While the intention is to increase housing might sound good in theory, it's a deep concern. This plan will lead to demolition of rent control units, replacing them with large luxury development, and in most cases, only 10% goes to affordable housing. A report requested by a former supervisor found that in 2022, 300 or five below market rates units remain empty. Even though over 21,000 households apply for them, none of them got it. Why? That is a glitch. That it's a failure. The current affordability formula is completely out of sync with what is working with class families can actually afford. We don't need more big promises. We need more real permanent affordable housing that reflects true needs in our community. Housing that brings families back to San Francisco, not push them out. Yes. We need affordable with we need affordability. Let's repurpose the abandoned downtown mall. It's empty there. Instead of letting sit empty, we should find find funding together and rebuild it as a permanent social housing. That's the kind of vision that we need in San Francisco. Please reject this plan, and please think about our what our communities really deserve. Thank you.

[Speaker 142.0]: My name is Christine Lum. I live in District 1. I live right on the side of the little sisters of the poor nursing home. From my backyard, I can see half of the building. It blocks my view, but I have half of a view on the other side where I can see a big tree, and I can see the blue sky. I can, I have sunlight, partial sunlight in my backyard, which is a wonderful blessing for me? I have a garden. Hummingbirds come into my garden. I don't think this is a luxury. I'm very concerned with the upzoning of this property. I'm not even clear, because I've heard different heights that are being proposed. I really request more transparency on the development of this project and input from the neighborhood. I am for density. I think it's good. We need more density in this city. And I think most of my neighbors are very reasonable about this. But I think the plan as it exists now needs a lot more clarity and transparency. Thank you.

[Speaker 143.0]: Hello. My name is Jack Lee. I've been a resident of San Francisco for seventy four years. I went to grammar school here, high school, and I really love the city. I worked here, I retired here. And what I'm speaking today is the vacant property of St. Anne's senior housing that is going to be rezoned, permitting a high rise. And I think that I support intense housing and I really applaud the newly developed high rise housing map along corridor traffic, high traffic corridors in the city. But this site is not part of that, and I think it should stay, neighborhood, zoning, and, it should not be a variant. Doing so, I think, would destroy the character of the neighborhood and, would speak ill of the whole, planning process. Okay. So please be careful, what you're doing and be mindful of the needs of the neighborhood and, and the character of the neighborhood. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 144.0]: Good evening, commissioners. What a day. What a day. My name is Serena Calhoun. I've been practicing Area for twenty four years. And today I'm thrilled to be the representative of the San Francisco chapter of the AIA, here in full support on behalf of the architectural community of the rezoning, a single San Francisco family zoning plan. Our members were honored to work closely with planning over the past few years on development of this plan, and we applaud planning staff for taking such a detailed look and evaluating the best locations for increased heights and densities that will benefit all residents. Urban design studies have proven over the last several decades that vibrant streets with well proportioned buildings can change the character of a neighborhood for the better. Streets like Geary Boulevard that are 100 feet wide but only allow for two or four story buildings are not in proportion with the scale of the street, and therefore end up feeling a little sleepy. Secondly, it's crucial to ensure a broad mix of income levels within a neighborhood. For too long, affordable housing developments have been focused only in the Mission, The Tenderloin, and SoMa, And that has resulted in inequity, frankly. Inequity of shops, inequity of businesses, inequity of opportunity. By spreading the low income housing into the West Side of the city where there are the best schools and amenities and parks, it rises it allows everyone to rise up. The residents will see businesses of all different types. We won't end up with luxury shops like you see on 24th Street in Chestnut because it's an affluent neighborhood, and we won't see places like the Mission where it's dedicated to check cashing places and dollar stores. There will be a great mix which also opens opportunities for small businesses. As architects, our job is to create change. We change people's homes. We help them open new businesses. And we understand the power of change to create opportunities, not just for the people who occupy those properties, but for the entire community. I urge you to to support this legislation. Thank you so much.

[Speaker 145.0]: My name is Patrick Hoffman. I'm a lifelong Sunset District resident and a proud student of San Francisco State. This upzoning plan appears to have a disproportionate effect against the Chinese communities in the Sunset and Richmond districts. This neighborhood is not all rich people. It may be expensive now, but back in the nineties, a house cost between 1 and $300,000. Still, today, there are many HVAC suppliers, plumbing suppliers, electrical suppliers, which are targeted towards a large Chinese demographic. These jobs do not make a lot of money and they would not be able to move into the neighborhood today. This upzoning plan will cause a steep increase in the land value and make home affordability almost impossible. The the upzoning should be done in a spot manner such as gas stations and parking lots, and it should focus on the development of affordable housing. We do not need luxury condos. You are actively stealing this neighborhood from my generation and generations to come.

[Speaker 43.0]: Thank you.

[Speaker 146.0]: My name is Jessica Vissness. I live in District 2. I'm speaking today in strong opposition to the proposed up zoning plan. I'm particularly concerned about the heights of the buildings on Lombard Street in District 2. The upzoning was a major concern for me during the last election, so I made sure to ask mayor Leary about his opinion on this issue for Cow Hollow and The Marina when I saw him at local events. He said that he thought an increase to six stories was reasonable, So imagine my surprise when I looked at the most recent plans and saw 14 stories being zoned on Lombard from Laguna going east, blocking views of Fort Mason, Angel Island, and Alcatraz for residents and for tourists, including those driving those cute little yellow go cars around our neighborhood, taking in the views of the bay at the intersections. When I asked supervisor Cheryl at a town hall meeting about the 14 story buildings on these blocks, he said that the state was requiring the city to build in well resourced areas. I followed up with Senator Weiner's office and talked to his aide, Jeff Sparks, who sent me the city's housing element and said that that was what required it, not the state, and that the state probably wouldn't care as long as the city reached its numbers. The housing element he sent me says that housing should be built primarily in well resourced areas, but this plan is only in those areas. And from my discussions with someone in the planning department, it seems to be locked in place. My question is why can't there be a compromise with some of the height being taken from the blocks on Lombard to reduce them to six stories per what mayor Lurie campaigned on, and then some sites found in mid rise building in other parts of the city that aren't in the rezoning map currently. Supervisor Sherrill estimated that perhaps 10 buildings would be built on the concerning blocks. So it's not that many mid rise buildings to zone for in other parts of the city to save some iconic city views. People from Bernal Heights today and at other meetings seem to have asked for some rezoning at these meetings. I don't know if it's a general sentiment in that area or just the people who seem to show up for public comment, but there must be some locations in the city that would welcome some six to eight story buildings or at least not be strongly opposed. In my opinion, some compromising is important to save iconic views for residents and for tourists that make San Francisco the most beautiful city in the country, if not the world. It's not too late to change the plan, and I urge you to make some modifications in response to neighborhood concerns. Voters in this city will be watching. Thank you.

[Speaker 147.0]: Good evening. My name is Amanda Scott, and I'm here representing District 2. I'm also representing my building. My building was built in nineteen o eight and has classic charm that's seen throughout San Francisco. In fact, it's something people come from all over the world to see. Unfortunately, my building and my other residents, there are four of us, we are going to be in a position where we will likely lose our building. Our building can be sold and then can be rebuilt. But instead of three beautiful floors, it can be maximized at eight floors. And instead of three beautiful, well appointed, rent controlled apartments, it would likely be maximized between six and eight apartments. When I said I was gonna come here today, I assumed that I would be here between four and six hours, and I assumed that you guys would be here between six and eight. Because after we're done, you're gonna go through and speak to each other about everything you've heard. I can't speak on behalf of San Francisco. I can't speak on behalf of its past. I can speak on behalf of its present, and specifically, those of us that want to make sure that San Francisco continues to be a destination city. And in doing so, please, please remember those of us that lived in protected buildings. Please remember that we do not want to have comparable homes. We do not want to be relocated to other parts of the city. And when you're considering this entire plan, remember that those aspects have not been defined. So please do so before you approve it or deny it. Thank you.

[Speaker 148.0]: Good evening, commissioner. Take a deep breath. My name is Manzan Lam from the South Hartford Elderly. I'm here to support the family of simply for one reason. So the suffering for the elderly have been in the past sixty years serving the elderly in the San Francisco. This family of parents is very crucial to our senior that from the baby boom, which is the last year's 1964, his coming age. So what happened, what we are seeing here, we are facing a lot of senior is going to be going to the golden year then that will have crutches, wheelchair, and a lot of care. This family is only allow us to provide affordable housing for them, and what is the essential component is the elevator. Because without the elevator, our we have a hard time to move them from 3rd Floor, even 2nd 4th 44 to get medical care to go shopping. So for us, for our senior community, your family's, zoning plan is a very crucial component for our service to our senior. So I hope that you guys can consider this factor when you get to discuss the matter. Thank you.

[Speaker 27.0]: Speaker, the opponent speak in Chinese and AI will do the translation with his cell phone.

[Speaker 108.0]: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Lu Xiaowan. Last month, I attended the Sunset Chinese Cultural District Housing Summit, where dozens of residents discussed our concerns about the future development of the community. The meeting was conducted entirely in Chinese. Many seniors, including me, are concerned that accessible public transportation plans will be separated from the proposed rezoning plans. We We support home zoning planning, but we believe that good accessibility must be a priority for the next phase of planning. Thank you.

[Speaker 27.0]: Same thing here. She is gonna speak in Chinese, and AI will do the translation. Thank

[Speaker 149.0]: you.

[Speaker 108.0]: Hello, members. My name is Gary Lam, and I am from the Sunset Chinese Cultural District and have lived in the Sunset District for many years. I hope my children and grandchildren will continue to live in our community, and I hope they will be able to go to the grocery store, the children's playground, the senior center, and the snack shop that make our community special. We support building more housing, but we don't want to see the businesses and community services that underpin our culture disappear with new developments. We kindly ask you to protect your community's small businesses while building more housing. Thank you.

[Speaker 150.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners and staff. My name is Herbert F. Mintz the second. I've lived in District 4 for over thirty years. I'm here to talk about the fact that the city's high pressure emergency firefighting water system does not extend much into the city's Western neighborhoods. Without this vital life saving infrastructure in place, the West Side with its hundreds of blocks of wood frame buildings will likely succumb to firestorms of unimaginable proportions immediately following the next great earthquake. Sadly, I'm reminded practically every day that my neighborhood is at great risk to this, lack of vital infrastructure. Right outside my living room window is a fire hydrant with a white cap. Now, I know you all know what that means. It means it's not a hardened fire hydrant, which means it will be useless in fire suppression during an earthquake after an earthquake. So, for residents like me who are already living in the city's Western neighborhoods without the benefit of this firefighting protection offered by the city, the city's emergency firefighting water system infrastructure infrastructure, we're at risk. See seniors and the elderly will be the first who have issues of running away from the next complication. People like me. So first things first, a complete emergency firefighting water system must be in place before the mayor's family zoning plan can be put in place. Any benefit to be realized, in terms of fire protection in this infrastructure designed to protect the West Side and, neighborhoods must absolutely precede any infrastructure that increases height limits and density in our neighborhoods. So do the right thing. This kind of infrastructure first, and we'll talk about family planning infrastructure later.

[Speaker 151.0]: Hello. My name is Jacqueline Nguyen. I was born and raised in the Bay Area, and I'm first generation born in America. My parents came here as immigrants, and San Francisco has always represented the values of opportunity and belonging that they hope to pass on to me. I've now spent the last seven years living in this city, and in just a few months, I'll be a new mom. It means so much to me to raise my family here in a place that welcomes diversity and is full of the values I wanna instill in my kids. I know that some people worry that new housing will change the character of their neighborhood. But to me, what makes San Francisco so special has always been the people. The families, the immigrants, the workers who bring life to every block, and we can preserve that by keeping people out. Other worry others worry that building new homes will displace residents, but really what drives displacement is not building enough housing, and affordability comes from supply. And when supply is scarce, prices rise, and long time residents get pushed out. More homes are how we can keep communities stable, and that's why I support this plan. So today, I challenge this group to help us make the hard decisions, to help us make room for the future we hope to see, where families can afford a home, children can grow up in their communities, and San Francisco remains a place of opportunity and belonging. Thank you.

[Speaker 152.0]: Hello. Hello, commissioners. My name is Tyler. I'm a renter in District 8. I'm here to speak in support of this family zoning plan. I was last here in April sharing with you that my wife and I were trying to start a family and that our current apartment wouldn't last very long with with a new baby and a new family. So life update, that cute pregnant lady was my was my wife. We're expecting our first kid in December, and we're we're thrilled to say that we we did find an apartment. We love it, but the the housing crisis is still painful for us and we massively overpaid for this apartment. I'm not gonna share how much. It was embarrassing. We didn't get the third bedroom we would have preferred And, the bidding war the bidding wars were really intense. Yes, bidding wars are happening for apartments right now. Again, we're thrilled to raise a family in SF. All we want is to raise, you know, a few kids here, but we're we're worried about what the future holds. Five to ten years, we're gonna outgrow this apartment, and there's really not many options out there. So I I challenge you to, you know, make this plan as bold as possible, make the hard decisions, and, let's be the inclusive progressive city we say we are. Thank you.

[Speaker 153.0]: I'm speaking on behalf of myself, but I'm also speaking for the 60% of San Francisco renters who enjoy rent stabilization, who came here, who stay here, who thrive here and build careers and families because of rent control. Now we call this family zoning, and we all love families, we all want to provide for seniors, but this plan is about tearing up rent control in some of the most livable human sized areas of the city. It's about creating sky high condos with skyrocketing rents that will displace thousands of people in this city, people like me, people like all the speakers that have spoken against us today. And this is a false choice. Someone who was cut off earlier said there's 82,000 units. That's an invented, manufactured number given to us by the same Sacramento politicians and lobbyists who are now telling us this is the only solution to it. They've created a crisis, and now they're forcing a solution. And it's time for San Francisco to stand for the newcomers and the longtime residents and look for a better way. We need affordable, abundant, rent stabilized housing. That's what we need to make it legal to build. And we can't build that future if we sell out the city today to the highest bidder, to the millionaires and billionaires at the expense of regular folks like you and me. Thank you.

[Speaker 120.0]: Good evening, members of the board and the commission. I'm here to support the zoning changes because I strongly believe that zoning changes is the only way out since zoning is foundational to affordability, livability, and good quality transit development, especially for transit oriented residential development, which can unlock an untapped amount of economic opportunity. If this city is serious about meeting climate goals and vision zero, then they must make this change. So I'm gonna show you an example of what okay.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So here's

[Speaker 120.0]: a zoning of the new of what the opportunity of the, like, new zoning changes that we can make for the, like, transit oriented development. This is an example over here. This is the abandoned Safeway over at Japantown. Like, I I wish you to, like, hold on to this piece of land because you can fit a whole apartment here and a public plaza, and you can integrate that with a new gear subway which would be built sometime within this century. So imagine that you can like step into an elevator of your apartment and go to the station down below, and that would be a great thing. So let me see here. As for rent control, as mentioned here, that's a topic for another day. But it is important that you expand it to whatever is reasonable and appropriate. So Let me see. So in conclusion, sewing changes is very important to create a better living and a better life for the city, because everyone benefits from it, and the people of San Francisco deserves more than that. Thank you for your time, and it's been my pleasure and your privilege to have me here.

[Speaker 13.0]: Hi. I'll try to follow that up. Good afternoon or evening. My name is Emily Mach. I grew up, born and raised in San Francisco, grew up in SFUSD, lived in 51, and now I'm a homeowner in District 4. I'm the lead youth organizer at the Chinese Progressive Association where I work with teens who primarily attend SFUSD high schools. CPA is a member of REP, the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition. Actually, our coalition asked for this hearing to be held after 5PM so that community members could attend for it to start after five. But as this is happening during school hours and our young people are at school, I'm here instead. Last year, CPA youth surveyed five sixty five young people aged 13 to 24 who all live, work, or go to school in the city. The majority of respondents ranked housing as the most important issue to them and their families' well-being. Why housing? Young people from working families understand that they are not merely students, but they are also tenants and workers. They experience immense pressure to perform academically because our hometown is so expensive, it's so unaffordable. And that's precisely because of how the government has opened doors to corporate developers and speculation. Young people today, and myself as a formerly young person, have witnessed our friends and family get priced out of the city. We don't have a housing supply problem. Our problem is relying on the private sector to secure a minuscule amount of barely affordable housing. In fact, we've looked at the limited affordable housing the mayor's plan proposes. Our youth have checked out the AMI, and their households can't afford the so called affordable housing that's in this plan. If the city wants to meet its mandate, it should be prioritizing 100% deeply affordable housing. Despite the plan being called the SF Family Zoning Plan, it does not have the interests nor the input of youth or working families in mind. The mayor uses youth and families as a cover while planning for our displacement and demolition of our homes and communities. Working families and immigrants keep San Francisco running. The responsibility to house San Francisco families should belong to the government, not corporate and private developers who profit from our basic needs.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you.

[Speaker 13.0]: The mayor says he wants to revitalize San Francisco, but in order for our city to thrive, the city must invest in a real community plan Thank

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: you, ma'am.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: But that's fine.

[Speaker 13.0]: To focus on affordability.

[Speaker 32.0]: Thank you.

[Speaker 154.0]: Hello. My name is Maria Fortis Morris. It's an honor to be here. I am speaking as a tenant in a rent controlled building that would almost certainly be demolished. I also am not low income, but I do feel very strongly that, the current housing plan needs to include a higher percentage of low income and affordable housing to be built in the same neighborhoods, rather than to be built in neighborhoods that are, you know, sort of I don't wanna use the term ghettoized, but that that's one Maroy, please stop. But I I think it's really important that the the what the development housing is very equitable, especially for people who are yeah. And the other thing I wanted to say is as a as a as somebody who would not qualify for any tenant protections, at least not that to my knowledge that would be legally enforceable, I would urge you to reconsider that part of the plan so that somebody like me would have the right of return to my rent controlled unit. I'm a cultural worker. I'm an artist. I, you know, I don't qualify for affordable housing, but I think that I provide value to my community. And I think there are many other people in my building who also provide tremendous value to their community who would not be able to move back if they didn't have enforceable right of return. And I know that's not popular with the developers and real estate crowd who are, you know, you know, advocating strongly for that, but I I think it's really important for voters and I think it's really important for young people like me. I waited till I was 40 to have a child because I couldn't afford to have one before I was 40, and it's really hard, to be an older mom. And I would have much preferred to have a child when I was young, so I definitely think affordable housing would be great. But please protect those of us who are here so that we can stay where we are and that we have legally enforceable rights of return. And please include a lot of affordable rent controlled housing in whatever 80,000 units get built. I think that would be really great. Thank you.

[Speaker 155.0]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Bob Akas Vandiari. I live in the Outer Richmond. I've been there for over twelve years, and I'm part of a group called Grow the Richmond, which is a sub chapter, I guess, of EMB Action and SFMB. You've all heard me give a variety of feelings and reasons and opinions on why I think it's critical that you vote to pass this plan and that you strengthen it more than it currently is. I think it's actually doing the bare minimum to be compliant with state law, and I think it could be a lot more, beefier and more aggressive, but, you know, I'll take what I can get as far as getting things across the line. I'm gonna tell a brief personal story for those that maybe I haven't, managed to tell this story to before. I've mentioned it many a time in the past. Over a decade ago when I was in my senior year of college, I was living in Santa Clara, California at the time, and I was living with five other gentlemen, and we were in a, large four bedroom, two bath, but single family home. And, we were beginning our senior year, and we found, mold, a lot of black mold, throughout multiple parts of the bathrooms and some of the bedrooms. And we flagged this to the attention of our landlady. And when she, heard this, she didn't, do anything to remediate it or address it. She just issued us an eviction notice. And that really sucked. And and tenant protections and some of the things that people are talking about here where you could go to court and you could try to fight it out, that could have potentially helped me, but that would have taken lawyers and time and energy. And we were students. We don't have the money. We don't have the time. What was the best tenant protection for us back then was the ability to move across town less than a mile away at a similarly sized place for sim basically the same rent. And again, this is over a decade ago, and you can't do that anymore. The housing shortage that we have let fester and persist for decades and decades and decades has destroyed the ability if someone has a life change, or someone has a kid, or someone has something happened to them where they have to move. And there's nothing. If you open up Zillow, if you open up Craigslist, there's barely anything, and there's bidding wars as my friend Tyler pointed out. You need to pass this. You need to do more than this, and I really do hope that you do the best you can, to legalize housing in the city.

[Speaker 45.0]: Hi, commissioners. My name is Ben and I'm in support of the family zoning plan. I'm a renter and have lived in San Francisco for almost eight years with my wife. As we think about having kids in the near future, the prospect of staying in San Francisco is daunting. How can we raise a family here when the cost of rent is so high? I know many people who have left already for this reason, and I don't wanna be one of them. Please approve this zoning plan and make SF more family friendly. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 156.0]: Hello. My name is Juliana. I'm a third generation San Franciscan, and I grew up in the Richmond District. And I'm here to support the family zoning plan. I love San Francisco and my neighborhood, which is why I recognize the need for more housing. If we wanna preserve our community, we must make it affordable and accessible to the next generation. I want to stay here, but without an increase in supply of all kinds of housing, prices will only continue to rise and lock out people who grow up here, people like me. We pride ourselves as San Franciscans and as liberals as change makers, people who believe in social justice and positive change. But our stagnation is homogenizing the city. We need more housing now. Thank you.

[Speaker 157.0]: Hello. My name is Will Jackson. I'm a Richmond resident here with Grow the Richmond and SFMB to thank the commission for its patience and its affirmative vote for the family zoning plan. We live in a city of opportunity that young people cannot afford, of acceptance that the persecuted cannot receive because we have been unwilling to make space for them. Every year, I lose another friend to a state that doesn't balk over creating space for them. Every year, my wife and I have to decide if we can stay while our community slowly erodes. I think many people in our city have had experienced have experienced something similar, and I really think that we all want the same things, to be able to afford to stay and for the city to thrive. So if we love the culture of San Francisco, we must not reject the new voices who can make it. If we love the history of San Francisco, we must allow the story to continue. And if we want housing to be affordable, we need a lot more of it. If you love the city, let it grow. Thank you.

[Speaker 16.0]: Good evening, commissioners. I'm sorry that it's evening now, but appreciate your patience in pushing through with us. My name is Divya. I'm with Grow The Richmond as well, and I support the family zoning plan. I just wanted to tell you a brief anecdote of how I managed to find a place in the Richmond four and a half years ago. My partner and I were entering this new phase of our relationship. We wanted to move in together, and I, for the life of me, could not find a listing on Craigslist that was within our budget. So out of frustration, I switched to the map view and I scrolled all the way out thinking it would show me, like, the map of The United States Of America, and then maybe I could find something that was misplaced. And lo and behold, there was a misplaced pin in the middle of the Pacific Ocean out beyond the Farallones for an apartment at 9th And Fulton, which we ultimately got, which was great. But, I mean, based on what we just heard from Bobek about, like, the antics some of us have to get into sometimes in order to actually obtain one of these apartments, it's kinda ridiculous that I had to do that. We shouldn't need a computer glitch that works out for us in order to find an apartment on the West Side. So with that, I thank you for your support in hopefully approving this item. Thank you.

[Speaker 27.0]: You're good to go?

[Speaker 158.0]: I am another millennial complaining about rent.

[Speaker 27.0]: It's funny. I have this book in my backpack by Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. And it's been in my backpack for a few months. And one of the central tenets is that building cities is not just about brick and mortar. It's about relationships between people. I was with a few people who are members of a advisory committee with Prologis for their distribution center that they're building in Bayview. I'm sure you're more than familiar with it. There has been some success there for getting community benefits from some of these larger developers. I'm not saying that I think that everything went perfect. But if anything is going to move forward, then it requires some communication, some more community participation, and somebody who's willing to meet in the middle. And I think that's why you're suffering through all of this. So thank you. I will also say, though, I don't know who checked the dates on these things. I cannot say if I think that this was the most auspicious day to discuss this topic. So I would just want to use the rest of my time to have some silence for September 11 and all the people that, you know, went through this tragedy and us as Americans.

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: Thank you.

[Speaker 159.0]: Hi, everyone. My name is Priya, and I'm with People Power Media, an organization that is part of the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition. So I've been organizing in San Francisco for the past five years, which pales in comparison to how long some rep members have been doing this work. Decades. Right? And I have learned the most from the stories of rep members who have lived in San Francisco for decades. Elders, families that go back so many generations here, people who have experienced San Francisco through multiple points of history and change, people who have survived and fought a system that puts profit over their well-being. And what I see in this family zoning plan is historical amnesia. The plan seems to forget that San Francisco has gone through redlining, redevelopment, and urban renewal, the displacement of the .com boom, the foreclosure crisis, and a rampant gentrification. And please remember, for every one of our houseless community members, there are six vacant units waiting to be lived in. That is a moral atrocity in a city, with so much wealth. And this is not a bug of the system. It is a feature. This morning, mayor Lurie said that we are in a housing crisis. Right? But the crisis is that this plan builds housing that the most vulnerable people in the city cannot afford. The system is the crisis. This plan promises progress, but we have to ask progress for whom? Progress towards what? What does progress mean when it will demolish rent control housing, strip tenant rights, and usher in a new era of displacement? The market will not save us. It has never saved us. This is not a supply side issue. And if we do not learn from our history, we are doomed towards deeper crisis. It's your duty to be students of history. Listen to the stories and struggles of San Franciscans who have created the city and act on that, which means listening to the decades worth of community expertise such as rep's citywide people's plan. Thank you.

[Speaker 160.0]: Hello, commissioners. I'm Anna Christina Arana, a member of the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition. Rep SF strongly opposes mayor Lurie's upzoning plan, which does not create opportunities for families, will make rent more expensive, will increase the displacement of tenants and small businesses, and will make it impossible for for San Francisco to develop the affordable housing we desperately need. We are running out of time, and we must act now to change course. We urge this commission to reject the mayor's dangerous displacement plan. Instead, the city must invest in a real community plan to refocus on affordability and real opportunities for families, seniors, and working people. We need real family and dignified housing. The upzoning plan does not meet our need for family size housing. The requirements for developers to provide two or more bedroom units for projects of at least five or 10 units depending on the area does not come close to providing the type or amount of truly family size units we need. Coupled with the proposal to incentivize density decontrol for such a vast area contradicts the stated goal of creating more space for families, workers, and the next generation of San Franciscans. The mayor's approach will lead to tiny units and expansive penthouses, which are only advantageous for developers and investors and not for the needs of San Francisco's families. Rep SF's letter to mayor Lurie, SF Planning, and the board of supervisors outlines our solutions for the city to support real and dignified family housing. There is another path forward. The city's housing element and the required rezoning plan must be rooted in racial and social equity and refocus on prioritizing affordability and community stability. Our communities have the solutions we need to protect tenants and small businesses. Please listen to us and act accordingly. Thank you.

[Speaker 161.0]: Great. Good evening, commissioner. Chantelle Abrinto with Rep SF. I was also born and raised in San Francisco. I have lived in Districts 911, and now District 1 on the West Side. Housing element implementation, including this upzoning plan, must focus on affordable housing first. There's a huge list of housing element implementation actions that were supposed to have been accomplished by January 31. Some of these actions that are overdue would move the city on the right track for building the affordable housing our communities desperately need. That includes several pathways for funding affordable housing, including budgeting recommendations, public finance tools, philanthropic and state funding sources, and expanding existing jobs housing linkage fees. Lack of available funding to implement these actions is not an excuse. For the past several years, mayors have been diverting funds earmarked for affordable housing. We have called on our current mayor to put an

[Speaker 32.0]: end to this practice and commit to new sources of funding

[Speaker 161.0]: so we can start building at scale, and commit to new sources of funding so we can start building at scale the truly affordable housing we desperately need. In the letter we submitted to this commission last week, we detailed a set of strategies the city could advance to prioritize not only affordable housing, but also housing that meets the needs of families and that would better support tenants and small businesses. We urge you to please invest in these strategies and in a real plan that refocuses and truly prioritizes affordability and real opportunities for families, seniors, and working people. Thank you.

[Speaker 162.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Christopher Melgar, and I'm here with Cayo Venti Cuatro, who is a member of the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition. What's being presented as a family zoning plan is in reality a dangerous giveaway to market rate condo developers and land speculators. It disregards decades of community based policy making that has made San Francisco resilient and vibrant through strong neighborhood networks. Instead of strengthening affordability, it provides developers with extraordinary extraordinary incentives for profiteering while leaving tenants and small businesses to face uncertainty, rising costs, and displacement. We are already more than two years past the adoption of the housing element, and the city has failed to implement the key actions that would put us on a path toward equity and stability. Time is running out. We need a bold community driven vision where the city partners with residents to make long term investments in affordable housing and business stability. That is the only way to ensure that San Francisco remains a place where families and working people can thrive. I urge you to reject the to reject this displace displacement plan and commit to building a truly affordable, inclusive future for our city. Thank you.

[Speaker 2.0]: Good evening, commissioners. Joseph Smook with

[Speaker 32.0]: the rep

[Speaker 2.0]: coalition. Between state density bonus programs and this upzoning pro proposal, the entire city is and will be subjected to some form of developer incentive. As developer incentives increase, so do evictions. Evictions are already rising simply because rents are up. State law enables demolition of tenant occupied and rent controlled homes. This mayor's up zoning plan plus mayor Breed's streamlining legislation create new possibilities for tenants to be evicted and displaced. Supervisor Chen's recently introduced critically important legislation will create strong systems to reduce harms to tenants in certain circumstances, but this legislation will not stop evictions or displacement. The planning commission needs to make the following recommendations. Number one, remove all provisions in the mayor's upzoning and breed streamlining that make demolitions, mergers, and conversions possible. Number two, amend, recommend to the board that they work with the state to amend the Housing Crisis Act to prohibit demolition of existing housing. Also work with the board to recommend that we amend the Ellis Act to prevent the eviction of tenants from sound affordable house, habitable housing. Please refer to housing element action number 2.2.6. If a landlord wants to go out of the rental business, they can sell their property. There's no justification for evicting tenants during a housing crisis. You must make real steps to protect tenants, and do not use supervisor Chen's legislation to attempt to shield yourself or make yourself feel better for voting in favor of this pernicious upzoning plan. Thank you.

[Speaker 163.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Eileen Hurst, and I, live on Russian Hill. So I attended, the District 3, presentation by planning staff on this plan. Great information, really well done. And there was the predictable pushback. I was very surprised when planning staff said that because, it's so hard to demolish rent controlled housing in San Francisco, and because in this economy, development just doesn't pencil out. You know, none of this housing is gonna be built anyway. Well, swell. We just spent how many hundreds of thousands of dollars and staff time and resources creating a plan that your own staff says is not gonna result in housing. Everybody who's been waiting all this time to speak to you on this important issue can unite on one thing. San Francisco needs affordable, family appropriate housing, and we need it now. Not fifty years from now, we need it now. So I urge you, reject this plan. Send it back to your staff and ask them to come up with a plan that is actually going to produce some housing. How about if you identify those parcels where demolition would not be a problem? Streamline the zoning, streamline the permitting, and help developers develop those parcels. You will get the numbers you need, and we will get some housing. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 164.0]: Howard Howard Wong. I'm a native San Franciscan, a native of North Beach, and an architect. I think we should follow in the footsteps of past generations, all the officials, commissioners, public advocates, citizens, voters who have helped shape the imagery, the iconic beauty of this city. Yes, San Francisco is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. And when you look as tourists, we visit cities like Venice, Florence, Central Paris. They're all breathtakingly beautiful, and San Francisco is no less beautiful. I've seen many tourists just gape at our landscape from the water, from the hills, from the streets. Over the years, we have public policy, planning codes, urban design elements that have shaped the beauty of the city. Mediterranean Mediterranean hilltops rolling downhill with a scale to the water. Hill towns of Italy, hill towns of Greece, great Mediterranean towns, beautiful cities that we are at Montmore, and we want to keep it that way. In reality, even within existing zoning, the unmet capacity of additional housing units is large. Add to that the 70,000 or so entitle projects that haven't been built or empty lots, public land. The capabilities of our city to build more housing within the existing framework is possible with funding. The MTC Bay Area Finance Authority is proposing an affordable housing bond

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: in two years.

[Speaker 164.0]: Let's wait for that. Let's get that going. Thank you.

[Speaker 165.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Christopher Peterson. I'm the president of the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters. From an environmental perspective, San Francisco is probably the best place in the Western United States for multifamily housing. This is because of its extensive public transit service, its major employment centers, its walkable and transit oriented neighborhood commercial districts, and its mild climate. Maximizing multifamily housing close to transit, employment centers, and commercial districts is crucial for addressing climate change, reducing consumption of water, energy, and natural resources, and minimizing habitat impacts and exposure to wildfire hazards. The San Francisco League of Conservation Voters therefore urges the commission to approve the family zoning plan, especially the components of the plan that facilitate more multifamily housing close to transit employments and commercial centers. Thank you.

[Speaker 166.0]: Hello, commissioners. Thank you for being here. My name is Nick Farris. I serve as president of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers. I also grew up in District 3 in a rent controlled unit, and I'm now raising my family here. Speaking on behalf of our nearly 600 members, I'm urging you to delay your decision or reject this family up zoning proposal. Many consistent themes have been made here around the impact on rent controlled units, around tenants, small businesses, and so forth. One point I have not heard today is this specific and this is specific to d three, is that the planning department's own addendum to the FEIR shows the 22 the twenty twenty two housing element planned 800 units for the Northeast Planning District. The mayor's planning, plan today proposes 5,900 units. That's a 638% increase in the Northeast District. No other district compares. That is not equitable. That is not fair. This dramatic shift onto one of San Francisco's most densely populated areas, ethnically diverse neighborhoods with some of the highest concentrations of tenant occupied and rent controlled housing, historic resources and legacy businesses. This plan is putting fear and real risk to these populations. We support housing and doing our fair share. But this plan is rushed, poorly conceived, and developed with almost no community input in District 3. Singling out one part of the city for this extreme increase is not fairness, it's dangerous. Reject this proposal and demand a plan rooted in equity and protection for our most vulnerable communities. Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: For those members of the public that may still be following these proceedings in the North Light Court, I would suggest making your way up to Room 400. Again, for those members of the public who may be following these proceedings on the 1st Floor in the North Light Court, I recommend you make your way to Room 400. Thank you.

[Speaker 167.0]: Thank you. Hi there. I'm Sarah Goldsmith, and I'm a resident of North Beach, and I'm also a board member on the Telegraph Hill Dwellers. I'm here because this plan was designed for me. I am a tenant in a rent controlled unit with my partner and our pup, and we have plans to build a family in San Francisco that we plan to send to public schools. Unfortunately, I fear this plan will be what pushes us out and does not enable us to raise our family in San Francisco as we so desire and as the name of this plan so aptly claims. Unfortunately, as it stands, this plan incentivizes loss of rent control units and threatens our most vulnerable residents, including elders, those who are in SROs, and those who are low income, as well as our most cherished small and legacy businesses. This plan is an oversimplification of supply and demand when we've learned the very hard way that trickle down economics does not work. The complexity of our affordable housing crisis demands principled leadership from public servants like yourselves, and we need a plan that requires meaningful affordability, acknowledges that our real estate market, rewards equity, and therefore results in long standing vacancies rather than meeting the market where we're at. This permanent zoning plan has generational implications and provides a generational opportunity to make change in our city. This should be drawn with surgical precision rather than the current hacksaw approach, which looks like highlighters taken to our neighborhoods, maps that seem to change on a daily basis for those of us trying deeply to follow and make meaning of these planning processes. I have to urge you to vote no and demand real affordability in this plan, one that protects our historic resources, our shared waterfronts, our beautiful vistas that make this city our city, and that protects small and legacy businesses as well as vulnerable tenants and growing families like mine. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 110.0]: Good evening, planning department and commissioners. Alright. That's better. First, I'd just like to applaud you all for your stamina. This has been a very long day. My name is Peter Stevens. I represent Build Affordable Faster California. I'd just like to say that we all know what really builds housing is money. We also know that investor money will not build housing that's affordable to working people. This is where the city needs to step in. The city needs to fund and finance housing for working people. You know, we can also do cross subsidy for, you know, working class middle income as well. But this plan really needs to have something in it where we are investing in our city and our working people. I will also say that this plan touches at least 2,500 rent controlled units in every district. A lot more in some of them, which is also a problem we don't wanna pit developers against our tenants. That's a problem. I'd also like to say that it looks like SB 79 passed the assembly tonight. So I, you know, have come here a few times to ask for some maps. I would think it's about time that planning actually produces those maps just so we know how this will impact our, so called family zoning plan. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time.

[Speaker 168.0]: Thank you, commissioners. It has been a long day. I feel more of you should do a little energy stand up there. My name is Jay Pierpont. I'm very much in favor of affordable housing. But I do think there's been a lack of community input. We need more of it. Thus, I appreciate all of us having the opportunity to speak to you today. Thank you. I live right next to Little Sisters of the Poor, or as it also is known as St. Anne's. Other this meeting, we have had no dialogue with the city as to what will happen to this two block development. It's a huge development here. And what we have heard is that upwards of a 10 story building with seven foot setbacks, a bathtub, can go into this space. That would fundamentally change the neighborhood and the infrastructure that is already under duress. Think sewers and mass transit. Do we, as a city, have the money to support this growth? We also like the Slow Lake Street. And that would be just a happy memory if a high density building is erected on this site. Furthermore, California Street, now that it's just limited to two lanes, is already a mess for all of you commuting on it. We also worry that the development will favor studio and one unit apartments. That does not solve the family housing crisis that people are talking about. And at eight to 10 stories high, this building is 2x or higher any other building on Lake Street. That would profoundly change the look of the neighborhood and cast a huge shadow, literally and physically, on many of the neighboring houses. None of this is compelling. So I would urge all of you to think about how the community can be incorporated, their visions heard, and the charms of our neighborhood protected. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 169.0]: Hi. My name is Reid Maltzman. I've been a resident of San Francisco for ninety two years. Just seeing if you guys are listening. Okay. I'm here to speak about the Saint Anne's property. As you know, it abuts residential properties on all sides. I live adjacent to the property which has had a setback of 30 to 40 feet for a hundred and forty years. The plans put forward for the upzoning would allow the developer of Saint Anne's to build a 65 foot wall, not seven, but actually five feet from the property line. This would destroy the neighborhood and the surrounding homes. I'm in favor, and I think most of the people on 5th Avenue are in favor of developing more housing, and I'd be ardently against simple single family home development on the Saint Anne's lot. But there has to be a compromise that's not covered by this blanket upzoning. And I agree with the speaker who talked about these maps look like they were drawn with highlighter. Saint Anne's is two city blocks. As such, it should be considered separately from a blanket upzoning. The planning department working with the neighbors should work with us to develop a plan for additional housing, high density housing, which doesn't destroy the existing housing and neighborhood. In meetings with the planning department, 5th Avenue residents were told that they would receive massing models and setbacks. This never happened. I I paused for effect, by the way. We can't we can build more housing without destroying the nature of the community around Saint Anne's. This proposal does not do that and instead risks destroying the character of the inner Richmond. I urge you to vote no until more planning is completed. Thank you.

[Speaker 152.0]: Hey. Good evening. Whit Turner on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. We are excited about this plan. I'm gonna keep it short. This is the moment. Do it. Pass this through. This will help families. More housing for families. More housing for young people such as myself who are still living with their parents. This is the moment. We have to do it right now, and this is the solution. I got to get home to mom and dad, but thank you for your time.

[Speaker 69.0]: Good evening, commissioners. I think you have an ominous decision ahead of you whether to destroy thousands of units of rental affordable housing, rent control housing, such as I live in. I'm a senior. I would be homeless. There's no alternative. And the system is designed to fail. I predict that if you do not reject this plan, it will go to the ballot, and you will lose. It is such a disastrous plan designed to make the mayor look good, cause enormous pain and suffering and probably death to people like me who have no place else to live. I've lived in my rent control unit for more than forty years. I have no place to move to. I have a good landlord. And your job is an ominous one. I sure hope you find a way to turn this around and kill it at this level of the process. It's a very sad day when San Francisco destroys its most affordable housing stock, which is irreplaceable. Law does not permit rent controlled housing, once destroyed, to be rebuilt. That's the law. If you let these units go away, they will never come back. And don't tell me you're going to ask me to come back in a year or two or five years. This never works. It's a fraud. It's a disgrace. And I hope you find a way to save the available affordable housing in San Francisco because it's very likely that no one else will do this.

[Speaker 170.0]: Good evening, commissioners, and thank you for listening to all of us. My name's Carolyn Kennedy. I'm chair of the Dolores Heights Improvement Club, which is a neighborhood association in District 8. We oppose the family zoning plan, and we urge you to use your power to take action to address the shortcomings that we've all heard about from people who are also concerned about this plan. In our neighborhood, developers and wealthy individuals demolish small to medium single and multi unit housing, replacing them with monster homes that don't contribute to more affordable housing stock. The high end luxury market, I can tell you from my experience, doesn't need help. It's the people who've been speaking today who need truly affordable housing and storefronts that need your help. Commissioners, please use your power to ensure that this plan is sized properly. To meet our state mandate, we only need right now to approve an additional 36,000 some odd units by 2032. Also enables more affordable housing. 80% of those 36,000 units, as we all know, must be affordable. And this fails to produce enough housing for the middle class and low income families that we all want to see stay in this city, raise their families here, thrive. Protects our historic buildings. We are all concerned about what's going to happen to them under this plan and prevents tenants and small businesses from being displaced. Thank you so much for your role in this process, and I urge you to take action to improve this plan. Thank you.

[Speaker 171.0]: Hello, commissioners. Thank you so much for being here and listening to all of us today. Really appreciate the the moments that we have to share our perspectives. I am here as a resident of Laurel Heights. I'm a mother of two kids. They're on their iPads in the back because I came at noon and I had to grab my kids and come back. And I I'm also a lover of San Francisco. I'm here not just representing myself and my children and my family, I'm here representing a lot of the other types of families that couldn't come here today. So this weekend, my daughter and I, back row, hosted a lemonade and land use booth at the Clement Farmer's Market to connect to other residents who are in Jordan Park and Laurel Heights to ask them, what do you think about the family zoning plan? What fears do you have? What worries do you have? Change is hard. Change is scary. All of them, every single family I spoke to said, yeah, makes total sense. California and Gary should have more housing. We have not built housing for the last generation of kids who have were born here. We need to build housing for our next generation of kids. And I know this will take a long time to work through the system, a long time for this housing to be built. So this is our generational chance. If you pass zoning here today, my children may have a home in thirty years. I want what every single parent wants. I want my child to live close to me, but not with me. And so I would love for you to, support that. In addition to that, I'm excited to see the density needed to add elevators and accessibility into the West Side. When I moved when my family got bigger, I looked for a house with an elevator because my mother cannot navigate stairs. A bedroom a three bedroom apartment with an elevator does not exist in my neighborhood. With zoning and with upzoning, I can bring have a place where my mother can visit her grandchildren. So please, you this is your once in a generation opportunity to build homes for our children. Thank you.

[Speaker 42.0]: It's our turn. Hello. Hi. I'm Laura Foote.

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: Okay. But you can't

[Ellen Lee Zhou, Public Speaker]: hold it, boo. Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 42.0]: I'm Laura Foote. I am the executive director of YIMBY Action. And when I moved here about thirteen years ago, as a person who was You gotta be very quiet. Quiet. We gotta be very quiet. I know. Come on. I think you get the point, which is I love my kids. We have two San Franciscan natives living in the apartment with us. And I would I would like to encourage you a lot of people have said put this on pause and let me say please don't. We ran out of time a long time ago. When I first started getting active for housing I said where is my generation gonna live And we failed them. They are mostly gone. Everybody who I met in my first couple years in San Francisco is now gone. And so I ask you, please don't fail my kids. Right? That's with the choice you have here. We are out of time. To everybody who is saying this is not enough, it's right. It's not enough. There's a lot more we can do and should do. There's a lot more around affordable housing funding. There's a lot more around permaceme lining, single payer reform. There's a lot of nerdy stuff you guys can do to get housing production on track for San Francisco. This is a very modest proposal, and I hope to God it's gonna be enough so that my kids can find an apartment. But it's probably not going to be. So I hope you keep working at it, and I hope you propose more and bolder solutions because I do not want to fail the next generation the way the previous generation failed mine. Thank you.

[Speaker 172.0]: Hi. My name is Robin Leslie. I've lived in San Francisco for over a decade. I'm here in strong support for the plan. I think it'll make San Francisco more inclusive, more affordable, more walkable, and support the vibrant small businesses we all know and love in our communities. So with that, I'll pass the mic. Thank you.

[Speaker 37.0]: Good evening, commissioners. Jane Nitoli. I'm the San Francisco organizing director for YIMBY Action. On behalf of our 100 and or thirteen sixty one members here in San Francisco, I'm speaking in strong support. Forty seven years ago, a body just like you, a bunch of planning commissioners faced a really important decision, and they failed. They down zoned our city. Vast swaths of our city became inaccessible to people overnight. I live in one of those areas. I live in 121 year old rent controlled apartment building in Richmond that you cannot rebuild today. It's a modest building, it's a three story apartment building, it's just not legal right now. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about building homes like that again. Things that are already in the fabric of San Francisco, making that legal again. This is our opportunity. Like many speakers have said, it's really difficult to find a place here. And if something happens to your situation, what are you gonna do? Most people don't know. Right? I don't know what I would do if something happened to my building. But I do know that one of the things that will provide security is if I have more options, is if when I open Craigslist or Zillow, I'm not seeing one bedrooms for $3,000 and thinking, well, maybe I can make that work if something happened. That's what we have the opportunity to do. We're not going to fix this overnight because it was a problem we started in 1978, maybe even before arguably. But we do have the chance to take an important step, and I urge you to take that. Thank you.

[Speaker 173.0]: Good evening, commissioners. I'll start by just saying thank you, thank you, thank you for all your patience. I know it's a very long night. I'll keep my remarks brief. My name is Davy Kim. I'm a volunteer member of San Francisco YIMBY. I'm a renter of over ten years here in San Francisco. I'm also a father of a newborn, just born a couple of months ago, who I want to see live here for a very long time, who I want to see go through San Francisco schools, and who I want to kick out, just like Carolyn mentioned, at 18 years old into some other affordable option here in San Francisco. So I come to you as also a newly minted parent with a lot of concerns. To do that, we need to think bigger picture. We need a zoning plan that signals to the region and the state that we're not going to cower at the opportunity to build our fair share of housing through a zoning plan that I'm sure is not perfect and is not going to make everybody happy, but ultimately necessary to create a San Francisco that is welcoming to all populations. My future son, but also people of diverse cultural backgrounds, of diverse class, and age groups. I want to be very sensitive to a lot of the concerns raised here about lack of community input, preservation of historical buildings, demolition. Those are all very legitimate concerns. I want us to think about when those concerns become amorphous ways to just say no and delay. Because once we resolve those issues, once it comes time to say yes, will they show up? Because we all know that it's much harder to say yes than it is to say no. So I implore you to have the courage to finally say yes. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 35.0]: What's up, planning commission? My name is Melissa Marquette. I think that should have established my bona fides. I live in San Francisco, and I am a broke ass grad student who only can afford to live here because I got very very lucky in finding a rent control department. I don't think you should have to get so lucky to be able to live in a city that is as lovely and awesome as this one. And I think that means we need more housing. That means we desperately need more housing, and this plan does that, so it's probably fine. There's no way to build a bunch more housing without ruffling a lot of feathers. That being said, in the midst of a lot of comments that we've seen today going in very different directions, some similar directions, whatever. We've also heard some really great and sincere criticism of this plan that can be used to make it better. We need stronger protections to keep rent controlled housing from being destroyed. We need protections against displacement, protections for small businesses, considerations for earthquake safety, etcetera, etcetera. I think it's possible to incorporate this into this plan. We've also heard a lot today about how much the city has changed. The sunset used to be a dune field. The marina used to be the bay. The city has changed a lot to become what it is now. We can't let the city become stagnant because we like it how it works for us right at this second. This plan is pretty much fine, but if we strengthen the protections for working people, it'll be even better. Working people are the heart and soul of the city and are what made it so desirable of a place to live in the first place. As long as regular working class people are taken care of, the city can change, but the character of the city will remain. Please move forward with this plan, but keep tweaking it and improving it. Thank you so much for your time.

[Speaker 174.0]: Hello, and, thank you for your time. My name is Trent. I've lived in Nob Hill for four years, and I'm speaking in support of the family zoning plan. I love the city, and I wanna stay here for the rest of my life. But even though I make above the median income, it's still hard to afford a decent one bedroom apartment, let alone anything with more space. And as long as that remains true, I will never be able to buy a house here. I will never be able to raise a family here. And because of that, I will eventually be forced to leave. I'm here because every day we delay new housing is another hidden eviction. People like me, who love this city and desperately want to stay, but are forced to leave due to the cost of housing. I'm here because the solution is abundantly clear. When you build more housing, housing becomes more affordable for everyone. It's been proven again and again. And I'm here because the status quo created this crisis and is not sustainable or just. I urge you not just to support this measure, but to go even further to support housing affordability and treat the housing crisis like the emergency it is. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 135.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Steve. I'm a resident of Portola. I'm a homeowner. Wanted to say thank you so much for listening to all these comps tonight. It's been a long session. And this housing element is a culmination of years of work and I commend you all for being part of it at this historic moment in our city. I'm a recent homeowner. I live in a new construction in Portola. And when I tell people that, they're like, wow, new construction. That's not something you see much. And the only reason I was able to buy it was because it's a townhome. And, you know, this kind of housing is just not available for so many people who would like to have a place and to raise a family. And, you know, I feel like there should be more opportunities

[Speaker 20.0]: like that.

[Speaker 135.0]: Me and my wife, we wanna start a family, and we can do that with this kind of housing. And so if you guys are able to think about the future generations of San Franciscans that wanna live here to give that opportunity to them. I think this is a great opportunity for that. It's a very good first step, and I hope you guys, can pass this rezoning. Thank you.

[Speaker 175.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Steve Leeds. I'm a longtime resident of the Sunset District and a representative of the Westside Tenants Association, which is a member of REP SF. We strongly oppose the mayor's zoning plan, which will lead to displacement of tenants and small businesses, isn't a family plan and impedes the building of truly affordable housing. It's a giveaway to developers, the real estate industry, and will destroy the unique character of San Francisco's neighborhoods. As a tenant who's faced displacement, the tenant protection ordinance does not does not create strong protections. It only details developers' obligations to tenants under a state program that will result in the demolition of existing rent controlled and existing occupied housing under a vague set of conditions. For starters, the the city the city of San Francisco must prohibit the demolition of all existing rent control units. The family upzoning plan won't provide family centered housing. It will lead to small units and expensive pen penthouses, which are advantageous for the profits of developers and investors. Lastly, the market and deregulation will never ever solve the affordability crisis. Let us remember that drill, drill, drill didn't lower our energy prices, only increased the profits for the big fossil fuel companies and utilities. Build, build, build, and deregulation is specifically designed as a solution which misleads and tricks the public while enriching developers in the real estate industry. Commissioners, please reject this upflawed zoning plan upzoning plan, adopt REP's citywide people's plan, affordable housing first. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 176.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jessica Pola. I'm a local real estate agent in well, he I walk in the city. So it's not just me. I have a brother that lives with me, and it's very hard to find two bedrooms in the city of San Francisco. We come as a pair, and I want and I owed you guys to pass this so that more two bedrooms, three bedrooms, and so families could stay in San Francisco. I have been homeless in San Francisco twice, once a few years ago when I first moved to the city and went earlier this year. And we struggled to find two bedrooms that we could afford in San Francisco. We no longer live in San Francisco because you guys do not have any affordable two bedrooms for people like me and my brother. But I still do walk in the city, and I come to the city, like, every day to walk. That is all.

[Speaker 38.0]: Hello, commissioners. Thank you so, so much for being here all day, all night long. I know it's a very, very long night. I was at home actually watching this on TV and I just couldn't bear being on the sidelines, so I decided to write down here and make your night a little bit longer because of that. So I appreciate that. My name is Marie Rahimi. I am with District nine Neighbors for Housing. I come here to be in strong support of this plan. It's a very good plan. It's very thoughtful plan. We have been looking at it for a while, so I really appreciate all the planning department staff that work has gone into it. I want to, as many other commenters mentioned, remind everyone this is kind of the bare minimum legally required plan that we have. So I really urge you to resist the temptation to make it any weaker than it is. It is really at the bare minimum. We do need to expand it further. We need to add more neighborhoods to it. You have heard a lot about adding neighborhoods like mine, like Bernal Heights to this plan. I do think that there are other neighborhoods in San Francisco who do benefit from having more housing and more choices. So please consider that in further iterations of this plan, but for tonight, you can pass it as is. And really appreciate the work. Just want to mention that for our next generation, our families, our children, we really want them to grow in San Francisco, be able to stay in the city, make it their home, and yeah, that's all I have. Thank you so much.

[Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator]: Hi all, thanks for staying so late today. This is my first time at CityComment, so I wanted to to talk about the importance of passing this plan for me personally. I've been living in the Bay Area for about five years. Recently I started working remotely, but I chose to stay here because I love it here. The people that keep the city running, I think, can't afford to live here, such as the maintenance workers or the grocery store, employees. I live in the Portola. And it seems like if you didn't move here twenty years ago or make it big in tech or whatever company, You just don't get to participate the same way in living and owning your house in the neighborhood. And so I think, yeah, as a society, we should prioritize making sure people have the chance to live here and building more housing over the objections of those who want a better view. I think everyone should get the chance at one house before folks get to have multiple. So I think, yeah, we need to be aggressive about building housing, including in all the communities that have long resisted growth and build taller, build more, and please support this plan. Thank you.

[Speaker 171.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Ruhamah Toretta, and I'm here today on behalf of the NorCal Carpenters Union representing thousands of carpenters who work and live in San Francisco. We support strong housing legislation like AB twenty eleven and SB four two three that streamlines housing production while protecting and uplifting the workers who build it. Upzoning helps makes these bills a reality. Upzoning means more housing for more people. It provides a framework for growth, one that ensures that the people who build and sustain San Francisco can also afford to live here. We look forward to working alongside the mayor, affordable housing advocates, and with this commission to deliver the homes that San Francisco needs now. Thank you.

[Speaker 177.0]: Hello, commissioner. My name is Charlene Chen, and I work in architecture for NSF designing the residential housing, including a 100 affordable housing. And I'm here to support the family zoning plan. I'm from Taiwan, a country also has earthquake and high density cities. I grew up in Taiwan, worked in Japan, and now I finally settled down in down in San Francisco because I love the city so much. The weather is so perfect. And luckily, I'm able to become the homeowner two years ago with the SF DAHLIA housing program in in Hayes Valley. It is a long and exhausted process, and it's a narrow door. You have to be make enough money to pay for the mortgage and also be low income to pass the city's review. It cost me three years. And we need this resource more and more and more. We not only need this, but also all income ranges. I like San Francisco as a city with diversity, and this plan will help this city to welcome more people like me. After all, it's a long day, and thank you for listening.

[Speaker 178.0]: Hi. First of all, thank you commissioners for sitting through all this. I know it must be a slog, so thank you. I'm Nicholas. I'm a resident of DuBose Triangle District Eight and first time public commenter, so I hope I do this right. I'd like to speak in support of the family rezoning plan. In summary, the reason I'm here is everyone knows the city is too expensive, and I believe any true long term solution here is going to involve building more housing, and that's what this proposal does. But the main thing I wanna emphasize is that the voices that at this meeting are not all that you can all that you should consider. For one, it's not just current residents that matter, but it's the future residents, like young people who love the city but just can't afford to move here. Even when people hear, a study last year examined public comment at this very body and found that participants at planning meetings tend to be unrepresentative of the public in terms such as age and home ownership status. So So for those reasons, listen to the voice in this meeting, but know that we represent only a small portion of the city, and also give equal, if not greater, rate to the written comments from those who couldn't be here and didn't stop here on the way home from work like I did. Thank you so much for your time.

[Speaker 179.0]: Hi there. My name is David Brockman. I'm one of the volunteer leads with SFUMB. So I'm of course here to support the plan. There's been a lot of great emotional stories I could tell my own about really wanting to stay here, but I wanna instead use my time for a couple more wonky points. I've been on kind of a sub team of the SFU and V leads. It's been kind of a crack team of nerds trying to understand for the last three years, what this program will do, how it could be made stronger, looking at the city's own model and data as some of the folks sitting next to you can, tell you from any of the public records request we've made, all the nerding we've done. And based on that, I wanted to just lift up two, wonkier points for your attention as you consider, this proposal today, especially those of you who are looking for ways to have it, build more housing without running into too much more resistance. One of those which wasn't discussed much in the packet, is the issue of a lot mergers. So many of the lots that this rezoning is going to apply to are narrow lots, 25 foot by a 100 foot lots, where it's gonna be difficult for developers without single stair, to build to the height that you're ask you're giving them. A very simple change that would really unlock a lot lot of feasibility would be to consider or have the landing land use committee be able to consider, some kind of way to streamline the lot merger process. That is gonna unlock a lot of feasibility. And as we think ahead to the next planning cycle, if we have that in place and we see the production, I think that's really gonna help help this conversation eight years from now be a lot less painful if we can show that this plan's able to build something. Another thing that I'll briefly mention is that earlier Lisa Chen mentioned that the local program offers flexibility that density bonus law. I think before you you have some suggestions that could make the local program mirror the state density bonus law, but as is, it doesn't quite get there. So I'd encourage you to look at what the state density bonus law does around unlimited waivers to, allow, base projects to be, feasible, and and waive, code requirements that, physically preclude them. So lot mergers and mirroring state density bonus law waivers are two things I'd highly encourage you to take a look at. Thank you for supporting this proposal.

[Speaker 180.0]: Good evening. My name is Erica McLeitus, and I'm the housing planning and policy manager for Spur. I'm also a local resident. I live right here at Civic Center, and I love it. When I first moved here five years ago, my goal was to find a rent controlled apartment because I thought that was the best path to affordability. So imagine my surprise when I discovered that many of those apartments were over $3,000 a month. Two bedrooms over almost $4,000 a month and totally out of my price range. I was able to live here because this is a neighborhood that has built housing, and I was able to find a combo sized apartments for nearly half the price because that housing was built. And as grateful as I am to live here, as much as I love being close to transit, being able to walk to so many amenities, I also recognize that it's a deep injustice that only a handful of neighborhoods have borne the brunt of producing housing, especially because so many low income residents in those neighborhoods, did not have the resources to protest and fight back and were pushed out. I find it a deep injustice that laws put in place after redlining was, effectively ended by the federal government to keep the composition of neighborhoods the same. A policy with incredibly racist intent is still effectively in place because we've forced certain neighborhoods to build housing and allowed others to not. I also recognize that many people in my position would not have been able to find an apartment here because they would have needs that wouldn't be met by a studio and a tower. This is an opportunity to meet the obligation to a familiar fair housing. It is an opportunity to make sure that different types of housing are built that meet the needs of more people. I thank you for considering such a broad proposal, and I hope that you too will support it. Thank you.

[Speaker 149.0]: Hello. Hopefully, I don't need to run away real quick. My name is Sean Burgess. I spent much of my life in the Bay Area, but I didn't move to San Francisco until 2020. During the pandemic, people left, housing demand dropped, and prices fell. I could finally afford to live here. Now demand is up and prices are up. That's supply and demand. So what if we built more housing to meet it? The debate isn't just economic. It's also about fairness. I have two young kids, the three year old there and a one year old. My older one loves building Lego towns and running trains through them. But when his little brother tries to build, too, he gets upset. He says, no, I was here first. He can't build anything. I tell him, just because you lived in this home first doesn't mean you get to keep all the Legos. He has just as much right to live here as you do. He says, but those buildings are too tall. They don't match the ones I made. I tell him, cities grow. You're not building a diorama. You're building a town. He says, but what about all the traffic going to his LEGO buildings? I say, good thing you built all those trains. He says, but now I can't see the LEGO park. I say, his LEGO people can't even see a future here. Sometimes he still refuses to share, and then I have to take away his local control. If we don't want the state to treat us like children and take away our local control, then we need to act like adults and pass this plan. Thank you.

[Speaker 181.0]: Hi. My name's Marie Sorensen. Family zoning plan. It's nothing more than a developer. Is it a grift or is it a gift? They're using family as sales tool. It's always a good buzzword. Think the great highway. Think closing the park. The title family is really a distraction. Schools are closing. Birth rates are down. Families are leaving. I mean, we have props here. But the two bedroom family units, it's for a couple and to have an office. What this is about is unbridled building of market rake and luxury units with no affordable component, not to mention no tenant or business protections. As a former planning commissioner said at a hearing a few years ago, maybe the little people need to just move to Oakland. I think that's a theme. Anyway, I think that our dear mayor, Lurie, has borrowed from the Trump administration, and that is make San Francisco white again. Thank you.

[Speaker 182.0]: Good evening, planning commission. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to you. My name is Brian. My wife and I are residents of a rent controlled one bedroom apartment on the West Side Of District 5. It's a wonderful neighborhood and it could be impacted by the proposed zoning plan which I am in favor of. I'm also an architect at David Baker Architects where I work mostly on affordable housing, and I'm a member of the public policy and advocacy committee at the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects. So I haven't said all that, I'm just speaking on behalf of myself today. But I'd like to thank the planning department for their ongoing engagement on this proposal both with the AIA and with the general public. I'm in a reflective mood today because I remember seeing expanding housing choice presentations in 2023 and have led which have led to the proposal that is before you today. The plan has evolved since then, but the central premise that housing options should be expanded in our resource rich neighborhoods with sound in 2023, and it is sound today. I commend the planning department for wrestling with important details, many of which have been mentioned by other speakers today about, regarding how about to go about achieving that goal. I'd also like to thank members of this body for championing single stair reform at commissioning meetings in the past and acknowledge the work that has been done at the sensible density working group on this issue. I think this reform will be crucial to the ongoing success of this plan as it's implemented and hope that we can continue working on this issue in the coming months. Thank you.

[Speaker 183.0]: Good evening. Thank you very much for having us all here and listening for so long. My name is Donna Howe. I live on the West Side. I live actually in District 7, and I am a neighbor of Myrna's. We're good friends. We don't happen to agree on this particular issue, but I believe all of you bring a lot to the table in your personal expertise. And, Rachel, when I first heard you speak before West of Twin Peaks Council, I could only say how bright and intelligent you are, and Lisa and mister Switski, and I've forgotten your name. But, you know, I know you're you're intense about it, and I know you and I know that your intent is good. I have lived in an apartment in a flat on 17th Avenue, and I currently live in Ingleside Terraces in a home. Appreciated every opportunity that we have had. One thing that I I just wanna say is in my 100 year old home now, I share a neighborhood with other single family homes that are multigenerational, that have a lot of diversity that it didn't have when I was growing up here, but it does now. We also provide the opportunity for a lot of students from San Francisco State and University of San Francisco and City College to live in a single family home and become part of our families. They're renters. Most of us keep the rent very low because we were in their shoes. What I do wanna say is that Terrace was conceived, and when it accepted, I wanna call them immigrants from the earthquake because we have a history there, it was a planned community. So when you look down, you will see not just a blanket grid square. We have parks. We have circles. Just take a look. And as you implement this, because I think it's going to pass even though it's not my favorite bill, please keep in consideration that this area has a lot to offer as well. And thank you very much again.

[Speaker 172.0]: Good afternoon. Really happy and excited to be here. My name is Brianna Morales, and I am with the Housing Action Coalition as the community organizer. But first, I want to introduce and say a little bit about who I was before I even started working at HACC. So I was the young adult who moved to San Francisco when she was 17 and struggled to find places to live when I was not in school. I had been living here for ten years and was pushed out to Oakland because there was not enough options for me. I was the tenant who, in five days, I would have been without a home, but luckily, I was on Facebook Marketplace and saw that somebody was renting out their single family home in the Ingleside, and I was going to get my masters at SF State. I was the person who shared a one bedroom place with someone else who had no privacy, And I'm so gracious for that couple who wanted me to call them auntie and uncle, who let me rent out their single family home, but I was living with a lot of other tenants. And even though I was really blessed, there was another part of the story where I was looking at other people that went to SF State, and they were living in cramped style living situations where they had, you know, tents and they had sheets that divided their living quarters. This is the reality that young people are living. This is the reality that you don't get to see because they are in school and they are working. I had to leave San Francisco because there were no options for me. And I'm really hopeful that maybe I could come back. I'm not sure, but I think that could be something that is available to me in twenty years. So I'm here to speak on behalf of the children. I was a preschool teacher also before this school. And I just I love San Francisco, and I want to create a better future. And the status quo is not working. Thank you.

[Speaker 184.0]: Hi. Can you hear me? Hi, everybody. Thank you for hanging out. I wasn't gonna speak tonight, and I don't even know really I don't have a speech prepared. But I live in a neighborhood where the cable cars climb halfway to the stars in North Beach. And I I'm in actually in a safe area where my my my housing is not going to be affected by this bill. Thank goodness. But I just wanted to come as a debate aficionado. And I know all of you are tired. It's been really long. I've heard the each. I've I've been here all day hearing the same stories that you have. And, even though I'm safe, I'm actually kind of scared that if this passes now, I'll be next. So I've been trying to navigate my emotions with my logic. And I'm here to appeal to you to use your logic because I've I've when I look at all the speeches that I've heard today and, oh my goodness, I've been inspired and also particular legislation have more logic and statistics and research backing up their claims. Whereas the people who support it are all stories. This is my observation. Not not a criticism, but I appeal to your logic and have that inform your decision. Please delay it so that more voices of the victims who are gonna be affected can be heard. Thank you.

[Speaker 185.0]: Hello, commissioners. Kristen Evans. I wanted to start off by saying that there were several small business owners that were not able to stay for the long wait line in the hallway. And so I just wanted to mention a few names. Anna Bullard, who owns West Portal Bookshop, she wanted me to let you know that the West Portal merchants are extremely concerned about this plan and the displacement of small businesses in their corridor. Joe's Ice Cream, who, you know, is imminently at risk of being displaced, He will be your first test case to see if any protections that you have put in place help him stay in his community. Yolanda Baratta and Nick Parker, who are my colleagues with Small Business Forward, also wanted to be here. Small Business Forward has submitted a letter to you that has some specific recommendations. It's part of the rep recommendations as well. I just wanted to highlight a handful of those recommendations. We are half pregnant on the, assistant funds for the small businesses. There are only two co sponsors of Melgar's legislation at this point, So we urge you to adopt a recommendation that that fund be created and that there be a revenue source identified for it. Additionally, notification, I would urge you to ensure that we don't have the situation like we saw with Cafe Defunct, where they were basically given 99 notice before they had to leave. We need to have meaningful notifications. Additionally, warm shell. So one of the things that happened in the small business commission hearing is that we identified the 25 sites that were developed in market in Octave Market and Ocean, and over half of those sites have vacancies in them. 55% of the storefronts are vacant in the new developments in that area. And a third of them are cold shells, meaning cement boxes with no flooring, electrical, plumbing. It shouldn't be an incentive. It should be a requirement. Otherwise, we're gonna get a lot more cold boxes at the storefront level, and I know none of you want that. Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Just before you begin, one last shout out to folks that might be following us on the 1st Floor in the North Light Court. I would make your way to Room 400 on the 4th Floor. We've got four people left in the line. Thank you.

[Speaker 186.0]: Hello, planning commissioners. My name is Scott Feeney. I'm a Mission District resident. And I have long believed that it was inequitable and unfair that development of new housing was concentrated on the East Side of the city and neighborhoods like the Mission, while neighborhoods on the West Side were not doing their fair share of building housing. And so to the extent that this plan is remedying that, I think that's a very good element. That being said, I do have some concerns about the degree to which the plan up zones areas where there's a lot of existing rent controlled multifamily buildings. I understand that there are some demolition protections being worked on, but we know that, you know, the incentive to find a loophole or work around those can be great. And I would encourage amending the plan to make it even better by and alleviate those concerns by shifting some of the capacity away from where there are rent controlled multifamily buildings into areas where there are more single family homes, which as of now are being upzoned much less. Thank you.

[Speaker 187.0]: Hello, commission. Annie Freiman here with Spur. I'm gonna unfortunately leave one of the most boring comments of the evening for last. I sent over a letter to commissioners with some suggested amendments from SPUR that actually mirror and align with many of the recommendations from the planning department that are in the staff report. And I just wanted to quickly summarize these so that they're fresh in mind. We very much support the recommendations that were made by the department. And just a quick list, there were some refinings for, senior housing, things like bicycle parking and usable open space, just better than meeting the needs of the residents of senior housing that may be different from other types of housing. There are some additional provisions for small business. Many of these were developed at the Small Business Commission. SPUR is wholeheartedly in support of these that are being recommended. And further, we're taking a close look at some legislation introduced by Myrna Melgar that we are excited about as well. There's another one on there that is a family friendly incentive, and this is either for extra three bedroom units or child care facilities and whatnot that may be a part of the development project. In particular, I wanted to highlight the extra allowance for a little bit more flexibility in the rear yard or additional height for buildings that include a lot of three bedroom units given that those necessarily take up more space, and we want to make space for them. Last two, one is on rent control. Actually, removing the cap that the department previously had for allowing a rent control option to meet affordability requirements. We do believe that having this flexibility could be valuable for developers and have gotten some early feedback that that could be a good option for folks to increase the rent controlled housing stock. And last, just on the general flexibility of making this local program as valuable as possible, we encourage the commission to consider providing waivers, not a bonus, but waivers to make sure that there are no provisions of the planning code that might be otherwise getting in the way of a developer building the full square footage they're allotted as a part of the plan. So thank you. We very much support this and encourage your recommendation of these amendments as well.

[Speaker 45.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Mike Chen. I live near, Geary And Divisadero by the Kaiser. I'm a resident of Supervisor District 2. I moved here in 2014, and one of my first memories of San Francisco was crashing at a at a friend's place and then looking for rooms and apartments. If you don't remember 2014, it was a pretty crazy time where I think I went to when I spent my nights and weekends, there was 30 people lined up to check out a room, check out an apartment. People were coming to coming with their checkbooks, with their with their credit reports. They had their they were ready to sign. They're ready to to place overbidding site, you know, just like at that moment. And the only reason that I was able to find a place with my roommate was because I knew the outgoing tenant for this building and said, hey, would you like to meet the landlord? And so we were able to shortcut the the we got we met before the open house. And with an agreement to pay $100 over the asking rent, we were able to secure the place. And, you know, that on one hand, you know, it's a funny housing story. But also, you multiply that experience by, you know, hundreds and thousands of people over the past couple years and also knowing that these bidding wars are happening again this year and thinking about how many folks are facing, how many folks are losing are spending so much money on their And now, you know, ten years later, in my thirties, it's a different story. People, you know, have been in San Francisco for a while, and they want different housing options. And it really it's not happening for them. And what I really hope that this plan does and why I'm so in support is that I do not want more bidding wars where tenants have to pay over asking. I want the opposite where folks have to compete for tenants and and people have to compete for buyers. And we will have the supply and enough units in circulation so that folks have lots of options. Thank you.

[Speaker 188.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is RJ Mahadev. I own a four unit building in the marina. Before I get started, I wanted to thank you for working late. I know you have a tough job. I know a planning department has a tough job. It's tough to get stuff done in the city, but I love the work you're doing and I'm coming out in support of this. So please just let's get something passed in the city and let's move on. I have two letters here, one for myself. I have a small four unit building in the Marina. I moved here because of my bridge. I own that Golden Gate Bridge. I always think of it as my bridge. The sun rises there. I have the trails. I have the market. I have the off the grid. It's amazing. In August, one of my room one of my units came up for rent, I had over a 100 inquiries, 40 people showed up, rents got bid it up. Instead of feeling happy, I was sad. People are told in effect there's no room for you in the city. The family zoning is a simple promise, it lets more neighbors share what we love, more homes in our corridors, light bigger streets, safer nights, fewer empty storefronts because local shops have customers again. It means teachers, nurses, service workers can live close to where they work, and my next letter actually is in support of that from my tenant, and it means our kids and can have can grow up where their friends are as well. We can welcome new homes, protect tenants and small businesses. I'm sure these things we have to do in support of people against this, but let's get this thing passed and let's make this generational change. A quick letter from one of my tenants, her name is Beau, she rents 1327 Bay Street. She moved here for the same reasons so many people do, glimpse of the Golden Gate. She wants it to be her bridge as well, but what about that? The trail, the open air, Fort Mason, Farmer's Market, off the grid, all the wonderful things about the neighborhood. But here's a story. Her favorite hairstylist, Lila, ran a small studio in the on Union. She kept her scenes through COVID, job hunts, and breakups as clients moved further and further away. New neighbors never arrived. Business dried up. Lila couldn't afford her rent, and her commute from Vallejo was stretching into hours. She closed her studio, took a job to Maraca, the city. We didn't just lose a shop. We lost a person who knew people's names and stories. I think we need more people to live here

[Speaker 20.0]: Thank you, sir.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: That is your time.

[Speaker 188.0]: And and and enjoy the local businesses. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 62.0]: Hello. Thank you for staying. My name is Kathleen Gee, and I was born and raised in San Francisco. It's been over seven decades. San Francisco is beautiful, and we all love it. But I have many concern, and we all want to live here. We need to have affordable housing for low and mid income level people. But I'm concerned that this plan doesn't allow this. I'm also concerned about the fire and water infrastructure, the rent control, if people are gonna be able to come back to it, and the electrical infrastructure period. It seems like the magic marker route was taken in the Richmond District where I live for all the bus lines, routes were upgraded, upzoned. But they even upzoned the Clement Street, which does not have a bus anymore except for two blocks. So I'm kind of concerned about this. I'm just asking you to please consider all the ramifications before you pass it. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 189.0]: Good evening, commissioners. Long day. I think we're almost at the end here. Bridget Malley representing Neighborhoods United San Francisco. On behalf of over 60 neighborhood and community groups, NUSF adamantly opposes Mayor Lori's family zoning plan, which will be anything but family friendly. This plan extensively expands the rezoning envisioned in the 2022 housing element. Therefore, it is wholly inadequate to issue only an addendum to the previously certified environmental impact report. Unfortunately, this plan encourages demolition of existing sound building stock, promotes excessive and unnecessary height and density increases along thriving neighborhood commercial corridors and in established residential neighborhoods. It disregards the historic buildings and districts that draw tourists to our city. It will displace rent controlled residential tenants and small and legacy businesses. It will cause tremendous transit disruptions and require extensive but unfunded infrastructure investment. But yet, Lurie's plan provides no real solutions for generating affordable housing in our city. In short, this plan is a series of confusing maps and poorly conceived policies that will fundamentally fail San Franciscans and deliver no real solutions to our housing affordability crisis. Further, the plan includes upzoning areas of supposedly protected priority equity geographies that would be significantly impacted by actions and policies not envisioned in the approved housing element. Since rezoning proposals must be consistent with the general plan, the mayor's plan creates an unlawful general plan inconsistency. I am submitting for the record a letter to the commission further outlining these concerns from our legal counsel.

[Speaker 107.0]: I'm gonna make it really simple. I'm with her. She pretty much nailed everything that you guys should be thinking about and I don't think have thought about. I live in District 3. I've lived there for almost forty years. What I see is a plan that was constructed not with the community, but with EMB lobbyists behind closed doors and without thoughtful process. Since I live in District 3, much of what our neighborhood didn't have on or is now on the map when it wasn't. This was not in the EIR. It was not in the housing element, and now it is. So this plan should be sent back or at least that neighborhood should be taken out, but this needs to be a lot more thoughtful than it's been. It's great hearing these these thoughtful stories from the the YIMBY kids that come in here and say, oh, you know, I had a hard time finding a place. Yeah. It's hard to find a place. I had a hard time finding a place. And in any city, you have a hard time finding a place. But it's magical thinking to think that all of a sudden, someone's going to start building when we have 71,000 units in the pipeline that aren't getting built. That's what you folks should be thinking about, not whether or not we wanna upzone Fisherman's Wharf or Columbus Avenue or the Castro or anywhere else. Anyway, again, I'm with Bridget. Bridget just nailed it. I couldn't even touch that. Thank you.

[Speaker 158.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners, planning director. My name is Eric Argue. I'm with Latino Culture District. And I just want to start off saying is that we're very nervous in the Mission District in the East Side of the city because of these upzoning conversations that are happening. And I wanna share what we went through in 2009 when the Eastern neighborhoods was upzoned. Just some few things. From 2009 to 2020, and I've shared this stuff with many of you before, we had a loss of up to 4,000 to 5,000 Latinos were displaced from the Mission. That was 2009 to 2020. Luckily, COVID slowed things down for us. Valencia Street was completely transformed from a working class corridor with people selling used appliances, used clothing, to now what we see is higher end corporate investor type businesses all along Valencia Street with a lot of new construction, you know, five, six stories. The Hispanic Chamber had 35% of its members in the mission. And that went down to 5% during that time period. We also had major loss of jobs from building on sites that the working class people of color were working at, like auto shops, car washes, gas stations, places where you get your oil changed. That's where our communities were working at. And hundreds lost their job because most of those sites in the Mission were taken over by development. We did get a lot of housing. But guess who lives there? Uprightly, mobilely, professional tech workers. Got all the housing in the neighborhood while the working class communities were displaced to other neighborhoods outside the city. Luckily, we mobilized in the mission to push for 100% affordable housing. That was the only way we can start building back our community and stabilizing the mission. We have about 2,500 that we built that we pushed that. Not the city. We did it. We made it a priority. That's where our families are living now. And still, it's not enough for like a building with 100 units. We have hundreds of people still

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: applying for that. Thank you. That is

[Speaker 32.0]: your time.

[Speaker 158.0]: So please, one thing that we're concerned about is

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, sir. That is your time.

[Speaker 41.0]: Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 190.0]: Eileen Bogan, CSFN, speaking on my own behalf, strongly opposing the family zoning plan as currently drafted. As congresswoman Jasmine Crockett said of the big beautiful bill, the math ain't mathing. The previous zoning map was for 82,000 units of capacity over eight years. The current, the current zoning map appears to be for a capacity of 800,000 units over fifty years. The late theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking, believed that humans could face extinction in one hundred years because of, environmental degradation. So instead of fifty years, why not do a hundred year zoning plan for one and done? Once again, the math ain't mathin'. The two, so called family zoning plan ordinances, two five zero seven zero zero and two five zero seven zero one contain proposed amendments to assess local coastal program. Both ordinances falsely claim consistency with the local with the Coastal Act. Ordinance 250,701, page 11, lines three through six, claims consistency with public resources code three zero six zero four gs, but misquotes PRC 30,604 gs. It eliminates the provision of, quote, protection of existing, unquote, in terms of low and moderate income housing, which is de facto makes it inconsistent with the Coastal Act. Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Final last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed, commissioners. And this matter is now before you all.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Alright. I think we're just gonna roll right in. And if anyone wants to, like, stand up and stretch and, you know, please you wanna you want to? You wanna take breaks? Quick one. You got what? You you can you can walk around.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: No. I will.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: You can walk around. You take a mental break. Yeah. There's It's okay. Commissioner Brown.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Thank you. Commissioner Imperial, you could stretch. Okay. I it has been a long time long day, and and I I wanna go first because I have a lot of, enthusiastic things to say, but also some some other, issues I wanna raise. But, trying trying to get my brain in gear here. So first of all, I I do wanna open by just saying I I wanna express my gratitude to, first of all, the community that's been engaged throughout this process because this is really, in a lot of ways, this started not just in 2023 with the zoning, but in '20 I mean, really before the housing element was passed, we started you know, some of this was being discussed, so 2021. So there's there's folks who've been engaged the whole time. There's folks who've just found out about this. And either way, I really appreciate it. And especially those who've waited a very long time to speak today, thank you so much for for making that effort. And also thank you for the very respectful and thoughtful comments that were shared, during the hearing. I just wanna thank the staff and for all the immense work that's gone into this, just seeing the length of legislation. We got it over a month ago. I mean, that alone, it was a it was a Herculean effort, I'm sure. And then all the organizations and our elected officials have been involved too. So I just want to all around say my my my thanks gratitude. So, you know, as part of that, I mentioned this has been a really long running effort. The introduction to the zoning legislation, I think it was July 2023. This is our ninth hearing at the planning commission. I think the presentation, so there have been 18 total public hearings at this point about the zoning. And there's been a lot of I've had a lot of opportunity to share my feedback along the way, to hear a lot of feedback along the way on this effort. And I appreciate all the responsiveness from staff in that and the changes that have been made to the maps, to the legislation, all the way down to just today's packet, having the area plans. We asked that at our last hearing before the break, to have an assessment of how this interacts with the area plans, and that was in there. That kind of thing is great to see. I was also really excited, I should just note, to see the racial and social equity analysis that really helped to further provide more confidence on my part that this plan is going to be a positive step forward in achieving a lot of good goals in terms of addressing past inequities. And although part of a larger part of packages and needs to be part of a larger part of packages, also supporting affordability in the city. So like I said, this is an exciting day for me. I think there is an imperative to diversify our housing stock. I agree that on the one hand, that diversification of the housing stock, there are less expensive forms of housing than single family homes even when market rate and new. I also want to acknowledge that that doesn't get you to deed restricted affordable housing levels. So I'll talk about that in a second. I've always been very excited to expand capacity, to welcome new neighbors in San Francisco. And this is this is personal for me too. I mean, I live on a site that's having its height in height increased. I'm a renter. I live adjacent to a site that's having a height height increased even more, 25 feet, directly adjacent to me. But, you know, I I see that as a positive for welcoming more folks to my neighborhood too. I I think that what I appreciate about this plan is that this is really achieving this in a locally controlled and very well considered manner with the number of hearings that we've had. And to me, I'm excited that this is offering an alternative pathway to the to the path where we don't have control over this and where it might not reflect our local priorities, which is the state density bonus. And so here we've come up with, I think, a positive alternative. And we're directing growth to areas with these quarters of infrastructure and widths for those largely that can take the heights. And then we have the protections for historic resources in there with the alongside the survey efforts, which I do support accelerating and trying to get that done as quickly as possible to ensure protection of our historic resources, and preservation design standards will be part of that as well. On the affordable housing front, this through the local program, I am glad to to see that you know, there our local affordable housing requirements still apply. This if there is new development, it will be generating resources for affordable housing, and I think that's a great positive. There's more flexibility built into how those resources are being provided, whether on-site units, fee payments, off-site land dedication. But at the end of the day, this is grounded in our own local program, section four fifteen. And if the city finds that there's capacity to increase those requirements, then those requirements would be higher. So that's a good thing to see. Furthermore, to further support affordable housing, we have additional incentives in here to assist 100% affordable development. That gets the more generous height increases. That gets the more generous incentives. And so I see that there's a lot of strength behind this for deed restricted 100% affordable developments that get you that lower level of deeper levels of affordability. And I think this is I wanna hit this point as it might come up, but that's also important to me. Affordable housing part of this is important because just from a practical legal perspective, there's a no net loss rule for the housing element sites. So it's not just the sheer quantity of housing being produced, but also the affordability levels of the housing being produced. And so we do need to produce affordable housing. If we don't, if those aren't met on the sites we've identified, those different affordability levels and obligations to produce that housing get shifted to other places. So I think that we're all kind of trying to roll in the same direction in ensuring, even just from that perspective, that we are producing affordable housing. There's two other things I just wanna raise that I'm excited about, and I have a question about some things too. So for displacement prevention and for protection of rent controlled units, the tenant protection ordinance is really important to me, and I I don't think anyone's gonna question that. But that is trying a little behind this, but I I am in full support of that, doing everything it can to further bolster, protections, for for tenants alongside all of our existing protections for rent controlled housing and, that are explained have been explained by staff as well. The and then also, I I am also in in support of, efforts, including the staff modifications in this packet for supporting small businesses or displaced businesses. So things like the notification requirements, the fee waivers, conditional use authorization, the micro business incentives, the warm shell incentives, and so other I think there's still a little more to hash out potentially in upcoming legislation. But broadly, I am, of course, in support of that, and I'm glad to see those things are happening. They're in here. They're part of the processes. So on the whole, I would say what we have before us really still reflects my input based on everything we've heard along the way. Nine hearings in. Lots of opportunities on this. And I'm feeling very comfortable on the whole moving this forward to the board for, with the modifications. I know I want to hear from all the other commissioners. There might be some details to discuss, definitely. But generally, I'm in support of moving it forward. And then there might be some additional details I recognize that at the board level would be further sort of revised potentially, which brings me to really my main question. So I think there are still some good ideas, plenty of good ideas coming through and debate about things like locations of requests for where capacity is being increased or concerns about places where capacity is being decreased. Now we don't have a lot of wiggle room on this. We got that letter from HCD, which basically, to my reading of it, says we're we're pretty close to the edge here, but we are we are we are doing as far as capacity goes. But I guess I'm just wondering what's the next step for refining the zoning capacity by location after this hearing. And I don't want to I should say, I don't have specific locations where I today want to say, oh, change this, change that. But I just do want to make sure there is room within the broader outline of where the rezoning is happening for some tweaks as this moves forward. So what are these next steps at the board?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Miss Chen, do

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: you want to talk about the next steps? And we can talk a little

[Speaker 4.0]: bit about here. And also

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: a question about locations and how do we've heard a lot from people about different locations and got a lot of correspondence about those as well.

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: Sure. Thank you, commissioner. So, you know, as as we saw today, we did get kind of the preliminary blessing of the state, which was a huge relief. You know, we know that our commitments are very ambitious. And it was great to see that all the documentation we've provided them around the capacity, the realistic capacity we're creating, does meet the statute. So with that said, you know, we know that there are gonna be changes at the board. And basically, we need those changes to be neutral. Right? So if we're bringing them the numbers up in some places, they or down in some places, they need to go up in other places. Those ideas, though, may come with, kind of process implications because, unless they're discussed here, you know, they might be considered substantive amendments, and they would need to be referred back here. So the hope is that, you know, should this body decide to adopt the, legislation today, that we discuss these items to avoid, you know, having kind of that circular loop. So we do encourage you to, you know, discuss the map itself and places maybe where you can envision more housing or not, just so that we are kind of prepared for the rest of the process.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: And perhaps to that point, Miss Chen kind of noted part of what we need to discuss today, and and there's a lot of things that y'all are discussing today procedurally. I think, deputy city attorney Yang kinda mentioned it. We have a lot of discussion today. We had several supervisors here today and their aids to bring items forward for discussion, for consideration. So it is part of the public conversation, and all the folks who were waiting or listening and watching got to hear that too. I do wanna note, in addition to kind of making sure if we go down somewhere or reductions are made at the board, that they also would need to, you know, make up that capacity somewhere else. So I just wanna say a few locations that we have heard from our outreach over the last particular several months in addition, in particular of places that folks have wanted to go up or increase. So that can be part of the conversation here as well, just for your consideration. And if I miss anything, Lisa or Josh, please chime in or if others know. I know we have a couple letters that came in from the Van Ness Corridor Neighborhood Council. They noted potentially increased heights on parcels fronting Van Ness between Golden Gate and Ellis to 350, adding parcels fronting between Polk and Van Ness on the map to between Golden Gate and Geary to 250 and increasing heights on the South Side Of California between Larkin and Hyde, possibly 120. We also had a note from the DeVos Triangle Neighborhood Association talking about increasing heights at the CPMC campus, as well as at the Safeway, that wonderful Safeway plaza on Market Street. And then we had had some conversations. We got a gentleman specifically for his property at 2755 Sutter. I'm very interested in that height changing there to 65 feet, I believe. I think we heard from someone today about the Park Merced Shopping Center. I wasn't sure. It seemed the gentleman seemed to say he was representing the owner there. We've had folks ask us about Polk, the neighborhood commercial district on Polk, which had been in previous maps up to 140 feet and is now at 85. So there were some folks saying, well, could we have that go back? California between Polk and Hyde. And then Pine also between Larkin and Leavenworth. And those are the things that I was able to note for increases that have been discussed. But mister Twitsky is

[Speaker 15.0]: I think there was one more, in DTNA on church between 15th and 18th as well.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: Okay. Great. So, we'll we'll try to make sure we shake all those out, but just wanna make sure those are also part of this public record today and the conversation that we're we're able to have. So those could be discussed here specifically by the commission, but you could also say, well, those are great things for the board to discuss, and land use can take that up, as they go forward.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. It was I think I I don't want to try to make a specific recommendation on these line by line and site by site today. But I'm open to that discussion moving forward at the board is what I'd say. Yeah. With the understanding that if there's also downward changes, if somebody's increase in hydropower capacity, that could have offset other areas. So I would leave it at that. I know we had the supervisors before us today asking about discussion of many of their, legislative items or or requested modifications. I think I would say that they I think all those requests are of interest to me. I think that they're worth further exploring at the board. And so, you know, I'm open to that. The two things I would just note are I would resist anything that could diminish the attractiveness or potential of the local program in the sense of I want our local program, which is our locally determined pathway to get our goals accomplished, rather than state density bonus. I would like that local program to be an appealing alternative to using state density bonus. So I'm open to whatever changes might want to be made, so long as they don't really undercut our local effort here and the thought that's gone into it. And then I'll just hit again. You know, I think I'm I'm in full support of what can be done to protect rent controlled housing and existing tenants. It's very near and dear to my heart as a rent controlled tenant. So, but that's those are my thoughts for now. I'm I'm very curious to hear other commissioner comments. I'm sure we're gonna have a lot of, interesting discussion.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, Commissioner Braun. Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: I'm in full agreement with commissioner Braun. I I'm terrified between losing local control versus the builder's remedy. The builder's remedy is just, like, just not it's not acceptable. I think we're in danger of, like, not seeing the forest from the trees. And everybody here who spoke today and that back and forth, I've got I'm taking notes. I've got 20 odd pages here on what everybody had to say. And you have, you know, 50 or four, you have 62, possibly 63 that are against, and there's about 18 people that basically they're they're just concerned. But everybody generally concerns is concerned about the future of the city. I I believe we need as many amendments as possible. I listened to, supervisor Malgaard this morning, you know, six, seven, eight, twelve, and sixteen. Basically, I believe that we can only do so much here, but pushing as pushing the what we push forward here in its, is making it as as grossly big as possible for the Board of Supervisors to actually have as much, room to actually get to the means of what they can legislate a lot more than we can here goes along and a further much further for a lot of more people. So I'm just gonna put this out and it can be modified. I would I would, adopt a motion, in order for the board of supervisors to legislate, additional items, that are out of our purview. I wanna maximize the possibility of everything that's on the table, be it, from additional height, height coming down in certain areas to go up in other areas, be it Van Ness, what was just mentioned here, Debose, Park Merced, California Church. I believe the Board of Supervisors are in a good spot for that. Also the, six and seven for possible mixed use, or sorry, bedroom mixes from two to three to four units and where they're actually, where they should be. Childcare, historic, resources, landmarks, early notification for existing tenants, protections for those tenants. I believe they can actually expand it. I believe Malgar, my supervisor, Connie, and Cheyenne are actually working on further protections there. I think they can do a much better job and they can tie it up, put a bow on it in a way that we can't here today. I think they need as much freedom to do that as possible because they're very diverse group of supervisors and I think they'll actually, by the time it gets to that stage, it will have a better outcome. And tenant protections, that's the that's the big one here, the the lack. We can't lose stock of, tenant protections. So I would make a motion to adopt the, adopt with modifications in order for the board of supervisors to be able to leg legislate additional items that are out of our purview here today.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, Commissioner McGarry. Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Thank you, everyone, who came out. But what I heard today was a lot of concern. I heard a lot of people, community members that were concerned about the changing maps, that have been continuously changing the, areas added. And it's, you know, and so I I and and the, the base upsonics. I I thought that that was interesting that a few people mentioned that. But I I just wanna say that I don't think that, you know, this this upzoning is ready. I know we've done a lot of work on it, but I really think there's a lot of people that don't know what's going on still. And I I think I I heard a lot of, pushback, and I'm really concerned about that. And I have some I mean, we might pass this today, and, you know, we might have the votes and and all of that. But I I just, you know, I wanna quote, is this good for our city? You know, what about the affordable housing? Where's the affordable housing? We have 57% of 50% of our new houses supposed to be affordable. Where where is it? Where's our senior housing? I mean, this this, you know, this you could push it through, but, you know, again, I I would just say, there's going to be a lot of pushback. So I don't think it's ready. I think there's too much at stake. There's tenant protections aren't there. Small business protections aren't there. You know, I know that there's some in the works, but there's just too much too much, at state. And, I really think we're not near ready to roll this out in a way that it's being rolled out. And I know there's pressure from the state and all that, but, you know, I wanna go on the record as someone who's born and raised here, that this plan is not equitable. First, and I take a sip of water. I got some some prepared remarks. Please bear with me. I know it's been a long night, but I did prepare something. And I'd like to read it. So our current housing element adopted in January 2023 was, for the first time, centered around racial and social equity, acknowledging past harms done to communities of color and low income communities around land use and housing policies. A new vision for San Francisco that prioritized stabilizing communities, preventing displacement of existing residents, protections for our small businesses, and a community center development that uplifted community voices. That vision acknowledges that communities of color are being erased from the San Francisco landscape. Understanding that land use policies and housing policies were directly responsible for the displacement of thousands of families over the past several decades. Also included are solutions from the very communities that have been affected by these harmful policies, all included in our housing element, specifically housing elements actions 1.1.2 through 1.1.15, actions 1.2.2 2.2 through one point two point one zero around affordable housing funding. Affordable housing production supporting the maximum number of permanently affordable housing units on SFMTA sites slated for development, and many more solutions based in equity. So far, none of these actions have been implemented. Why are we why how did we get here? Why are we in this affordable housing crisis? I think I think there's a lot of misinformation out there, and I'd like to just give you my view. To understand how we got here, we need to go back to the early nineteen eighties. And by the way, when I was going to high school here, we didn't have folks sleeping on the streets. We didn't have that problem. We have to go back to the early nineteen eighties under the Reagan administration's affordable housing programs that were cut by seventy seven percent. By 1996, federal funding for construction of new public housing units were reduced to zero. The Budget Control Act of 2011 cut $6,200,000,000 annually from housing assistance funding. In 2012, the California abolishment of the redevelopment agencies which directly funded affordable housing development. In 2008, the foreclosure crisis when our government bailed out the banks and foreclosed on 1,500,000 Californians' homes, many of them forced into the rental market. After the foreclosure crisis, the rise of private equity firms and hedge funds buying millions of foreclosed homes and apartment buildings. It's estimated institutional investors will own 40% of single family homes by 2030. A press release from August 2024, congressman Pat Ryan demand investigation into price gouging by Wall Street private equity firms driving up housing costs. At the state level, refusal to abolish Costa Hawkins, law prohibiting expansion of rent control, state law, the Ellis Act, which allows landlords to evict tenants and leave the rental market, which over the last two decades has evicted thousands of San Franciscan residents, legalization of short term rental market that today lists 7,300 listings in San Francisco. So decades of funding, cuts from the federal government, failure in protecting our housing stock at the federal and state level, and over commodification of our housing stock are the real reasons behind our affordable housing crisis. None of this has to do with land use policies or zoning controls. Our housing element covers an eight year period ending in '20, 2031. So we got six years remaining. HCD State Housing and Community Development has required us to up zone, in the current version, the family zoning plan, three quarters of our city to allow for 36,000 new units. The family zoning plan in its current form is a plan not for six years, but for more like thirty six years, exceeding timelines in the provision of our housing element. Any changes in our current zoning should sunset with the timeline set by our housing element. If our city wants permanent changes in our zoning laws, that should be decided by the voters. Changing decades of land use controls that affect hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans, that put tenants and small businesses at risk of displacement, straining public transportation, water and electricity needs increasing demands on public education systems, and negatively impacting the environment is too broad and too impactful not to be decided by all San Franciscan residents. This upzoning plan, aka family zoning plan, is simply mass deregulation of our current zoning controls. Being forced through the housing element without any tenant protections, no small business protections, doesn't address our housing elements requirement for 57% of new housing be affordable. Let me just repeat that just in case no one heard that. 57% of all new housing be affordable. That's in our housing element. Doesn't provide for our growing senior population. The only segment of our population that grew, I think, is 8.7% in the last few years. No provisions for residents with disabilities, doesn't protect our priority equity geographies, allows demolition of rent controlled units and buildings with existing small businesses. Proposes changes to our planning code section three seventeen to allow for demolition of residential flats without conditional use process, conditional use permit process, doesn't include any of the equity provisions in our housing element, and is not in compliance with section 101 of the San Francisco General Plan priority policies. One, that existing neighborhood serving retail uses be preserved and enhanced for future opportunities for residents, employment, and ownership of such businesses be enhanced. Two, that existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected in order to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods. Three, the city's supply of affordable housing be preserved and enhanced. Four, that commuter traffic not impede muni, transit service, or overburden our streets or neighborhood parking. Seven, that landmarks and historic buildings be preserved. Eight, that the parks and open space and their access to sunlight and vistas be protected from development. C, the city may not adopt any zoning ordinance or development agreement authorized pursuant to government code section six five eight six five after 11/04/1986, unless prior to the adoption, it has been specifically found that the ordinance or development agreement is consistent with the priority policies established above. In addition to not being in compliance with the general plan priority policies, this plan will essentially render this planning commission powerless. I don't know if you guys have really understood that, but we're gonna be a lot we you know, it's taken a lot of our jurisdiction away from us. By turning over almost all residential development authority to the director of planning. The public will no longer have an opportunity to voice any concerns or opposition to any residential development in our city, stripping a public right that we now have. This plan as currently drafted is reckless. It's dangerous. The state is stripping away any public oversight over our planning of our city, silencing public input, and disrespecting decades of public advocacy and protections in existing housing policy. And it also silences communities of color like the one I came from, the Mission District. That's what this plan does.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, commissioner Williams, for your comment. Wow. It's now 08:15, so thank you for all of you who are still sitting here or those who are tuning in and watch us at your dinner table. Thank you. We'll continue and hopefully try our best to be really quickly finish our debriefing here. First, I think that I need to acknowledge everybody's hard work. Am I getting dinged with the a 15? Okay. So I have heard from residents in every corner of our city. So what is clear is that we're stuck in a decades long cycle of housing scarcity. That scarcity creates uncertainty, fear, and inequality. And the old way of doing things is simply just not working. Mayor Lurry's family zoning plan offers a relatively reasonable, locally driven path forward. It gives San Francisco the chance to meet our housing needs on our own terms without a state takeover and the risk of losing trending over $100,000,000 a year for infrastructure funding. So by working hand in hand with the full board of supervisors, we can take decisive action now so that future generation can still live afford to live here, work and thrive in our city. And I hear many of you mention, which I also really echo into my heart, that I do worry if my child and her friends are not able to afford living here. Some of you are in your thirties. And I still remember when I was in my thirties, it was hard to yeah. You have to go and fend for yourself and try to even rent something, a little tiny studio. And it's sad to hear that this situation is still continue. We gotta do something. What has been happening clearly is not working. But, however, I do think that we can learn a lot from the history. Some of you share with us today in the public comment about what was your what are your fear of moving forward. Some of them are worried about where could I where can I live, how affordable housing can be really equitably addressed? And I do believe that in our packet today with the table four, there are at least about 18 items of staff recommendation to be implemented into our family zoning plan to really address these topics. This is not the end of the dialogue. It will be a continued process moving forward, but we do have to also meet our state mandate deadline before this fall. Otherwise, all the effort, all the talking here, we'll revert back to where we were many, many months ago. I do want to emphasize some of many of you mentioned a few things. I'm just going to put bullet points here because I think we're all kind of running out of bandwidth here. So continue the dialogue to figure out what is the best way to have a reasonable affordable housing in our pipeline. And also, family sized units is definitely needed. It is a challenge, but when without we encourage and or incentivize people to actually build two bedroom, three bedrooms, we cannot really talk about San Francisco family friendly. Obviously, senior housing, it's a huge need. I think that's not uniquely San Francisco. It's throughout the whole country. But San Francisco, we have a very highly populated population, and we need to definitely make room for it. And I think there's, like, the top three items in our Table four actually had mentioned about senior housing. Tenants protection, there is a pamphlet that is created by the planning department listed out what are the protect what are the what are the current tenants' protection? What are the pending proposed ordinance that is continue to be discussed? So it is I I really strongly encourage everyone who are concerned about this because some of the members of the public had come in on and wanted to know where we are at. You can go online. I actually found this from the planning department. We have not forgotten about this aspect. We are continually actively working towards some common ground. Small business protection is also highlighted in table four. I personally found that I need to thank staff. And I remember last time in our information hearing, I specifically say protecting small businesses perhaps incentivize them incentivize new build out to have a warm shell. And I'm really happy to see also staff actually move forward engaging with small businesses, leaders and stakeholders to actually go further beyond that by actually thinking about if there's any ways that they can help them for relocation. That is in the work with collaboration, not only with the board of supervisors, but also with the office of the small businesses. Very important is that all that we got to say, we cannot do this without money. So I'm really happy and really grateful and looking forward to see how our board of supervisors collectively work to figure out innovative funding tools, financial financing tools for all that come for us, for the future of San Francisco who can continue to live here, raise our kids here, and age in grace here in San Francisco. No more fear, no more have to worry about whether my unit got moldy and then I can't rent across the street. So I think I was just gonna leave it like that, and I would like to hear the rest of my fellow commissioners' thoughts and comments. I certainly can have I can certainly go all night, but I don't want to do that. So commissioner Imperial?

[Speaker 4.0]: I have a feeling we are going to be we should be taking longer time. We should be scrutinizing, because there are a lot of people that came out here tonight. And first of all, I just wanna thank the public, you know, voicing out their their perspectives, their opinions, their experiences, their expertise, their feelings. Those are deeply acknowledged by me and and also, I I would and I would think by the commission itself. You know, I have 10 pages of notes, to tell the truth. And and I think in this kind of because this is a longer term type kind of plan, and I think the public deserves for us to have this conversation and also for the board of supervisors to have this conversation as well. And as we know, like, if things are not converse here, then those things are may may not be part of the conversation, the board of supervisors. But I anyway, I know in in the past hearings I've been talking about first is the the affordable housing. I mean, I'm I still have that concern. It's a very big concern is the affordable housing plan. The areas under in the areas of small business protection. There's also, because of the recent waves of letters that we've received, you know, in areas of the historic preservation, We also you know, we received those letters from the historic preservations, from the small business commission as well. And then there were also concerns about the priority equity geographies. And I think these are the things that really, we need to look into. And for me, I would have questions. But I just what kind of one, like, before I dive in into my questions is that, you know, I just came from vacation. I'm pretty jet lag. But I, you know, but I it it was good to get out of the country and to came from you know, my family lived many of my families lived in Metro Manila. And just to give you a background of what's going on in that country, and when I was there, I was thinking of San Francisco a lot. Metro Manila is like Bay Area. It's it's a big there are 16 cities in Metro Manila. And a couple of cities would have zoning, you know, zoning codes and building codes. But Metro Manila is part of The Philippines where it's developing country. And in 2016, the former president have this project of build, build, build, where, you know, there's a lot of contractors. Money is coming from foreign investments, loans. And the idea is that to build, to build housing, build infrastructure with private money, with developments. So since then, there is immense growth in Metro Manila, and there are high rises. And these high rises are built in landfill areas, in government owned land areas, in coastal and agricultural areas. And this is done in a streamlined process. There's no planning department there. There's no planning commission. Every development transaction goes directly to the city hall. And I thought about San Francisco and what's happening here in San Francisco. We are lucky to have planning department. We're lucky to have building codes. We're lucky to have a planning commission. We're lucky to have people coming here and voicing out what would they would like to see in their neighborhood. I visited my my childhood neighborhood and it was completely different from what I used to live. Back then, we used to have I mean, many of the lots there are around 3,000 square feet and many are with front yards and backyards. Because of the lack of zoning and lack of building codes, building our houses are being built right next to each other within the property lines. And it was shocking for me to see that. But at the same time, you can see the intergenerational situation living in there. And that was kinda like when we're talking about generational living, you know, 3,000 lot, square foot lot, and you have three generations living in there, and they'll be able to build in their own lot. So right now, fast forward, there's about 82,000 vacant units, condominium vacant units in Metro Manila. And many of them are studio and one bedroom. Many of these condominium units are cannot be bought by the families because those are not family size units. And the real estate market in the in the in The Philippines overestimated the demand. So this is when I heard about you know, and I was looking into the like, the like, what happened in that. And I think San Francisco is at the crossroads. I'm lucky to I'm luck I'm very lucky to be to be living here in San Francisco, but I don't want San Francisco to look like Metro Manila. I'm gonna be honest. I loved I loved that area where it came from, but I don't want it to look like that. So visit Metro Manila and see for yourself how's the development going in there when we're talking about market rate development, when we're relying on the supply of housing based on the market rate. And there's no talk of affordable housing. There's no funding for affordable housing. So that's why okay. So let's go back here in San Francisco. And, so one thing that I want, you know, been talking about and I think one thing that has been part of this plan is that there are some public lands that that I think also so I guess my question around this is we have identified special SFM TA public lands. So with with the surplus the surplus land ordinance, the prop k, just can someone I don't know if can someone elaborate or describe to me how the public land is going to be used for affordable housing? And how are we making sure that the public land is actually being built for affordable housing?

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: That's a great question, commissioner Imperial. We have had a lot of questions about this. So you might recall, earlier this year that the MTA was here presenting their joint development strategy, which they took forward to the board. And the board did unanimously adopt that strategy, which basically allowed them to kind of have a different a different mode of operating than we typically do with our public lands. We typically do go for when they're surplus to a 100% affordable housing. But both given the financial situation of the MTA and as a strategy of part of their not only, like, just to get revenue, like, oh, we're gonna sell off our lands to use money. That's not what this is about. This is about, like, when we had the Potrero Yard come here where it was a a new bus facility and being able to have housing, that housing may not be a 100% affordable. But that's in order to both have the new facility, have the housing be able to try to pay for itself, and also to support the MTA to have revenue so that it can continue to operate the bus system. So instead of that's kind of the the mode, that it's going in, and that is why, they brought it here. They brought it to their their board of directors, obviously, and then onto the board of supervisors. So that's what this, SUD does is help to effectuate that with their properties so that they can advance that strategy that we we looked at. I don't know if director Denniss was supposed to add anything else, or wanna Mister Switsky. I I may not have gotten everything covered. Oh, we oh, Maya and waiter here.

[Speaker 15.0]: You do have staff

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: from the

[Speaker 178.0]: MTA here. Suspensions here.

[Speaker 32.0]: Did I

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: get it right? You can oh, how did I do? Oh, wow. Okay. Great. Wow. I'm impressed with this all this time.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Yeah. Why don't you guys go ahead and also would like to hear something about also supervisor Malgaard, who is the president of our CTA. She actually did talk passionate about what is the revenues coming into MTA primary is focused on. She did talk passionately about this particular topic that Commissioner Imperial had brought up about public land, MTA development, long range plan and the whole fleet of transportation.

[Speaker 191.0]: Good evening. Wade Whitecraft, SFMTA's joint development program manager. Joining me is Maya Small, the planning director from the SFMTA. Thank you for this question, commissioner. And it's good to be here this evening. So what Director Tanner said is accurate. The strategy that we have is about leveraging our land for public good, and that public good is muni. An investment in muni is an investment in equity because we know that the people that rely on public transit the most are low income, working class seniors. So what we're trying to do is have a portfolio approach to where we can use our land to generate revenue on some properties, have other properties used for a 100% affordable housing, but not have every project have to do everything for everyone. So this is part of our strategy. And as director Tanner said, the the SUD really helps effectuate that strategy. The other point that I'll I'll just make is that the zoning enables it helps our strategy. There will be a robust public process for each of these projects. The MTA board will be involved. And under the charter, the board of supervisors as well.

[Speaker 4.0]: So may I have another question on that? And thank you, mister Whitgrave, for coming down here. I'm glad to see you here. And so so there will be a bidding process as and I think in the portray yard, it's just an example. Right? Is that it's still muni and it still needs to be revenue. So in terms of the the bidding process and for, you know because in in that particular project, it's a mixed use development where there are market rate and there's affordable housing part of it. Right? Or

[Speaker 191.0]: I'm I'm Commissioner, just to correct, the the project that was approved Mhmm. Is 465 units of housing, of which, I believe, 247 are affordable and 208 are moderate income units. So not not true market rate, if you will.

[Speaker 4.0]: So moderate income, meaning they're they're still receiving subsidy subsidies from

[Lydia So, Commission President]: okay. But they're workforce housing.

[Speaker 191.0]: Workforce housing.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: That's

[Speaker 191.0]: But not not above 120% AMI.

[Speaker 4.0]: So in the in this MTA owned land, because the the surplus ordinance requires 50% affordable housing. But will this guarantee to have a 100% affordable housing? And will again, this will be based on the the funding, the the financial funding for it. How is the upzoning impacting or how is the rezoning in the government or public, you know, public land is going to affect the land cost? Is there an effect?

[Speaker 191.0]: Yes and no. So just to clarify the the state law, the California Surplus Land Act, it has a number of exemptions. And over the years, other types of agencies, public agencies, have just been exempt from the law. Some agencies are not. And a couple years ago, public transportation agencies were allowed an exemption if they adopted a policy like we did, where they dedicated half the land in their portfolio for residential, of which 25% of the units for affordable affordable being 80% a m a m below. The rezoning, what that does is it allows us to increase the amount of density on these parcels for affordable housing or other types of uses. And by increases in the density, it can increase the land value for the agency and allows us to generate revenue. I mean, we talked I heard a lot of comments today about the need for infrastructure. Just to put that in reality for the MTA, our bus facilities are at capacity. Mhmm. Mhmm. We two of our bus facilities, Potrero Yard and Presidio Yard, are over a 110 years old. They have been neglected for decades because they there are not good funding sources for them. This is an opportunity to raise a piece to help raise revenue, to help expand our facilities, to help provide muni service to serve the residents that, we want to to serve.

[Speaker 4.0]: But correct me if I'm wrong or clarify it to me. Is a 100% affordable housing a priority in a in a MTA land site?

[Speaker 191.0]: It is a priority across our portfolio to meet those portfolio requirements under the Surplus Land Act. And it's it that is what has been planned at Potrero Yard for seven years.

[Speaker 4.0]: Okay. And is there any kind of mechanism or mechanisms that prioritize that? Is that just through the bidding process? That's what it Yeah.

[Speaker 191.0]: So let me take a step back. MTA has sold our prior to Potrero Yard, MTA has sold or leased five properties over the decades for over 300 units of a 100% affordable housing. We have done no market rate housing projects over the decades. The process that we're using now that we have this portfolio approach and that would be effectuated through the SUD is we're gonna do an evaluation across our portfolio of what's the best use at different properties. But this is a long term vision. We are not going to be able to deliver all these properties in the next few years. This is going to be over time. And conditions may change over time. So we're going to evaluate over time what makes sense for each project. And again, there will be a public process on those properties.

[Speaker 4.0]: Okay. Thank you so so much, mister McGriff. My other question is around, in a way, around the on-site affordability and also the relations to off-site fee. So, you know, I understand that, you know, many of the processes that we have are maybe or or are going to be processes, you know, especially with perhaps with the with the local bonus program. But with what we have in the local bonus program, can we prioritize to still increase the affordability on that? If there's gonna be a ministerial process, can we increase affordability

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: requirement on that? Yeah. I'll I'll hazard an answer because I think, I was just actually researching this a little bit the other day. There's two two answers to that. One is, you know, we have a TAC that's gonna technical advisory committee that'll be reconvening later this year to look at our inclusion rate rate and we'll consider that. And so we have thought about using that process to do a holistic look because they're gonna have resources dedicated to that research that I think are not available to us right now. We just have all our staff working on this and there'll be consultants and other things that will be part of that. And so that could be part of what they look at at that time. And it will be timely on that regular schedule. The other thing that I think will be part of part of their deliberation discussion also is that we have to be mindful of AB 15 o five, which passed in 2017 and came into effect in 2018. So when you actually have a greater than 15% inclusionary rate, the state is able to ask the city to demonstrate that that rate is not impacting financial feasibility of projects, which at least based on the last TAC, we know that the 15% was kind of the highest that we were able to do. And even then, the financial feasibility of projects was still impacted. So I think, theoretically, yes, the the TAC could increase it and it could be, like, increase overall, increase in local program, etcetera, etcetera. And I think that maybe the last point would be kind of a broader thing, which is to think about, you know, HCD and their guidance to us to not increase constraints on development and to also conduct our own feasibility analysis of what those constraints would do. So if we do that on the local program, we have to do that work. But then also if we want people to use the program and not use the state density bonus, increasing affordability there will mean that folks would be more likely to use the state density bonus, and then that could be a a challenge. So those are kind of the different things we would need to maneuver, and it would suggest that it might be difficult to have a higher inclusionary rate in general and and maybe difficult to have it for the local program in addition.

[Speaker 32.0]: Yeah. Yes.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: Jen wanted to add

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: Oh, yeah. Also, commissioner, I just wanted to make a point of clarification about the ministerial programs. Because just to clarify, we are not able to create ministerial programs under our charter. The ones that we're relying on are all part of state law. So under the housing element, they you know, under housing element law, there are, you know, the reuse sites and the low income sites provisions, which require 20% affordability on-site. And then the SB four twenty three, AB twenty eleven, those programs require 10% on-site. And so those are all set separate from us. And our kind of section 14 requirements kind of flow independently, right? So you could see a scenario in which somebody says, I want to use a local program, and I want to mix and match. I want to use SB four twenty three. So I'll do the 10% on-site, and I'll do the 5% through some other method. Right? But they're independent of each other. And as director Tanner mentioned, the TAC is really kind of how we see kind of the section four fifteen being calibrated over time.

[Speaker 4.0]: Okay. Thank you. Well, you know, I know we received just recently a letter from HCD, and perhaps my comment will be toward HCD if HCD is listening right now. And also to the board of supervisors and to the mayor. I think it's great for the city if we're and this is, like, something that I think our city should really be advocating. If there is gonna be if we're going to be required for ministerial projects, then there should be a leverage for the city to increase its affordability level. I'd like for us, the city, to advocate that in the state level. HCD, something for them to really consider because, I mean, at the end of the day, we what's being what's actually what's really need to be built at the end of the day is still affordable housing. And so HCD needs to recognize that every mechanism to build affordable housing should be considered in this rezoning or for any rezoning. So I hope they're listening, and I hope our city our our city is also listening to this. And, you know, so that's something that, you know, I would like for the board of supervisors if they would like to make a resolution or recommendation to also consider on that. One thing that also to, you know, that I'm thinking of and I think it's just the wave I mean, not the waves, but, you know, we've had cases here where the developers come back and they said that it's not financial feasible for them to, to build on-site, which is already approved, by the way. We just already entitled to them, and then they're coming back to change for off-site fee, which and we know that we do need affordable housing fund, but the reality is it does take some time still to build that because it doesn't full it's a partial of the of the funding for that affordable housing fund or for the affordable housing project. So so I would like for also the board of supervisor to recommend, and I would like to recommend to eliminate the fee out option and to also eliminate impact fee waivers. I mean, we already have the financial feasibility that the impact fee waivers doesn't actually increase the it doesn't really factor in the doesn't factor that much in financial feasibility of a project. It's actually the hard cost that is actually that affects the financial feasibility of a market rate development. I mean, we already had that kind of hearing. So that's something that I would like to be put as a recommendation. No fee outs. No fee no impact fee waivers. One thing. Oh my gosh. So many. I think I'm just gonna so one thing that I also wanna ask is around the so part of the new map now or the maps that we've had, there are some areas of it that are part of priority equity geographies. And that includes those, you know, which I heard today, the Western Summa area plan, which also includes of the Filipino Cultural Heritage District, the LGBTQ Cultural District, and then there's also areas of the North Beach, Telegraph Hill, and also the waterfront. And there's also areas in, actually, in the in the District 11 in Excelsior. So so I know there so how are these priority equity geographies became part of the rezoning?

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: Sure. Thank you. So as you have seen over the past nine hearings, the map has changed incrementally. There were, even from the very earliest iterations, some areas in the priority equity geographies that were in the map. So one example is Brotherhood Way over in District 7. It's technically in a PEG. So, you know, what I would say is that our maps have overlap. Right? There are actually some areas that are in both the PEG and in the high resourced areas, and that's because those are two different data sources. The well resourced areas or the housing opportunity areas, that's coming from the state's TCAC map. The priority equity geographies is coming from an analysis that the Department of Public Health used to conduct. I don't know that they actually conduct it anymore, but it was basically the areas of vulnerability. And that's why it's not like a perfect gradation, like you're in one or the other. You can actually be in both of them sometimes. And then the other thing is that the state's charge in our housing element basically said that we should be committing to rezoning the majority or really focusing in the well resourced areas. But that doesn't mean that we can't zone other areas. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking at housing opportunities elsewhere. And so that was really kind of, you know, what we took into our scope was we're mostly focused in the well resource areas. But from the beginning, we were always kind of looking around the edges, in particular because the housing opportunity areas, that TCAC map, does change from year to year. And so there are some areas, for example, on the margins that are in some years and out some other years. It can depend on just the composition of that area because it's census data and such. So I would say, by and large, we don't have a tally. Or maybe we do, Josh. I don't know how many of the 92,000 parcels are in the high opportunity areas. But, you know, it is the vast super majority of them.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: And if I could just build on that? Because I think we do take the pegs very seriously. And we want to continue to honor that. We also take the well resourced areas very seriously, and we're one seven by seven city. So I think in the areas where you see a little bit of across the dotted line, you'll also find some significant transit resources, such as the Van Ness Munu Station, the Belle Boulevard Station, things that, again, maybe to mister Wiegraf's point, having transit access is really great for working people, for kids getting to school, especially we don't have, you know, you know, school buses here. And so having people in those areas can be a real benefit. It also can be sometimes the way we experience a neighborhood isn't necessarily lining up with that dotted line. And so we also wanna use our sense of the city to help guide, you know, where do we draw things. We wouldn't, for example, wanna cut off half of a neighborhood commercial district just because the dotted line's running through it because to the retailers, that wouldn't make sense. They'd be like, we're next door to each other. Why do we have different, allowances there? So that, just to build on Mhmm. Both the data, but also kind of a sensibility on where we have these assets and how our city looks and feels when you're when you're walking around.

[Speaker 4.0]: Okay. I I think it it may have shocked other people because the the premise of the and even before, you know, the this rezoning plan, like, I think back in 2022 or '23, the conversations about rezonings around the high opportunity areas. So that's kinda and that was even the basis for the housing element. And so that shocked many people. And, you know, I understand. I also just read the HCD letter where you're saying, well, it's optional. You know? But but at the same time, we're kinda like, I don't wanna say lying, but we're losing the public trust because we're saying one thing and doing another thing. I mean, that's some I mean, I remember those were the conversations we had at during the housing element. And so, you know, I hope that I mean, the the priority equity geographies, you know, the conversations over the years we've discussed in terms of the reason and the higher opportunity areas because they are higher opportunity areas and then the priority equity geographies, which we created an SUD for that or the former mayor created SUD for that. And and so yeah. And then they're being part of the rezoning. And so, again, I mean, these are the the issue that the public is feels like being betrayed on this conversation. Another thing is So another thing that came up during the public comment and also all of a sudden came up in the amendments is about the hotel uses without conditional use authorization. How did it happen? Can someone walk me through that?

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: Sorry. I'm happy to to take that one. We did, you know, as you as you know, receive a letter from Local two about that. And I think commissioner McGarry had noted some comments also to me about that before the hearing. You know, when we were thinking about the many hotel sites we would see as we were looking across the city, hotels on Lombard or sprinkled throughout our neighborhoods, Often, they're kind of motor ins from, you know, a different generation of of hotel or motel. And so thinking those are often great places for housing. Currently, that that property would have to make a choice often to be housing or to be continuing their current use because they have to come through that conditional use authorization. And so I was thinking, you know, to allow if they wanted to redevelop and have a, you know, maybe it could be a bigger or a smaller hotel. I don't know how many rooms some of those hotels have, but a smaller size, you know, 75 rooms or less, and then be able to have housing and that hotel use without needing to get that authorization could already exist in that neighborhood. So it wouldn't be a new hotel, you know, use impact for that neighborhood. We've certainly heard from local two concerns around, and you heard it today, their ability to to use that to organize. And I think the mayor's office has heard that and then also from commissioners here. So that was the idea, but I think we're okay with leaving it and continuing to support the contour current process.

[Speaker 4.0]: Yeah. I would I would not recommend to put that, and yeah. I would not recommend to include that in the recommendation to the board of supervisors. That would be my, you know, for me, and I hope the commission could also also be on my side on this as well. So in terms of the there's other things else. Oh, another thing is the okay. This is something recent. So what's the implication of s b 79 in the rezoning?

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: I'm gonna ask mister Fitzgib if he wants to take this question. We do get it all quite frequently.

[Speaker 15.0]: Well, we're we're still waiting with bated breath on the fate. It's I think we just got word maybe this evening. It looks like it was passing today. I think tomorrow is the deadline for bills to get approved or not. We've done some cursory look at it. It's been a moving target over the last several months, so it's been really hard to do any concrete analysis. Generally speaking, the heights and densities are pretty on par with what the rezoning is proposing. They're not dramatically higher in most places. I mean, it does cover more of the city. It does cover some areas outside of the rezoning area. So we'll have to do assuming it passes, we'll have to do a much more in-depth analysis. I mean, the bill as it stands last time we looked at it a couple days ago, it does have some immediate provisions that allow exemptions on some different paths. It says that until the seventh housing element cycle, which is in six years, until that point, any parcel is automatically exempt from SB79 if it is zoned to at least 50% of the density of SB79. So we will do that analysis if that's still in the final version, which we assume it will be. And 50% of the density of SB79 is not a terribly high density. For most places, it's, like, allows if you have four units per parcel, you've met that standard. And certainly with the rezoning as it's proposed right now, the vast majority of parcels would meet that standard. So it could be the case that most or all of the city is immediately exempt just by virtue of the zoning that we have in place. There's another path where you can do, rather than this sort of parcel by parcel exemption, a more aggregate capacity analysis that you can kind of show on a broader citywide or individual transit area basis that your zoning's capacity is the same in aggregate as that of SB79, and then the whole area can be exempt. And so that's another path to go down. And so we could do that analysis once the bill is finally settled. And then once you get to the seventh housing element cycle, then you would have to do the only path is through the sort of holistic capacity analysis to show that the whole area on a whole meets it. So it will be a very complex analysis for us to do. We'll kind of put our GIS folks to the test. But we're pretty confident. We can't provide any guarantees. But we're pretty confident that this rezoning plan, combined with other zoning in the city, positions us well to continue to maintain our own

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: destiny. And maybe just

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: to summarize, the key points there is that there is a path for an alternative plan, which we would be submitting, if SB 79 does go into effect, to the state and they would approve that. We believe that the family zoning plan for the vast majority of the areas that it covers would satisfy the requirements of that law. There will be some other areas and we've been clear about this in the city that may need some additional rezoning to comply. However, we believe that it will be modest. And I will just want to say for folks in other different frustration that we haven't been able to do the analysis. We've been analyzing the family zoning plan. We don't control the state legislative calendar. So I just want to just stick up for our staff who are doing the best that they can with the resources they have to focus on what's in our control, which is this plan, and to, do enough analysis of the state to kind of have some some clarity and give some feedback as needed. But we'll dive in probably next week, if we don't have too many changes, coming out of the commission tonight. Thank you.

[Speaker 4.0]: So is that mean that, okay. That just gives me yeah. Is that mean that how are the people how are the public going to be informed about the alternative plan?

[Speaker 32.0]: So we

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: have I think I think it doesn't go into effect, I believe, until midway through next year. So we would be working between when the law is adopted, which could be out of the legislature by Friday. And then I think the governor has until later this month or sometime, I always forget, to sign them. And so we could sign it sooner, obviously, than that. So we would work with the supervisors, with the communities, both again, first getting our analysis like, what is the need to comply? What does that mean? And then be able to share that and prepare kind of, Okay, how do we want to comply in areas that that maybe do or do not? And then, of course, we would work on the family zoning plan, continuous passage, and then all that together, submit that to the state.

[Speaker 4.0]: I would suggest that HCD, should be fully aware of what's going on in this one. And also, again, I am very concerned about that because it seems like it's going for approval. And and then we're being layered of the rezoning. And and so I know that the public has been asking for this analysis. And so, again, I'm concerned that the implication of s b 79 and how's the family rezoning plan is going to be overlaid with that without any meaningful public participation or engagement and information about this.

[Speaker 60.0]: Okay.

[Speaker 4.0]: Another thing that, you know, I'm I think, supervisor Chen actually put good recommendations and also the historic preservation commission in terms of one thing that I definitely, I think we should definitely recommend is the expediting, utilizing the SF survey. And that needs to be part of the recommendation in terms of the historical preservation. I would like to hear what other commissioners would have to say on that, but I believe those are the recommendations by the historic preservation and supervisor Chen as well. Another thing that supervisor Chen also talked about is the next study and infrastructure capacity analysis, which is which we have not done and we need to require these next studies to really analyze the infrastructure capacity and the necessary infrastructure we need to build out. One thing that also came out of the, that I've heard from through the letters or read through the letters is the affordable housing district. And that to have a noncontiguous affordable housing district. And I again, I think another as part of the rezoning, I think the we we need to start identifying affordable housing sites that are includes public land sites and in a way that gives leverage for affordable housing to compete right away against the market. They need to be prioritized. Another thing is that I I totally forgot about this, but having the funding plan, a realistic funding plan. So we so we need to have a funding strategy to unlock the stalled pipeline and meet the housing element targets. And we need to explore that. I keep saying this. We need to explore every funding strategies that we should have, for this. I know it's more of the the board of supervisors, but, again, you can't do a rezoning plan without affordable housing. I will keep reiterating that you need to include affordable housing strategy, funding mechanism, and I would support that affordable housing district. Another thing is around the small business. And I and and my understanding is the super supervisor Melgar is working on the funding for the relocation. But as we all know, there is a lack of protection for small businesses. At at the end of the day, when when it comes to potential displacement Because of the state laws, state laws are not protecting them. So I you know, there's a lot of things that the small business forward actually put in and also the small business commission as well. I think small business commission is both and small business forward recommendations are actually very important to make sure that I think it's really a reality. I mean, we can't keep moving people and businesses around because you really lose their their livelihood and their housing. And then there needs to be an an implementation strategy and also funding for that. And I know they are they're talking about and then there's one thing that I know I have asked questions around the RTOC districts, which again, for me is like, how do I ensure that small businesses are actually going to be relocated or that that space is not gonna be available or they're not competing in with a formula retail or a high end businesses. That's not, that's something that we, I felt like I have not been, you know, I know that they said that you said that the small business, agency is well equipped to do it. But, you know, again, how do we ensure that the potential small businesses place is not competing for that space? So that needs to be done as well. I know it's getting longer. And one last thing is around 10 of protections. Okay.

[Speaker 35.0]: Yeah.

[Speaker 4.0]: Save the save the last I would say. I'm going all over my notes. Hold on. Because there's something about the rep SF letter that and again, I I just wanna, you know, also thank, you know, the planning department in terms of the participation and working on the tenant protection ordinance. And it may not be perfect. And and again, the the reason that that, you know, to call for a tenant protection group is because I kinda anticipate that there may be displacement, that there will be displacement. And that the only thing that we can do is just like, I guess, at this end now is some protection on relocation. So I guess my hold on. Just give me some moment to look into my notes.

[Speaker 183.0]: Where is it?

[Speaker 4.0]: Okay. So this is around okay. The early draft I'm just gonna quote them. The early draft of the tenant protection ordinance that the planning has shared with us attempts to create objective criteria that developers have to meet. Otherwise, the planning commission could deny a project's approval, but that would only be afforded to tenants in the priority equity geographies SUD. Therefore, we can only interpret those proposed changes to the planning code in the mayor's family zoning plan as a direct attack on tenants and communities throughout the city. So this is why I remember when, you know, during the tenant protections is that the idea of of, you know, the the demolition is that it's still gonna go through or the section three seventy is still gonna go through the planning commission. But it seem and I know that it seems like there is a recommendation where it takes away the CUA for residential flats demolition.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: So I think there's a couple things happening, and I'll call on both of you guys in a second because I think there's a couple different issues that we wanna unwind. And we'll Yeah. Josh, you can definitely handle the flats because that's your area of expertise. I wanna ask, can you repeat the very, very first part of what you started reading? Because it was a little fast. I'm I do apologize. It's okay.

[Speaker 4.0]: No. No. No. We're it's been a long day for all of us, and I I I copy and pasted it.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: Yeah. No. No no no no need to apologize. I just didn't catch catch all of what you were saying.

[Speaker 4.0]: So the early draft of the tenant protection ordinance that the planning has shared with us attempts to create objective criteria the developers have to meet. Yes. Otherwise, the planning commission could deny a project's approval. But that would only be afforded to tenants in the priority equity geographies, s u d.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: Okay. Got it. So okay. So I'm gonna say a couple things. The first and I think this goes to a lot of the concerns that we've heard today, but also, you know, beyond today and that we share, which is around ensuring that we're protecting rent controlled housing. Right? Like, let's start there. Right? And so how do we do that today? What are the rules today that lead to only 18 units being demolished a year? And of those, only 11 are multifamily a year. I hope I got those numbers right, Lisa. Seven. Sorry. Seven multifamily 11 single family homes. Okay. Reverse. Seven seven eleven. That's at least easy to remember. Okay. So how do we have such low numbers of multifamily demolition? We have the conditional use process when someone wants to come and demolish a multifamily building, And we require replacement, you know, of that, those units that are are would be demolished anyhow. And you all have the discretion to say yay or nay to those requests. So that is the protection. Right? So if folks are concerned that tomorrow we're going to have less protections, we have the same protections tomorrow after the family zoning plan has as we have today. So if we think those protections are good for rent control today, then we can think that they're good for tomorrow. Now granted, the landscape has shifted in the state law, and that is why supervisor, Chen's legislation includes revisions to the CUA in order to withstand some of the scrutiny and the requirements of state laws to have more objective standards. So we're trying to help you all to retain your authority to to look at these projects, but to do it in a way that will withstand state law. So we can dive into that more when that legislation is before us. But I think it's really important folks understand there's no part of our city's code that says you just can't demolish rent control housing. That's not how we protect it. Right? It's through this conditional conditional process. And so what has happened over the last couple years is we have had constraints reduction legislation put forward. And I guess, really, there was a constraints reduction package, but there's really been several pieces of legislation that have reduced local constraints to housing. And one of those was to allow the demolition of a single family home without necessarily going through some of those processes. I think that's my understanding. Rich is nodding. He actually processes permits, so he knows what's really going on. So thank you, Deputy Director Sucre. So with that is that is allowed. So we can see some of our, you know, places where we just allow one family can be a place where two or three or four units can be, and we can have things like the fourplex and sixplex. And now the local program is kind of building on that ability to have more more folks live in a place that right now only one family, is is permitted to live or one unit for one family. So in the priority equity geographies, though, I think we, we don't we still have the process for discretion. Right? So that's for those single family homes in the pegs. Does that make sense?

[Speaker 4.0]: So for priority equity geographies, there is a discretion for the small single family home units.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: Exactly. Yes.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Do you wanna speak to

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: this, mister Soucray, in terms of that? And then, Josh, if you wanna take the flats, that might be the next piece of this.

[Speaker 192.0]: Sure. Hi, commissioners. Rich Shukray, deputy director of current planning. Director Tanner is correct. So in the PEG, basically, the prior decade geographies, all of our existing rules that we have are still in place that we had before. So constraints didn't reduce anything. So we basically ensure that, like, the community members in those areas of the city still have the kind of powers that we had before. So, for example, demolition of a single family home in the prior decree still requires a conditional use authorization. Obviously, even if they're upzoning and adding more units, it still has to come before you, the way it did before.

[Speaker 4.0]: So, again, one public comment that, in a way, that also kinda, like, perhaps walk me through. Okay? So in this rezoning, let's say, in, you know, in the 19 corridor, which is, you know, forty forty feet. Now it's going to be turned into 65 feet, I believe. So if, let's say, at two two rent control units in there and it's up zone, you know, it it it is is there a potential for demolition on that for that two unit rent control building if they start if they ended up using the local buildings?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: So it's

[Lydia So, Commission President]: still in the CU.

[Speaker 192.0]: A conditional use is still required for those types of properties. So none of the, work that we've been doing kind of violates that idea of that rent control housing Mhmm. Is something that we still want to protect. And so it's still something that would still come before the planning commission for a review.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: You might recall even earlier, I think, this year, you guys had a day where you had two Mhmm. Back to back demolition. One that was recommended for disapproval and one that was recommended for approval.

[Danny Forster, Project Architect (570 Market Street)]: And so,

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: I mean, I think we even see our current planners using recommending to you all how to how we might exercise the discretion as granted to you to protect units or to in this case, I think it was to encourage more density on that property instead of what we were receiving from that that proposal that was recommended for disapproval.

[Speaker 4.0]: But I think, you know, for me, again, just to have the public confidence and public trust, I think there is as of now, there is no I mean, yes, in practice, we're kinda like, it has to go through the CUA. And and I I know the planning department, you know, I've, you know, I've sit here and we don't see that much of demolition of, you know, proposal for demolition of multiunit. You know? But I think with the state density with S B 330 because S B 330 asked for replacement only. That's what people are nervous about is that you still ended up demolishing it, but you're replacing it still with rent control. And so that's one thing that I don't know how we can put that in the language that prohibit the demolition. It may be overkill, but there needs to be some guaranteed language of prohibition of demolition of rent controlled units.

[Speaker 192.0]: I I think the key thing to remember under s b three thirty, and I'll probably have others also chime in on this, is that if demolition is proposed, the unit has to come back in the same form that it was before. So if it was a rent controlled unit and somehow they were able to get through this body and get approval for a project, the future units also have to be rent rent controlled, and they also have to be equivalent to what was I

[Speaker 4.0]: I understand. I think that's I I understand what the state law says, but the idea of replacing it, demolishing it, replacing is what makes people not confident about this. And even though in practice, we may it may be a very such a low practice. I think the state law in itself I mean, state law is kinda vague in a way that, it can increase height. It allows for increase of height, and it allows for replace of units. It doesn't say demolition. It doesn't say you cannot demolish.

[Speaker 42.0]: I also want

[Speaker 117.0]: to be mindful

[Lydia So, Commission President]: that we are planning commission, so we have certain jurisdictions. And I am not sure where we're treading right now here to continue to delve so really detailed into enforcing renters' right on land use. I know it's a really controversial and very heart wrenching subject. I really appreciate Commissioner Imperial brought that up, but I would like to maybe defer to director

[Speaker 32.0]: Yeah.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: These Well,

[Speaker 4.0]: I'd like to put that in in the record that this is part of the planning commission record, part of planning commission discussion and that this should be part of the land use committee conversation as well.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: Yeah. Absolutely. I think just I

[Speaker 177.0]: don't know.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: I want Josh to answer your question about flats because that is in the proposed ordinance. I just wanna say, I think what we'll do because we are gonna come back. That's what, city attorney Yang was just saying. This is the this that ordinance is not yet before us. I know you're very involved in it, so we're excited when it comes. But when we come, I think what we wanna explain are the bevy of rules that are a bit confusing and many layered that actually even under state law make it difficult to demolish rent controlled housing. So we wanna give you guys some more confidence because we wanna be confident too that we're not leading to that. I do wanna add in to your question about flats, which is also miss Shudish, I think it's her birthday. Hopefully, she's off celebrating. I hope she's not watching us still, but she may be to talk about flats because we are codifying the residential flat policy. So if you wanna talk about that.

[Speaker 15.0]: Sure. So the flat policy, we're codifying the commission's current policy into into the code, into section three seventeen. It is essentially exactly what the commission policy is right now, which is you can't merge or reduce the size or reconfigure a flat to make it not a flat except if you're increasing the number of units on the property. That has nothing to do with demolition. And and there's one of the recommendations in your packet is for cleaning up the proposed language around that part of section three seventeen. Just to clarify, it removes the word demolition from that from one of those provisions because it was confusing. Demolishing a building with flats is the same as demolishing any other building. It still would require a conditional use and go through the same process. So There's no special carve out for demolishing flats, so just to make that very clear. It's just if you're and any mergers or, like I said, or other reconfiguration of flats would require a conditional use. And there's a there's a set of findings in there that that the commission would consider about whether that's something you would want to approve or not. The only situation where it wouldn't come before you is if it's a project that's increasing the number of units on the property, which is consistent with the current commission policy.

[Speaker 142.0]: Okay. Thank

[Speaker 4.0]: you so much for clarification. Those are my questions, and thank you for bearing with me.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, commissioner. Vice President Moore?

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Into the tenth hour. That makes it harder, but I'll give it a try. Let me first thank those who have already left and those who are still here for their thoughtful comment regarding what we are discussing here today. My takeaway from what I have heard today is that the most critical concerns remain unresolved, at least to the extent that I do not believe that there is a shared, fully uniform support for the rezone. There are many unanswered questions, and just the last half hour, I think, made me feel that there are some answers, but there are also many responses which are vaguely formulated. And in the best of all worlds, given the severity and the weight of what we are deciding today, I wish there would have been a little bit more meat on the bone regarding more clearly defined answers and solutions to the most important questions that have been discussed for months and months and months. And let me briefly just summarize what some, from my perspective, sticking points are, where there is still not anything that has been legislatively or administratively clarified. I think one is setting clear delivery goals for affordable housing centered on public lands. And that means that the timing of SFMTA and their consideration for their real estate is more in sync with predicting what can happen where together with the commitment that, that is going to happen because truly affordable housing will basically should and will most likely best realized on public land where there is not a burden of high cost for land acquisition. Second point is realistic funding plans for affordable housing, no fee outs, no no fee outs, no impact fee waivers, and guarantees for more on-site affordability. Guarantees for rent control and tenant protection, Commission Imperial went into great lengths in asking very targeted questions for clarification. That goes into the area of guarantees for small business protection, and the issue of preservation and protection of historic districts and neighborhoods needs a significant additional amount of work together with clarification and preservation of landmark buildings, including those eligible for landmarking, a full listing of historic local districts, which at this moment is not fully realized in the writing as I understand the document. There is a coastal and environmental accountability with forward looking implementation strategies for resiliency planning, climate change, and sea level rise. Out of reading of most recent emails, their unanswered questions, and I'm slightly repeating, explain why priority equity geographies are being added to the UP zoning plan that has caused a lot of confusion, Why are housing sustainability districts all of a sudden introduced? They were mentioned, but they were not actually examined in the EIR for upzoning. The hotel issue was, I think, satisfactorily answered, but that was a big issue, which I think came in with was testimony today, which show gives me a certain amount of unease as those very basic questions have to surface today. And we are pressing a significant amount of work, not only of the public, of yourself as the practitioners, but also of this commission. There's only so much capacity any of us has to be fully aware, fully present, and fully responsibility for the actions we're taking. There is the issue of all of a sudden upzoning for properties along the Embarcadero, which is actually subject to the state public land trust and is actually not allowed for housing. And then comes the quick comes the issue, have you consulted with the Port Of San Francisco, and have you consulted with lands a state lands commission? Then I think you answered that. I think, mister Switzky answered it, and mister Sugui weighed in regarding planning code section three seventeen being changed to allow flats to be demolished without a conditional use process. Am I correct, Mr. Switzky, that you are reverting to requiring flat policies to include CUs as before?

[Speaker 15.0]: Flats yes. Any any merger or reconfiguration of flats would require CUs as would demolitions. Unless

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: There was still this vague thing that flats, if they increase the number of units, would still be possibly able to get away without a CEO. And we have seen

[Speaker 15.0]: That that is correct, and that is the current commission's policy.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Not if it's a shame unit of which we have seen quite a few being stuck behind the garage.

[Speaker 15.0]: Well, that would no. I mean, that that wouldn't be that wouldn't be consistent with how it's been legislated. The the flats have to maintain their characteristic of flats. What you're describing is a jam studio behind a garage would not meet the definition of a of a flat.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: On some of these issues, I think it would be, at least as this move moves forward to the board of supervisors, and some of us may be asked to shed a little bit more light on that of how that interprets it. Yep. It's a late it's late. It's a tense hour, so certain things are not as clearly on my radar, at least. Let let me say that the city has really powerful tools available for directing planning and growth from owning large amounts of public land to streamline approval processes and zoning incentives to attract to attract development. But these tools these tools needs to be used responsibly and without full commitment to the goals and aspirations of the 2023 housing element, there is really diminished trust of moving forward. And I want to be clear that that is heard. The the public has lost a lot of trust, and I wanna make sure that we all hear that. I'm going to move into a slightly more controversial discussion, but I believe that I have to make those comments given that I have I have dedicated my own life as being a practicing urban designer, planner, and architect. And for that reason, I like to talk about the atypical approach, of this particular rezone that is atypical for any large planning effort ever undertaken by the city in the past, a city that is known for its exceptionally crafted large scale urban design plans that has attracted worldwide attention in numerous awards and has created the remarkable city that we live in today. What we are looking to what we are looking at today or what we have looked at today, is not a plan. It is a document primarily responding to a mandate for numbers without a vision of what the Absolon City looks like. That's difficult to say. It actually hurts. And there's no hint anywhere of what this future city looks like, and there's been no participatory process to shape a vision for what we want in the future. We're responding to numbers. So from family zoning plan is not an urban design plan, and that's okay. But its, its consequences will ultimately be affecting the urban design and the livable quality of the city. The plan doesn't claim to be an urban design plan, and it does not sub substitute for what we should demand to be guiding this extraordinary massive amount of housing development intended with its upzoning in the time frame that is excessively long. We're going way beyond two or three generations of people who will live with this with the consequences of this decision and people who will not have a say of what the actual physical reality of this will be. Aside from the absence of a vision for the future of the city, any good urban design plan should also have a clear plan for implementation and planning practice typically referred to as a phasing plan. There is no phasing plan. And what which is needed to monitor and incrementally evaluate planned progress, including successes or failures like achieving specific housing goals with the ability to correct or redirect implementation strategies. There are no labor or wage standards who is undertaking this work, and there is no construction sequencing plan, which is critical for any large scale urban design plan. Sequencing plan is needed to coordinate simultaneous construction on multiple sites, mostly in diverse locations, and manage the logistics of a disruptive process that will affect all. There is also when we speak about construction, there's really nothing forward looking or innovative like a net zero construction plan, a plan to protect environmental, economic comfort, resilience, energy security and market value enhancement. If you look at net zero projects in other countries where that is greatly practiced, there is an immediate market value enhancement that is of great long term interest for the communities in which these plans are undertaken. There's no discussion of that in this particular plan. There is no physical plan. At a minimum, those would be a three d dimensional visual visualization of the city of the future, one by which we could easier understand the shifting of densities from certain areas, increase in densities in Bernal height, lowering in densities near the waterfront, whatever, we could immediately gain consensus around diverging positions of how the shifting of densities affects, enhances or detracts from the quality in certain areas. And by a common vision, I think we would get larger buy in to what ultimately will not just be parts of the city which are changing, but how we are changing as a city as a whole. There is no infrastructure plan guaranteeing reliable and sufficient capacity of water, sewer, and power systems before onset of construction. At a minimum, this would include what was mentioned today, and I've read about it extensively, include a functioning emergency fire fighter water system to protect the western and southern neighborhoods. There is no transportation plan or even guaranteed support estate funding to maintain, upgrade, and expand our citywide system prior to densification in particular parts of the city. There is no open space plan that is dedicating new parks and open spaces for an expanding population and protecting undiminished access to sunlight to all existing parks and open spaces citywide. There are only numbers, planned height increases and resulting unit numbers, and a dizzying number of changes by which these numbers have been applied to enormous map changes and final and final plan. This has been confusing. It has been confusing to me. It has been extremely exhausting, and it has somewhat helped undermine the trust in the process of planning despite, and I'm gonna be very honest, a heroic effort by the department to hold this together. This is no small task. I have complimented and admired you on this. I would not be one I wouldn't wanna be in your shoes. To me, it sometimes feels like quicksand. Like, when we did the housing element, I felt that we had really gained solid ground. We were somewhere. We had something we felt strongly about and had all the support as much as you can never get full support from the public and from everybody. It was a hard fight. You fought most of it. And I thought this was a beginning point for developing something which would be slightly different from what is less convincing to me today. It's hard for me to say that I am looking for a reason to justify this massive restructuring and destruction of a functioning city. And, again, I have a very strong sensitivity towards the physical consequences of what we do. There may be people who share that with me. I know there are some. We have kind of pushed that conversation very much into the background. So throughout, I have touched on it in different meetings. I've hinted to possible tools. Again, I'm only one voice. However, I've participated in a number of extremely fabulously successful plans. Some people who worked on those plans are still working in the department, which really kind of taken my breath away because of their strengths and about their forward looking ability to really guide city design and successful city development. This particular effort, unfortunately, lacks that strength. And let me close with I'm not gonna get into some of the basic fundamental issues of reiterative park practice. Let me say, in successful livable cities around the world, and I just came back from Europe, where that is even more strongly manifest, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Malmo, Sweden, leading as an example that change and reinvents themselves around the principle of keeping history alive, preserving the old and using the old as a nucleus for the development of of new neighborhoods and city densification. Europe's route is having the same issues of housing scarcity and lack of affordable housing. There is no difference. However, they have different tools, and they are capable of creating different results. And the example the result is, talking about Copenhagen, for example, a good mix of residential and commercial areas with affordability and equity built in, good architecture, a wide range of different housing options and a well designed living environment, a complete city. And by now, actually, as you probably read in the paper just the other day, Copenhagen is the most talked about and most recognized example of a success of a successful city in the world. I need to remind us that San Francisco used to be one of those cities, And it's my expectation that with proper urban design and planning, we would recapture some of our famous ranking for the benefits of all. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: Earlier, I got buried in my notes. I left out, and I agree with, commissioner Imperial Imperial and commissioner Moore brought it up too. A point of, concern for me was item 13 and table four, executive summary, that allows hotels, motels of 70 rooms or less, to be exempt from conditional use authority. Housing is housing. Hotels, motels are not. I'm wondering here, are we in violation of planning code by putting this forward or should we actually take out item 13 in

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: Well, it will see maybe how we had a couple more commissioners who are who are geared to speak. So I think it would depend on how the motion ends up, but there could be motions either for specific things. There could be motion to say forward everything to the board except item 13. That'd be kind of a big omnivis motion, but that could be explicit that my, recommendation to amend my motion if possible. And it's but

[Speaker 32.0]: I say

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: that because I I missed it. I had it here, and it was it's been brought up by two commissioners. Commissioner, I had it here, and it was it's been brought up by two commissioners.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Question commissioner McGarry, I would like to second the motion with that change. I was actually gonna ask about whether you wanted to make that change as well. However, I do wanna just clarify because we have three items. Some have modifications, some don't. I guess maybe secretary, I don't is is there a need to make three separate motions on the three items? Or is a single motion, as commissioner McGarry put forward, going to be adequate?

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: I think it depends on the maker of the motion. Right? I mean, it it it can it can vary. If mister Commissioner McGarry's motion is to adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications eliminating item 13, then that's it.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. Right? In that case, I second the motion.

[Speaker 164.0]: Yeah.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: They're conferring about procedural and what the process is for what we have to do first.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: I'm sorry. I misunderstood the the question. But, yes, you could take up all three items together when you call them because what city attorney was suggesting is we take up general plan amendments first. But if it was part of the motion, the general plan amendments, zoning map amendments, and planning code amendments together

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: All three together.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: All three together, then we would call it under one item.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. I second that with the removal of modification 13.

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: Thank you.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. And you would like to further comment, Commissioner Braun, say some more things?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Yeah. Not a whole lot more. I just want to I want to thank Commissioner Williams for for running down the history of of a lot of sources for supporting affordable housing and for needs of vulnerable populations that have gone away over time and put us in the position of relying so heavily or trying to rely so heavily on resources produced through market rate development, which is uneven and which is sometimes not going to come through. And so I want to reemphasize and give a plug for finding those more consistent sources, advocating for those more consistent sources. I think one thing you may not have mentioned is, you know, we used to have redevelopment, which in its early form was a terribly disruptive thing that was that was carried out in the worst way possible in the city. But by the end, just before the solution was a critical, stable source of affordable housing funding. And when that went away, it just pulled out the rug from under so many places. So, you know, if there's potential to replace mechanisms like that at the local level, which is kind of what's being explored through potentially EIFD. It's also tax increment financing. You know, I I I just wanna throw my my voice and support behind finding different ways and better tools for funding affordable housing. I hope we can get there in parallel to to this process. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, Commissioner Braun. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Okay. I'll try to be fast. I do wanna start with thanking the public for coming. And I know we have just a few members that are are hanging on there, but, thank you for coming. Thank you for waiting, and thank you for sharing. It's incredibly inspiring to see how much we all love this city, and it's really evident when when people share. So thank you. And this is a big moment for the city. I'm the newest member of the commission, and I I've learned along the way that this was a huge, huge undertaking for for the department, and the level of community engagement was of epic proportion. So hats off to the team for for all their hard work. And I know the map gets all the attention, but there's a ton under the hood here. So but the map is is is easy one to talk about. And I was actually just eating a cookie during my break looking at the existing map of the existing zoning map today. And it is it really stands out to me as as as the the glaring problem with how much is concentrated in terms of density and height in one area of our city. So I find this to be moving things in the right direction. And I think, in general, it's it's actually pretty modest. So but it's not the solution. So fixing the zoning is not the solution. Right? It's just start, like we've been talking about. It's getting the production going and getting the financing for affordable housing that's really gonna be be, I think, what what gets us where we want all wanna go. And I like the public comment about let's keep tweaking and let's keep improving. And I think these amendments, which are starting to collect, are really starting to respond to that. So I'm, like a lot of the commissioners, okay with having these conversations continue at land use and with the board. I really much prefer carrots over sticks. So as much as we can make the local program very appealing, which commissioner Braun said, and do it through incentives versus prescriptive requirements. I think that would be my guidance for for the board of supervisors as they start to unpack this a little bit more in terms of those amendments. The ones that I would like to lift up, which I think are echoing some other ones that have been mentioned, are around small businesses and minimizing the displacement. I quite like this the ones around senior housing, refining definitions of usable open space. I thought that seemed very common sense and hopefully will get us a little bit more senior housing. Allowing for full waivers, I know there was mention that maybe waivers are are not significant, but I think they are. And I think that could be interesting incentive that we might wanna continue to explore in terms of incentivizing the local program, and achieving more density. And then I know there was ideas around, rent control a lot of talk about rent control. And could we use rent control as an optional alternative to some of the traditional inclusionary housing programs? I think having that as part of the conversation with the supervisors would be interesting. Again, like, more optionality to create incentives, I think, would be really smart that I'd like to see. And then there were a few public comments I'd like to address. One gentleman mentioned lot mergers. Maybe not necessarily something that needs to get folded in here, but I do I have heard a lot of that come up a lot on development projects, especially on the residential side. So if that's something we could look at now or later, I'd love to get that on our radar. And then the single stair, I know that's more life safety building code, but I do think that's something we wanna keep our eye on. And I know we've talked about that director at some point. So and then the infrastructure, I I know it came up a lot in public comment and it's late. But if if we could just it's just because it came up so much around concern, and I've heard this a lot from the public, in my travels around fire protection, upgrades, around water, electrical, and sewer lines. When we do build these big buildings out on the West Side, you know, how are we going to be able to accommodate that in terms of infrastructure? And I think we've spoke spoken to it in the past too, but just Yeah.

[Speaker 15.0]: I just wanted to remind the commission. We we did provide a lengthy Yes. Memo over the summer on all of these topics. I mean, I can we can if you want

[Speaker 32.0]: No.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: I mean, I don't think we need to do a big presentation, but maybe if the public could know where they could find that.

[Speaker 32.0]: Yeah. We

[Speaker 15.0]: can we certainly we can make sure it's clearly findable on the website and point people to it.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Perfect. Yep. We're because we're thinking about it. And then and then we have ideas for how the new development will provide

[Speaker 15.0]: the means of the future. Specific topics you wanna come back for informational presentations, we can you know, on different topics, we're happy to work with the commission and other agencies to bring those forward if you'd like.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: I believe there's a motion. You seconded it. Perfect. So we're okay. Then those are all my comments. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, Commissioner Campbell and Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I just want to comment on what was just brought up around infrastructure. I did read there was some lengthy data in there. But we never had we really never had the heads of the departments come up here and testify before us, unless I'm mistaken.

[Speaker 15.0]: No. As part of this process, we didn't bring the head of the PUC or

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Or whoever is in charge and whoever can speak for the department. We kind of took your word for it. I'm sure you guys did the research, and you asked a couple of questions.

[Speaker 15.0]: Commissioner, the memo that you had was in direct consultation with all of those with senior, very senior people at all of those agencies. And they did review it and provide content for that memo. So that wasn't just the planning department summarizing documents. That was directly from those agencies.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I'm just like, Okay. And I understand. And thank you for that. But public likes to see folks come out. And so that would be my only comment on that. They like to see the head of the PUC or the wire department, whatever, on the record state what's what as opposed to just you guys doing it. And I'm sure your conversations were right and you asked the right questions. But again, I think infrastructure came up a few times today. And so I just wanted to I just wanted to to mention that. That's all. So just, you know, I know that we covered a lot of things tonight. But just to go over the small business support and the protections, I just want to go over again that we did talk about Small Business Forward and their recommendations you know, to prevent displacement of small businesses. And so just wanted to go over that. I know and then, you know, the I don't know if we touched on the prevailing wage and labor standards as far as the upzonings. And and I and local hire. I I didn't hear local hire. And so I just wanna make sure that I'm a product of local hire. When I was apprentice down here. And so I want to make sure that that that's something that we, that we cover and it's it's and so it can be talked about, without having to come back here. Right?

[Speaker 32.0]: Mhmm.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: And, let's see. And we covered the California coastal environmental protections. Did someone bring that up? Yes.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: No? Yes. They've been brought up a few times.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Yeah. It came up. I just wanna go over it because I know there was a lot of there was a lot of concern about that, folks coming forward. And there is a lot of concern about development along the coastline. A lot of people have a lot of strong feelings about that. And, I don't, I think that needs to be, you know, talked about more with, with the people that actually live there. And so I would just, mention that. And then I have some I have some questions. It's getting late, but this is gonna this is gonna be be it for me. And so the first question is, so can you explain how the proposed upzoning ordinance is different from what the housing element authorized?

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: Sure, commissioner. So the housing element, when we learned that we were not going to meet our capacity needs under the RHNA, it then obligated us to come up with, and that was found out through our sites inventory, by the way, which is one of the appendices to the housing element. That basically triggered our need to rezone. And as part of getting that housing element adopted, we had to provide some indication of how we were going to do that. Basically, showing the state, here's our scope of rezoning. And it was in basically broad brushstrokes, right, because we hadn't done the work that we've done over the past three years of talking to all the district's supervisors, talking to all the community groups, all the merchants' groups, etcetera. Right? So we were, again, basically using a lot of the same principles that we're using now. We thought about how have we done rezoning efforts in other parts of the city, you know, looking at transit corridors, commercial corridors. But then the charge was, as I mentioned, kind of threefold, right? Looking at that realistic capacity, how are we going to produce the sites we need to get to that 36,000? How How do we affirmatively further fair housing and do the majority of that in the well resourced areas? And then third, how do we meet our low income site obligation, which is basically saying, here are the sites that meet certain criteria for low income housing under state law. And then as we do the rezoning to implement it, basically providing this ministerial pathway for them. So we basically, at that point, had essentially, we had to come up with a project scenario in the EIR. And we actually have Maya Small was the project manager of the housing element EIR housing element at that time. So she can probably talk more about the kind of genesis of that project scenario in the EIR. But we then also provided three example scenarios that provided different ideas, some of which if you we should probably do a mash up of all the maps at some point. But you can kind of see themes from each of those three ideas that are in the current proposal. Right? We did have, for example, a theme that was looking not just at the corridors. It was looking at these buffers around the corridors as well going into the residential districts. So

[Speaker 32.0]: what

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: I would say is, on the whole, the principles have remained remarkably consistent. It is true that things have shifted here and there, and that is because we had this public process over the past three years, And we've been responsive. Again, our main goal has been to just make sure we're meeting the capacity, meeting the state laws.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: So let me ask you this. Do we meet our 57% affordable housing requirement through the Epson?

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: So the way we meet that through state law is that and this is what we submitted to them as part of our draft, which we submitted back in June right after the draft ordinances were introduced. We submitted basically our full ordinances. We submitted a list of all of the parcels. And then in that whole list, we basically said, here are the low income sites. And so again, the definition

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Was it 57%?

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: It was to meet that 50% requirement.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Yes. 57, yeah.

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: Yeah. So it's basically the I don't have the exact numbers, but that's that RenaGraphic. Right? So you know, the 36,000 is then stratified into the three income levels. So I think it's about 20,000 low income, maybe 7,000 or 8,000 middle income, and then the rest is above moderate. So we basically said within this entire list, here's the parcels that meet the criteria for low income housing. So and the def again, the state definition, that doesn't mean those are 100% affordable housing sites. What it means is that if future projects come in and propose 20% on-site affordable, they are eligible for ministerial review.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you. I want to touch on the priority equity geographies. So there was districts added, like North Beach, the Northern Waterfront, Western Addition Mission. Can you explain why I mean, you did explain a little bit, but I'd like to go over that again. Because just so the public can kind of understand why you guys decided to add these neighborhoods that weren't that weren't, weren't in in the original or they they were just recently added?

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: Sure. So there's no one size fits all answer for that because, again, this map has been very iterative. So again, I will

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Can I ask who added it? Who added these neighborhoods in in in

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: So it has been kind of collective actions that we've taken. Right? So some of them might be staff recommendations. So that may be us that's added them. Some of them may have been the mayor's office. Some of them may have been from guidance from supervisors, because we know that ultimately this plan is going to go to the

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Do you know exactly who added that in there? That's my question.

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: What I'm saying is it was a combination of these things. And I will also add that there were some of those areas that were in the original EIR map as well. There were certain ways in which the EIR map, the the kind of the original product scenario were even more expansive. For example, proposing even higher heights in some of the areas than you see in the map today. So it really was kind of a combination.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: So why why are large areas being added to to North Beach, Telegraph Hill, and the waterfront when the housing element and the housing element E IR never considered these, including these areas. This is one of the most densely populated areas with more tenant occupied and rent controlled units, historic resources, and legacy business than almost anywhere else in San Francisco.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: So I want to just make these zero in on the map. Because I think we want to understand the dotted line is the well resourced boundary. So when we're looking at what's been added, we're seeing a little bit of Columbus Avenue. And again, question

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: What map are you referring to?

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: I'm looking at the map that's in your packet, exhibit one, which is the family zoning map.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Can we put it up on the screen?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Sure. We can put it Thank you.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: Yeah, we can put it up on the overhead. That's a great idea.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Appreciate that.

[Speaker 58.0]: So we'll

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: see that there is a little bit outside of the well resource boundary in District 3, which is Columbus Avenue. That was earlier where I was saying we want to think about not just where lines are drawn based on census tracts, because census tracks don't take into account neighborhood boundaries. And that's part of underlying data that's used with the TCAC map that the state develops, and that is the boundary that you see here. So we want to think about that neighborhood commercial district on Columbus Avenue. That boundary doesn't really have a meaning in that neighborhood sense. Right? And so we had that little part of Columbus Avenue that was added.

[Speaker 32.0]: And we

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: look at the Fishman's Wharf area. We see a couple things. One, obviously, a really important part of the city that I think I think we heard some commenters today could use some love. When we look at that area, one of the reasons that that's not in the well resourced area is actually because there's such a small population there. And because we have affordable housing that is owned by the city through the housing authority, we actually have a high percentage of low income residents there because they're some of the only few residents that are there because it was, for many years, obviously, a working fishing port. And so the idea here is that we have also I think we we have control over that affordable housing because it's something that we own. It's not gonna go away, obviously, without the city's consent. So this is a great place to add housing to continue to boost the vitality of Fisherman's Wharf. If you look at the other areas, there's other areas that are very small, some by the Belle Beaux Arts Station, again, looking at a very regional resource, really, that we've invested lots in throughout

[Speaker 9.0]: the Bay.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I I I I mean, I understand the reasoning, and I I understand

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy Director (Policy/Community Planning)]: If that was your question, that was the reason. Right?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Yeah. Yeah. I I I when thank you for explaining that. But I'm I'm just saying we're we're going into areas that we said we wouldn't go into. And and so that's my point. And and I know that, you know, we we could find excuses, not excuses, but we could always find an, you know, a way to, go back on what we promised. And I think that my my point is just that, you know, again, just pointing to the public trust and and finding out that these areas are getting getting, you know, upzoned, I think has gotten, you know, has gotten has gotten a lot of folks concerned. And so that's a bit that's why I'm bringing it back up. But why are you rezoning the public utilities commission, the PUC property over there at the North Northpoint Sewage Treatment Plant? Have you consulted the PUC? Are you?

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: If I could just kind of pick up the thread from your earlier question about North Beach in particular. So just another thing to know is that in April, when Mayor Lohrey released his first version of the map, we did expand the entirety of the well resourced area. So that did also pick up parts of Columbus Avenue. And then there's that dogleg that goes over into Telegraph Hill. So that was part of that explanation. We had been showing several blocks of that Fisherman's Wharf North Point area in previous maps. I think that went back to maybe the November map from last year, if I'm not mistaken. And I will also point out that and Josh has reminded me that that actual area speaking of how the well resourced map changes from year to year, it's actually that area is now a well resourced area.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Yeah. I just want I just want to make this comment that folks are very concerned in that area. That's not just any area. That's North Beach. That's an iconic place in San Francisco that we need to really tread lightly about changing it because that is what tourists come here. It's not just any area. And the fact that this was just put in at the last minute has got folks concerned, including myself. I think it and so again, this is North Beach. It's in a very important part of our city. And it was in the priority equity geography. And now it's put into this up zoning. And so again, I just want to highlight this is so broad, and there's so many different areas around our city that are critical not only to the people that live there, but to our tourism. To I mean, can you, you know, can you imagine, San Francisco without the Mission District, without, you know, North Beach? It wouldn't be San Francisco. It'd be something else. So anyway, let's see here. Regarding section three forty four, why is the housing sustainability districts proposed to be added to the zoning plan? Yes. Can we talk about that already?

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: I don't think we've discussed it directly yet, commissioner. But that was actually a commitment that was made in the housing element. There was basically I don't remember the specific action, but it said that we should adopt a housing sustainability district within the liaison areas.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you. Let's see here. Why why are why are the city's own designated historic districts not being excluded from the upzoning plan?

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: Sure. I'm happy to start. We also I see we have Deputy Director Sucre, who's also our historic expert here. So typically, the way that our rezoning efforts have worked in the past, our area plans included, is that we zone across the neighborhood. Right? We zone different heights. We think about, again, speaking to kind of the urban design of the neighborhood and thinking about sculpting the heights accordingly. And then we layer our historic protections on top of those. And so that's essentially the same approach we've taken here. Being in a historic district does not mean that you will not see change. I I think we wanna be clear about that. But what the district means is that you have certain processes and protections in place that depend on the specific resource and the rating that you have within that district. So that's the concept here, too. And I leave to

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: my colleague. My question would be why do we designate an area, an historic district, and then also at the same time say, we're going to do we're not going to treat we're going to take some protections, but we're not going to this is a historic district of San Francisco. And I don't think it should be protected.

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Family Zoning Plan Manager)]: Sure. So I I don't know if

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Unless the fish want to say like, riches the cream Yeah. Be able to Sure.

[Speaker 192.0]: Thanks, commissioner. Thanks for the question.

[Speaker 34.0]: Mhmm.

[Speaker 192.0]: So the rezoning plan doesn't change any of our controls. Right? So obviously, we have 13 historic just designated historic districts in article 10. We have over three hundred three hundred individual landmarks. The rezoning plan doesn't change any of our ability to manage change within those districts. So anytime a new project, would happen within those areas, we would also still continue our review, still continue to make sure that the work is compatible with the existing historic character.

[Speaker 32.0]: I I

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: think I think it's important for the public to, like, understand that, right? Because they say, oh, this historic district is now in the upswing. What's going to happen? So I mean, it's important to bring it up for public trust. Again, because it's so wide of a net that this upzoning is casting, it's important to get that information out. And so okay and then we covered we covered the hotel. Let's see here. I think that's it.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Sorry. Thank you. Thank you for, you know, bearing with me.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you for being very thorough. Mhmm. Commission to vice president Moore, and that will be our last speaker.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: One final question, and that is asking director Dennis Phillips asking director Dennis Phillips to make sure that we are doing a cursory evaluation of SB 79 before this moves to the board of supervisors, including updating the planning commission on where the red flags are. There's a great deal of fear, widespread fear, about the potentially torrential and devastating effects of SB 79 that have been expressed since it was first mentioned, and people had hoped that it wouldn't pass, but, unfortunately, it coincides with today to hearing about it. So if we can, I think it would help all of us to know that that there are certain moorings to keep the ship from sinking?

[Sarah Dennis Phillips, Planning Director]: Commissioners, once that bill passes and we understand what is stable and we have staff capacity, which should be very soon, if we're moving this forward to the board, we will do

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: that and get back to you. Speak a little bit louder.

[Sarah Dennis Phillips, Planning Director]: I cannot really hear

[Lydia So, Commission President]: you because it's It's a long way of saying yes. Yeah. We're fine. Yep. Thank you, commissioner vice president Moore. And we are ready to vote. We have a motion, and then there will be, Commissioner Moore would like to, close our meeting with a special acknowledgment. And prior to that, I'd like to give a shout out to one of the audience here. So we can vote now. Okay.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to let me get this right. To adopt a recommendation for of approval for general plan amendments, zoning map amendments with modifications, and planning code text amendments with modifications, specifically staff's recommended modifications with exception to number 13.

[Speaker 109.0]: Correct.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. With that, on that motion, Commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Nay. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperiale? No. Commissioner Moore? No. And Commission President Tsao?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes four to three with Commissioners Williams, Imperial, and Moore voting against.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: And I'd like to acknowledge our former president of the planning commission, mister Rodney Fawn. He's been here with us today. Thank you, Rodney. He's been here since, I believe, it was, like, 06:00 in the evening, so thank you for watching us.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: I'd like to

[Speaker 32.0]: And then

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: I'd like to remind us that we are closing tonight in memory of senator John Burton.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Alright. This adjourns our meeting.