Good afternoon, everyone.

Uh, the meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the November 3rd, 2025 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board Supervisors.

I am Supervisor Mirna Melagar, Chair of the Committee, joined by Vice Chair Supervisor Cheyenne Chen and Supervisor Bilal Mahmoud.

The committee clerk is Mr.

John Carroll.

I would also like to acknowledge Jeanette Engelau from SFGup TV for helping staff this meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Please ensure that you've silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices you've brought with you into the chamber today.

If you have any documents to be included as part of any of today's files, you can submit them directly to me and I'll meet you up front at the rail.

Public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda when your item of interest comes up and public comment is called.

Please wait.

I'm sorry, please sign up to speak along your right-hand side of this room.

Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

First, you may email your written public comment to me at J O H N period C-A-R-R-O-L-L at SFGOV.org.

Or you may send your written comments via U.S.

Postal Service to our office in City Hall.

The address is one Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102.

If you submit public comment in writing, it will be forwarded to the members of this committee and also included as part of the official file on which you are commenting.

Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors Agenda of November 18th, 2025, unless otherwise stated.

And we also have overflow seating available and viewing available for today's meeting just down the hall in room 263.

If you are joining us in the chamber, you do have to remain seated while you are here.

If we reach capacity and there's no longer room for you to sit down, we do ask that you go down the hall to 263 so that you can watch the proceedings from there.

And Madam Chair, that's all my announcements for now.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Clerk.

Uh, for members of the public who are here today for the family zoning plan items.

Uh please bear with us.

I estimate it'll be about 20 minutes for items first that will be called and disposed of before we get to that item.

So uh with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call items one and two together.

Agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the planning code and the zoning map to establish the San Francisco Gateway Special Use District, generally bounded by Kirkwood Avenue to the northeast, Rankin Street to the southeast, McKinnon Avenue to the southwest, and Tollin Street to the northwest.

Agenda item number two is an ordinance approving a development agreement between the city and county of San Francisco and Prologis LP, a Delaware limited partnership for the development of an approximately 17.1 acre site located at Tollin Street at Kirkwood Avenue with two multi-story production distribution and repair buildings in a core industrial area, including 1,646,000 square feet of production distribution and repair.

Space for non-retail sales and service, automotive and retail uses, a rooftop, solar array, ground floor, maker space, and streets built to city standard.

The ordinance approves certain development impact fees for the project and waives certain planning code fees and requirements.

It also confirms compliance with or waives certain provisions of labor and employment code and administrative code chapters.

It ratifies certain actions taken in accordance with the ordinances, and it also makes findings of conformity with the California Environmental Quality Act and the general plan, as well as Planning Code Section 302.

Madam Chair.

Thank you so much.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, we are now joined by District 10 Supervisor Shimon Walton.

Welcome to the Land Use Transportation Committee, Supervisor Walton.

The floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Chair Melgar and committee.

Today I'm here just to speak briefly on the gateway 749 Tollin Project and Bayview's Market Zone neighborhood, a place that's long powered San Francisco through essential industry and labor, but that has also endured decades of disinvestment.

This project is a milestone moment for our district and receive unanimous approval from planning.

The project sponsor is directly investing in our community by rebuilding eight blocks of public streets to city standards, committing to eight million dollars in direct community contributions, and 11 million more in market zone improvements, including support for the produce markets reinvestment plan and small business development along Third street.

This project will generate nearly 800 construction jobs annually and create close to 2,000 permanent on-site jobs.

It's also the first development agreement on a private project in the city to include a micro LBE goal with dedicated opportunities for hyperlocal Bayview contractors and it comes with a first source hiring agreement to prioritize local residents for both construction and long-term jobs I want to thank the community members and labor partners who served on the advisory committee your ongoing input has helped shape a package that reflects Bayview's values and priorities this is a model for what community driven equity focused and environmentally responsible development should look like I also want to thank John Lau and Susan Ma and Director Anne Topier from the Office of Office of Economic and Workforce Development the San Francisco Gateway Advisory Committee from community the team at ProLogis the Market Zone Rudy Gonzalez and the building construction trades Tony Delario and Peter Finn along with the Teamsters and of course my legislative aides Percy Birch and Natalie G for all of their work to get us here today and I look forward to this moving forward to the full board.

Thank you Chair Melgar.

Thank you Supervisor Walton well done and uh thank you for all your work in this very important project uh and for all of the thoughtful additions to this uh project uh so with that we're gonna have Susan Ma come and present thank you thank you supervisor good afternoon Chair Melgar and members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to present today my name is Susan Ma with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development today joining me are my colleagues John Lau of OEWD Gabriela Pantoha of the planning department and Courtney Bell Vice President of development management representing the project sponsor ProLodges next slide I will be providing a project overview the proposed legislation the key development agreement features and anticipated fiscal impacts of this project the project before you today is at located at 749 Tolland in the market zone neighborhood of Bayview Hunters Point within the city's southeast region.

The market zone is an industrial area surrounded by the SF market and was created by a working group of local business owners and operators in the area the boundaries can be seen in the map on the right outlined in red the area shaded in the Marigold orange is a map of San Francisco's remaining production distribution and repair zoning for the last 25 years the city has been monitoring the demand zoning changes and impact of PDR policies and businesses these light industrial zones are critical and valuable to the local economy they provide direct services are integral to the city's infrastructure and offer a diversity of jobs for San Franciscans.

This project represents the largest private investment in PDR project in decades and also happens to be the largest investment in the market zone's public roadways in quite some time please the project site is a composed of two city blocks there are four single story sheds on site totaling roughly 448 thousand square feet of PDR space with most of the surrounding streets not currently accepted by the city the project would build two new three-story buildings which would be over 1.6 million square feet of PDR space that would be appropriate for warehouse distribution manufacturing parcel delivery and the like the project will improve surrounding street segments totaling eight blocks to city standards before you today are the following two board files thank you Chair Mulgar and Vice Chair Chen for being co-sponsors there is an ordinance establish establishing a special use district for the project and ordinance approving the development agreement between the city and prologis the project was at planning commission on September 25th 2025 where it received a 60 vote to advance the special use district will serve like an overlay zoning district and will not alter the underlying PDR zoning district rather the PDR2 zoning district controls will remain in effect unless it is stated otherwise in the proposed SUD.

Those controls are principally permitting private parking garage uses, principally permitting parcel delivery services up to 225,000 square feet of occupied floor area in the project total, and conditionally permitting parcel delivery service beyond 225,000 square feet within the SUD.

It will allow 8,500 square feet of retail sales and service uses.

The SUD will establish off parking off street parking ratios for retail sales and other uses.

The streetscape improvements, the transportation demand management requirements will be governed by the development agreement, and it will permit additional features as building height exemptions in addition to those listed in section 260B.

And it will outline the design review process for the development.

For the development agreement, benefits and key terms.

The DA has a 20-year term with potential for two year option, two five year options to extend.

As mentioned earlier, the sponsor will improve the surrounding street segments to city standards, paving the way for city acceptance of those streets.

There will be eight million dollars in direct contributions to support workforce youth education and child care, neighborhood infrastructure and small businesses.

And throughout the process, the project sponsor has participated in over a hundred meetings with Baby Hunters Point stakeholders, connected with over 30 local groups, and created a community advisory committee to help guide them in the community benefits process to continue their long-term partnership with community.

They have a community engagement plan to ensure stakeholders stay involved and informed.

There are robust workforce development agreements for both first source and local hire in construction and operational jobs.

The project is anticipated to generate approximately 795 construction jobs annually during construction and upon completion, approximately 1,980 permanent on site jobs.

There's also a strong local business enterprise utilization plan with direct opportunities for baby hunter points businesses.

This is the first privately funded project that has included a micro LBE goal.

I know supervisor mentioned that early, but I think it's worth repeating.

And lastly, I'd like to talk about the anticipated fiscal impacts of the project.

Beyond the direct community benefits, the city does anticipate positive fiscal impacts to the budget with over 16 million in one-time development impact fees.

At full project build out, we are anticipating approximately 7 million in annual annually in net new general fund revenues.

And at full build out and operations, an estimated 514 million dollars in new annual spending in our economy.

And this concludes my presentation.

Thank you again for your time today.

We are available for any questions.

Thank you, Ms.

Ma.

Um, I don't see anyone else on the roster with questions or concerns.

Uh so let's go to public comment on this item, please, Mr.

Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment for specifically agenda item numbers one and two related to the San Francisco Gateway Special Use District.

If you have public comment for this item specifically, please come forward to the lectern at this time.

I'm pointing it out with my left hand.

And we'll get our first speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm Reverend Carolyn Scott.

Ransom Scott.

Commissioner as well as clergy, not here representing the commission, but as clergy and a voice in the community, and for this Bayview project, I would like to just quote Dr.

King out of a mountain of despair, a stone of hope.

And I hope you approve of this because it's brought so much hope to the community, the advisory committee that has worked with them for two years and a little more.

We've learned to trust them, understand what they're doing, and they understand our needs, our concerns, and our request.

This is a long time coming, a change by way of prologus that comes with a trust that they've earned and integrity.

And you too can become a part of those stones of hope with your approval.

I hope you will go along with the agreed proposal and give your approval to this plan.

This will bring help for today and hope for a brighter future.

And I look forward to seeing the 2,000 permanent site jobs, the 800 annual construction jobs, and the benefits that are above and beyond what we've been given before with trust.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Yes, my name is Steve Zeltzer.

I'm with the United Front Committee for Labor Party, and we are opposing this project.

It's a sham project.

It says it's going to benefit the community, but will bring 6,000 trucks a day into the community.

The people of Bayview, the people of San Francisco, San Francisco do not need a polluting facility like this.

They've lied.

There was no serious studies of the effect, environmental effects of this project.

And furthermore, Prologus set up a fake advisory committee, which only has some members of the community, not all the community there.

Prologis is the owner of it, is friends with the mayor.

It's cronyism that brought this project.

Furthermore, they plan to use this as a Bezos Amazon project.

Now, the board of supervisors who say they're for the workers of San Francisco, why would they allow Amazon to build a facility here?

They bought a facility on 7th Street, and there was a conditional use.

They could not use it for delivering packages.

There's no such conditional use on this project.

So we're against union busting right wing Trump I facilities in San Francisco.

This is what this is.

There hasn't been proper overview, and it's wired by the billionaires in San Francisco.

It's not going to benefit the community.

Where are these jobs going to come from?

Permanent jobs.

They will be Amazon workers who don't have the right to have a union.

The Amazon workers in San Francisco voted to have union representation.

Have any questions been asked of the developer about Amazon?

No.

I think that that's because this is wired.

It has to be opposed by the people of San Francisco.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisors Chen, Mahmoud, Melger, and Walton.

My name is Lindsay Palmer.

I am the marketing and communications manager for the SF Market.

We are located adjacent to the SF Gateway Project.

We are proud to be a member of the SF Gateway Advisory Committee and a founding member of the Market Zone Working Group.

Our executive director, Michael Janice, deeply regrets that he is unable to attend today.

The SF Market proudly supports this critically important project.

From our first meeting shortly after Prologis purchased the property in 2015, Dan Letter of Prologis set a tone of commitment and collaboration that Mark Hansen and Courtney Bell have modeled throughout our 10-year partnership.

As a result of their consistent and thoughtful engagement, Prologis and the advisory committee developed a community benefits package that targets the true needs of Bayview Hunters Point businesses and residents.

In particular, their investment will significantly improve our streets, lighting, and sidewalks.

We are grateful that Prologis recognizes the impact the market has on our community and the Northern California food system.

As a recipient of the community benefits agreement, Prologis's contributions will help advance our work in providing critical physical upgrades to our campus that will support our future.

The SF market and our merchants have been supplying fresh produce to San Francisco in the Bay Area for over 60 years.

We proudly support the SF Gateway Project because it will uplift small businesses, support local jobs, and build a more resilient food system for our city's future.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Michael Helby.

I'm the co-chair of the Market Zone Working Group, and I've been working, I've had the opportunity to work closely with ProLotus over several years.

They've been an active and consistent participant in our working group, showing up, collaborating thoughtfully on the issues that matter most to the Market Zone businesses.

I'm confident in the city's thorough analysis of the SF's Gateway Project, which has found no significant impacts.

That process has been transparent and diligent, giving the neighbors and businesses in the area confidence that the project is moving forward responsibly.

This project represents critical investment in an area that is home to many PDR businesses.

Our working group has had third has 13 members that represent approximately 1,600 employees that work in buildings in the market zone right now.

Modern infrastructure and reinvestment are essential.

The SF Gateway is an opportunity to bring new resources and long-term benefits to this part of the city.

As someone who works only a few blocks away from the site, I know firsthand the importance of the investments, and I strongly support seeing this project move ahead in strengthening our community.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hi, good afternoon, supervisor.

My name is Wingtam.

I'm the organizer with the Local Carpenter's Union Local 22.

So here San Francisco.

I'm with Sam Passimony, 4,000 carpenters in the San Francisco County, and 37,000 costs of Northern California.

And uh speech has been of my following worker, regarding the San Francisco Gateway Project.

This is a massive undertaking, two three-story building, uh literally two million square feet of production uh distribution and uh repair space.

Uh but beyond of the scope of this project, what matters uh most is vision.

Um, the gateway project will be strengthened uh San Francisco economy and support our city recovery uh by inserting uh area standards wages for both gentlemen and appendicist carpenter.

Uh the wages are more than uh paycheck, they are uh contribution uh to pension and um uh unity that's guarantee worker uh dignity of uh retirement after lifetime of the hot working day.

So um this project also um uh history is this will be uh first carbon natural um carbon neutral development of east can in San Francisco.

At least 17% of a contractor and company get involved will be San Francisco-based, keep an opportunity in the local.

That's most of important.

That project will be um create 800 uh construction job each year.

Uh the job that uh sustained family is excellent.

Thank you for sharing your comments with the committee.

Thank you.

We need to move on to the next speaker.

Good evening.

Um my name is Vanessa, and I have been a part of the Pelagus Um SF Gateway Advisory Committee, and we have met with them for like two years, right?

Two years.

So I'm just here to agree to disagree to say this.

This is the first time I've been a part of such a project, and I really believe after meeting with them for two years that they got a good interest in the community and whether I live a hundred years or not, because the project's supposed to be there for 100 years.

I think I gotta go around with y'all, so I approve.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Supervisors.

Uh, my name is Francisco de Costa.

And uh I truly represent a community.

Having put 50 years of uh hard work, addressing environmental issues, and other important issues that adversely impact our community.

This is a very large project.

And uh in order to understand this project, we have to understand the present economy the economy that is that is happening today.

We really have to uh figure that in.

Uh City Build hasn't performed well.

The controller has asked them for stats for the last five years.

It's not forthcoming, so City Bill wants to partner with yet another entity, FUSO, and uh the director of both the companies is the same guy.

And this is like a hoodwinking the community in broad daylight.

I have uh been working with Prologic without vice president, and I'm going to help as best I can, but I will not tolerate nonsense.

And I will not be hoodwinked in broad daylight.

I tried Lenart tried that with me and hasn't succeeded.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Kristen Hardy.

Um I am uh SF native, and I am here to talk about the San Francisco Gateway uh project.

I am in as me being a San Francisco native, and also the current regional vice president for SCIU 10 to 1 that represents majority of public sector workers here in San Francisco.

Um I truly, truly am in support of this project.

Labor is backing this.

This is a hundred percent labor-funded project.

Um, and also I love the fact that um a lot of our um organizations that work close with the communities that um provide jobs for a lot of um my family members, my co-workers and their family through the pre-apprenticeship programs will be um recognized and getting some experience through this project.

So I totally encourage um for this project to be supported, and I am standing here with my um fellow trade labor brothers and sisters in full, full support.

And as me being the ex-local 22 uh member from the Carpenter's Union here in San Francisco, let's pass this.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors, Dan Torres, San Francisco Native, and proud 25-year member of Sprinkler Fitters UA Local 483.

Um, when I first got into the apprenticeship with UA Local 483, I took the nine San Bruno downtown to go to work to build this lovely city.

So having this project in our backyard provides an opportunity for people like me.

So I urge you to vote yes on this project.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Uh good afternoon, Rudy Gonzalez, San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

I want to uh first note that this has been a long time coming.

I know you have a busy agenda later this afternoon.

I certainly appreciate the leadership of Chair Melgar.

I know uh you have a lot on your plate right now.

Um Supervisor Walton has led with integrity in terms of making sure that the project sponsor, before they started working the halls of this building, actually put in the time with the community.

Uh, and despite maybe uh one comment that I'm reluctant to uh even dignify with a response, uh, brought together a community of actual stakeholders that are rooted and deeply committed to the Bayview community.

I'm talking about YCD, I'm talking about APRI, economic development on Third Street, the list goes on.

And so the community was actually not just allowed to be part of a listening session, like we all too often see with private development in this city.

The community were actually brought in to help shape that vision.

And when that vision was brought together with labor, with community, uh, and truly negotiated in good faith.

We came out with a win-win-win.

It's a win for the local economy, it's a win for the investment that's gonna happen in the surrounding area.

It is a win for local blue-collar workers who have been struggling uh throughout uh even the pandemic.

We still have people out of work that are hungry and ready to go, and it's a shot in the arm for our apprentices and pre-apprentices, people who are being intentionally recruited from 94124 from 94107 from 94134, so that we can diversify and bring equity and representation into the building trades, and we are proud that Prologis has partnered with us on that pre-apprentip endeavor, and that this project is going to be something that the community can be proud of.

You as lawmakers can also be proud that in a tough budget negotiations in the future you will have revenue, the MTA, the rest of the city departments will have direct benefits, as will the community.

So we strand stand in strong support and urge you to move this to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Right now, with the Conway, the way it is, it's really tough for all the trades and and all the architects and engineers.

We got a lot of tons and tons of projects on hold.

So if we can free these up, that'll be super thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item numbers one and two?

Madam Chair.

Thank you so much.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, uh public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Walter, did you have any closing remarks?

Actually, I don't, Chair Merrigoard.

Just want to thank everyone who came out to speak on the project.

Appreciate everyone coming together.

And I do do want to say thank you so much to our uh building and construction trades representative Rudy Gonzalez for emphasizing the fact that labor was a part of this conversation the entire time.

So I want to make sure we get the right information out to community because labor has been at the table the entire time within this conversation, and there have been some controls put in place to address some of the concerns that we heard from public comment.

And I hope that people would actually pay attention to the conversations, the meetings, the things that are happening in community, so they'll know before they speak ill of projects that have had conversations that address their concerns.

Thank you, Chair Melgar.

Okay, uh, you're welcome, and thank you, Supervisor Walton.

Uh with that, uh Mr.

Clerk, I'd like to make a motion that we send items one and two to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Please call the role.

On the motion offered by the chair that agenda item numbers one and two both be sent to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation of land use and transportation.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I, Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Thank you.

Um that motion passes.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, I'm gonna call the next two items separately.

So please call item number three first.

Agenda item number three is an ordinance amending the planning code to allow additional uses as principally or conditionally permitted in historic buildings citywide, exempt historic buildings in certain eastern neighborhood plan areas from conditional use authorization, otherwise required to remove production distribution and repair, institutional community and arts activity uses, and from providing replacement space for such uses.

Make conforming amendments to provisions affected by the foregoing, including zoning control tables.

This item is on our agenda as a potential committee report.

It may be sent for consideration by the Board of Supervisors tomorrow, November 4th, 2025.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, and we have gotten uh uh late-minute, last minute request from the mayor's office uh to continue this item to allow for some more work.

Um I see Lisa Gulagstein here.

Perhaps can you confirm that that's the case, Miss Glockstein?

That's correct.

Yes, there are a few amendments that we would like to incorporate.

Okay, so with that, um l we're gonna have to take public comment because it is agendized.

Um, but uh I think that what I'm gonna do is um you know, given that folks still need to work on this and we want maximum flexibility.

I will make a motion after public comment to continue it to the call of the chair.

Uh so let's call public comment on this item, please.

Thank you, madam chair.

Land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related specifically to agenda item number three, adaptive reuse of historic buildings.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern.

And if you are waiting for your time to speak, you can line up to speak along that western wall.

Is it two minutes?

Please.

Yes, but please, this is about the continuance.

So, yes, we're continuing with item.

Yes, okay.

Two minutes.

Yes, go ahead.

I'm commenting on the item since we were in the comment into the microphone and I'll start your time.

Where do I go to?

Either one.

Which one has the timer?

I'm gonna start your timer right now.

Thank you.

Okay, um, I'm here to comment on item number three, adaptive reuse of historic buildings.

I'm in favor of the continuance.

I call your attention to a piece, a piece by Heather Knight in 2007 when she wrote for the Chronicle, then Cafe Trieste and Neighbors rally to rescue a neighbor in need.

She described at the time the Promethean efforts made by a small cafe, Cafe Trieste, to assist a man who was homeless, who had mental health issues, and had been evicted for many SROs in the city.

The story is emblematic of what our small businesses do in North Beach and I believe throughout the city, helping those in need.

For them, customers are not merely dots on a flow chart, but their friends, their acquaintances, their neighbors, people who they care about.

A policeman from North Beach at the time in the night article says we have a homeless problem, right?

I don't understand why the city allows someone to be put on the street who can pay rent.

That problem in this instance was solved by a small business because of compassion and because the business, the owners, were small, they had the flexibility to act in the circumstances as they felt was needed.

We're asking for the same flexibility by supporting our small businesses that the mayor asked for himself in handling the homeless problem earlier this year when he came to all of you on the board.

I realize it's a subcommittee, and I supported him, as did other people in the homeless community, saying, yes, let's give the mayor flexibility to help the homeless.

That's what Cafe Trieste had.

And I promise you, uh, Starbucks would not have had that, because we know one thing for sure about Starbucks.

In 2018 in Philadelphia, they evicted, they arrested, they had removed from their store two African American men because they were, quote, sitting there without making a purchase.

I promise you that would not happen in North Beach or in San Francisco at any small cafe.

This is I just saw Supervisor Manelman come in.

I'll say that my favorite small cafe actually is uh uh little orphanandes in the castro.

I love that place and they're emblematic of our city.

Thank you for sharing your comments with the committee.

Let's have the next speaker for agenda item number three.

Good afternoon, Supervisor Cynthia Gomez Unit here, local two.

My comment is very, very short, which is just to say, yes, there are some issues uh with the adaptive reuse legislation, and we very much appreciate the chance for a continuance.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors, and thank you.

I'm Romolin Schmaltz.

I'm a North Beach working artist.

And uh this innocent sounding plan that I just heard about recently this week is a wild deregulation of our formula retail ban that has protected us from unfair competition since 2005.

It sure is a curious coincidence that just last week you passed Supervisor Souter's deregulation package, district three thieves, where for months he swore legislate his legislation would not invite formula retail to cannibalize our small businesses.

But this is calendarized the same week.

It's a big old welcome, Matt, for formula retail.

Don't even tell me.

Danny didn't know what his best Instagram buddy had up his sleeve when he when he was telling us, don't worry, don't worry, there's not gonna be any formula retail.

Heard that so many times over the last two months in this room, even it's insult to injury that Lurry and Souter have blocked our historic district and now are using our historic resources to further imperil our small businesses.

I just can't believe it.

I just wow.

So it's insult to injury, and I want you to please consider not um adopting this when you uh recalendarize it.

And um, seriously, like I I don't know how much our small businesses can take, but I mean, half of North Beach is like a historic building.

So I mean, we will just be Starbucks is just the beginning.

I mean, Starbucks is going bankrupt.

That's the last of their, you know, there's so much more.

Good grief.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, and thank you, supervisors.

I'm Apollo, a working musician and a North Beach resident.

Please vote no on this item or continue it.

Do not send it to the full board, at least without time to review.

As former supervisor and 2004 sponsor of original formula retail bands, Matt Gonzalez put it.

Well, this legislation purports to allow flexibility for uses in historic buildings.

It would reverse the formula retail prohibitions in the North Beach neighborhood commercial districts.

No review would be necessary to allow chain stores of any size to complete with compete with our small businesses.

Recently, our district three's supervisor, Danny Sellers sponsored sweeping commercial corridor legislation that ends many of our retail protections, all the while promising our formula retail ban would not be touched.

I guess he meant technically not by him, but he surely knew of Mayor Lurie's companion legislation here that can do precisely that.

Now these buildings are not only not included under historic protections, they're being weaponized as a loophole shaped portal to welcome the kinds of businesses that will cannibalize our small business only district.

None of my neighbors want this.

Please do not send this to the full board, and please consider how attacked my neighborhood businesses feel after months of reversals of the protection they've relied on for decades.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello.

Hello, my name is Pat Huey.

I'm a 40-year resident in San Francisco.

I am against the adaptive reuse of historic buildings idea as it is currently written.

It harms small businesses by allowing by preventing any kind of review for allowing for chain stores of any size to our neighborhoods.

It also excludes local historic buildings from being included in the historic district.

People come from all over the world to see our beautiful buildings in this, our beautiful architecture in this city, particularly in North Beach.

North Beach is unique.

Don't turn it into a modern shopping mall with a bunch of chain stores where if somebody is in trouble, they call the police instead of trying to help them, as Cafe Trieste, as a gentleman from Cafe Trieste said a few minutes ago.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, committee members.

I'm Heather Davies.

I'm speaking against this piece of legislation and asking you to bring it back to this committee before it is heard by the Board of Supervisors.

We will potentially use lose our produce markets and other stores that particularly serve our Chinese neighbors and myself.

I'm also opposed to it because please remember we have a private prison in the historically important 111 Taylor Street, which was the site of the Compton riots, which predates the Stonewall rebellion and is an important landmark for trans neighbors and residents of our city.

Don't make another mistake like that.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, again, uh Rami Tan, local architect here.

I'm speaking to support the idea of adaptive reuse.

Um, but we do need to make sure that we're looking at every project carefully to make sure the historic fabric of the historic building is retained.

Um, you know, listening to some of the speakers, I think the the issue with uh with the the chain store uh it's a separate issue, it should be taken out out of that and addressed as a as a separate issue.

Um there may be appropriateness for some chain stores like grocery stores or or that stuff.

Uh, but you know, we have to be very careful to make sure we are preserving the um the local small businesses and making sure that you know if there's a chain store nearby that it you complements and not competes against the small business.

And and you know, we have the conditional use process to uh go through that and make sure that you know we're you know looking at each case, you know, from a specific economic purpose.

So, you know, I I think you know we should move forward with historic um adaptive reuse, but again, take the can't take the change store issue out and make it a separate separate issue.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker for agenda item number three.

Uh thank you, uh supervisors.

Uh, in support of continuing this item, I think it does need more work.

Um, speaking on behalf of neighborhoods united SF today, we uh support the continuance and um hope that the will of the voters, which has specifically uh have specifically voiced their concerns in the past about formula retail in our neighborhoods, uh, will be heard.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments to the next speaker for agenda item number three.

Um I too uh hope that you will continue us while continue continue this item while you think long and hard about the in the uh tourist industry in San Francisco.

I just spent five days showing friends from the East Coast around San Francisco, and one of the things that they thought was wonderful and charming is that it didn't look like every other city in the United States that has chain retail all over the place.

It was San Francisco's unique, historic, the citizens have fought a long time to keep it that way, and we have reaped the benefits of tourism.

Don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Thank you for comments to the next speaker for agenda item number three.

Please come forward if you have public comment for this ordinance.

So I just wanted to put in a put in a plug for our friends at uh neighborhoods united SF.

They came up with a really excellent map, which is 3D.

I guess I don't know if anybody showed that today, but uh I was really impressed with that.

Um it's uh let's see I can use the uh URL you can type that in, it'll take you to their website.

You pull the mic closer to your mouth here so you can hear what you think.

Uh the old maps that we were looking at.

I'm gonna pause the speaker's time.

Just so you know, we're hearing agenda item number three right now, not agenda item numbers six through eleven related to the upzoning plan.

Okay, we'll be calling a separate public comment period for that, but you still have a minute and twenty seconds if you want to address the current public uh the current I guess I I'm misunderstood.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

Let's have the next speaker for agenda item number three.

Hi, my name is Lee Sargis.

I'm speaking to agenda item number three, adaptive reuse of historical buildings.

Um please vote no or send this back to continue.

It needs more work.

Uh this undermines our small businesses.

It not only opens the door but an incentivizes uh formula retailers to displace our small businesses.

And it it does, as someone mentioned, weaponize our historical resources and and it prevents any kind of review or community input.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number three proposed for continuance?

Madam Chair.

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

Um, I would like to make a motion that we continue this item to the call of the chair, please.

On the motion offered by the chair that this be continued to the call of the chair.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I.

Member Machman, Machmood I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Thank you so much.

Uh that item passes.

Now please call item number four.

Agenda item number four is an ordinance amending the planning code to require certain planning department fees to be paid to the department at the time the development application is submitted.

Modify the environmental review fees for large projects and remove the separate fee schedule for class 32 categorical exemptions under CEQA.

This ordinance affirms the planning department's secret determination, makes findings of consistency with the general plan of the priority policies of planning code section 101.1 and findings of necessity, convenience, and welfare pursuant planning code section 302.

It also appears on our agenda as a potential committee report, and it may be sent for consideration by the board tomorrow, November 4th, 2025.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Again, we have at Lisa Glackstein from uh the planning department to present on this item.

Oh, no, Ms.

Flores.

Thank you, Chair Malgar.

Veronica Flores, planning department staff.

This item is the planning fees ordinance introduced by the mayor.

The proposed ordinance does primarily two things.

First, this would shift the timing of the planning department fee collection from the issuance of the building permit to the submission of a development application.

And secondly, there would be changes to environmental review fees under the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA.

The planning commission heard this item on October 23rd and unanimously adopted a recommendation for approval.

This concludes the commission report.

I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh Ms.

Flores.

Colleagues, do we have any questions or comments on this item?

Uh and if not, let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Mr.

Thank you, Madam Chair, land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number four planning fees.

If you have public comment for this item specifically, please line up to speak along that western wall that I'm pointing out with my left hand.

And then come forward to the lectern if you are next to speak.

Looks like we have one speaker.

Please come forward.

Good afternoon.

I am speaking against delaying fees being paid associated with development.

With respect to how this will play out with the family rezoning plan, the developers who are not required to pay fees at the onset of the planning process, delay and starve the city of funds needed to support the review of this program, but also the construction of infrastructure.

And we don't that will lead to increased costs for our residents and for the city budget.

The developers who are serious about developing should pay their fees up front and fund the process by which they're going to receive value and profits and not require the city to carry that cost as well as the residents.

Thank you.

Listening to the presentation, it is a little unclear.

Um for many years.

The developers should pay a fee when they submit, and that fee should cover the costs of reviewing the plans and reviewing the plans only.

And then when they go into construction and they finish construction, they should pay the fee to cover the cost of any additional infrastructure that the project burdens onto the city, no more or no less.

And we cannot also charge fees to the developer that you know covers additional um infrastructure that is not associated with the project.

And I think the courts have made it very clear that if we do that, that's considered a taking and it's legal under the California and and federal laws.

So I hope that the planning department and and the committees uh review this very careful to make sure that um we're charging fair fees to the developers and clear fees so that there's no um no confusion and we can um get you know the much needed housing that that we we need here um built, you know, in an expedited fashion and not being delayed by unnecessarily fees and complications.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number four?

Thank you again, supervisors.

I just wanted to say on the record that I am definitely opposed to this legislation, and that um developers should definitely I don't why are we bending over backwards for developers like this?

I don't get it.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

Like, yeah, they should be paying their fees right up front.

Um, and that's all I have to say on this item.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number four?

Looks like we have someone coming forward.

If there's anyone else after this speaker, please line up to speak along that western wall.

I'm pointing out with my left hand.

Please begin.

I just have to second and reinforce the comment of what are we bending over backwards to accommodate developers?

What a cogent on point.

Please, let's stop doing that and represent your constituents instead.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number four?

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Um I would like to make a motion to send this item out as a committee report to the full board with a positive recommendation.

On the motion offered by the chair that this ordinance be recommended to the Board of Supervisors as a committee report.

Chen I, Member Machmud Machmoud I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Thank you so much.

Um we are now at item num-oh, there she is.

Great.

Uh number five, please, and Mr.

Clerk.

Agenda item number five is an ordinance amending the planning code to define legacy businesses and to require, sorry, is an ordinance amending the planning code to define legacy business and to require conditional use authorization prior to replacing a legacy business for a new non-residential use in certain neighborhood commercial named neighborhood commercial and neighborhood commercial transit districts and in the Chinatown mixed use district.

Amending the plan, excuse me, admitting amending the administrative code to allow a business that has been operating for 15 years to qualify as a legacy business, affirming the planning department's secret determination and making findings of consistency with the general plan as well as planning code section 302.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Clerk.

We are now joined by district one supervisor Connie Chan.

Supervisor Chan, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Malgar, and thank you so much.

And I'm really grateful for you and as well as for this committee for last week's really robust uh discussion and uh bringing this item with amendments back to the committee today to ensure that we can continue this conversation and utilize this critical uh legislative tool to protect our legacy businesses.

I again I I want to emphasize that legacy and long-time businesses are not just business entities.

They are cultural assets and are recognized as contributors to the neighborhoods that pave the way for other small businesses to thrive.

Um, you know, how dynamic uh Clements Street um is today if it weren't for uh legacy business like Green Apple or Toy Boats, that really been uh really being uh the angering business in in that space and that leading to newer business like Mama Hohoo or Pasa Supply.

Um, and those are amazing business too.

Um, but then you also have business somewhere in between, like the Chinese grocers, the on a field block like Meiwa and Game.

Um, and then you also have park life, and it's really creating a robust uh small business and really neighborhood commercial corridor.

Um, and it's the reason why I really hope to have your support today.

This ordinance uh really allow us to make sure that we protect our uh existing small business legacy business uh at the same time.

Should there be a situation where there is new development, we also can welcome new small businesses and further deter uh formula retail and corporate chains uh to be on our neighborhood commercial corridor.

The goal of a number uh uh of policies under the commerce and industrial elements objective truly uh uh really emphasize uh in this legislation, and that um it it really helped to think about the city's total living and working environment, our diversity of the city's economic vitality and employment opportunities, particularly for uh people of color and economically disadvantaged communities.

Um, thank you, and I really again want to thank you, uh Chair Malgar, for scheduling this today, and I hope to have your support.

Thank you, Supervisor Chan, and thank you for all your hard work on this issue, and you know, the larger issue of protecting small businesses as our city changes uh and makes way for change.

Um, I think it's important to support them.

Uh Supervisor Mahmoud.

I have a couple of questions for the planning department if they're available to answer about this legislation.

Um last time we were here, there was new amendments that were discussed.

Wanted to ask uh now that you've had time to review the amendments.

Um at the last committee hearing you had recommended not to proceed with this legislation, wanted to check based on the amendments.

How do the amendments look to you from your perspective and how do they change or are not your original affirmation?

Yeah, the planning department's recommendation stands to recommend disapproval of this ordinance, even as amended with the 500 or excuse me, five million dollar gross receipts threshold that uh the supervisor added as an amendment.

And why is that?

There are two reasons predominantly.

One is that the planning department is not in the business of looking at gross receipts.

Uh we don't have access to the tax assessor's records, and so it would be relying on a sworn affidavit by the business applicant uh to submit that documentation.

There's no means for the department to verify that because of confidentiality around tax records.

Um, the second reason is that generally the department does not believe that a CU requirement is the appropriate tool here to control for what is ultimately a business a small business support goal, and the department's very supportive of other methods like uh proactive fund to support small businesses and legacy businesses to help them with technical assistance and any sort of relocation expenses, that sort of proactive means, but controlling new businesses from moving into a vacant space that happened to be occupied by a legacy business in the past, um, the department believes that's not uh good for the overall urban fabric of our city.

So just to reiterate, you're saying that this legislation is focused on previously uh this legislation is focused on previously vacant legacy businesses.

It's not actually supporting the legacy businesses of today, it's focusing on a site or parcel that was a legacy business, and it is blocking a new business from coming in or having to go through a CU process instead.

That's correct.

Um, and the other thing I wanted to mention is that that we're also representing the commission's action and the commission recommended disapproval forward to two with the knowledge of those amendments being read into the record.

You're saying the small business commission, right?

Sorry, planning commission.

Planning commission, okay.

Um do you feel that this could create negative incentives with landlords potentially against legacy businesses going forward?

That's right.

There's actually a particular instance in which a legacy business asked to be delisted from the legacy business registry.

They were leaving the business, they they of their own decision, um, and they asked to be delisted because that like a particular business felt that it was unfair to their landlord with whom they had a good relationship, that there would be controls on the types of businesses that could move into that space after that vacancy.

Got it.

Thank you.

That helps answer my questions.

Um okay, before I go back to you, Supervisor Chan, I just wanted to um state that this is the rare occasion where I um, you know, differ a little bit from the folks in the planning staff.

Um, I think that you know the universe of legacy businesses in our city as opposed to the entire business, you know, universe of businesses is actually quite small.

And legacy businesses fill a pretty unique niche on our commercial corridors.

Given that we are also working on a rezoning plan that has the potential for some displacement.

I think that this coupled with a fund to assist the businesses as they have to uh you know adapt to the uh environment around them either by moving to another um space or you know, whether through construction on their block is, you know, is it's the right thing to do.

So I think that you know, having a space that is nearby that um where your customers already know what where to find you, is why isn't there, you know, I I like the amendments that Supervisor Chan has put in.

Um I do think there is a way to do it.

Um, you know, we do tend to have uh processes that support the needs of each department and then sometimes not cross-departmental collaboration, but I don't think that it cannot be done.

Um, so with that, uh Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, Chair Malgar, and thank you so much for your support.

And uh I think you know, one of the questions um that was asked uh by Supervisor Makmoot uh and answered by the planning staff about how one uh legacy business asked to uh not to be listed any longer.

I think that um another questions, and I look forward to the answer also is um then how many more actually asked to be registered once they learn this you know legislation.

Um, and I know that there's certainly more than one wanted to be listed as his legacy business and registered to be so uh and say recognize the potential um displacement risk and the benefits to it.

Um, this is no different.

Uh, and I wish um there's more legislative tool that we can do for both uh residential tenants and commercial tenants.

Um, and this is almost very similar to uh conditional um use authorization for demolition of residential flats uh and uh residential dwelling units and to be able to have a put a CU when you displace a legacy business and then to put in a new one uh is is one of the legislative tools that I think we can utilize and I also want to indicate that the previous version with the interim zoning control over 18 months had a unanimous support at the board supervisor um just last year, not too long ago.

So I look forward to having more of those discussions uh should this be able to vote it out today um and have this discussion at the full board with our rest of our colleagues.

Thank you.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair Malga.

Um I also want to echo and continue to uplift that uh this is a time where our small businesses are really going through a lot of tremendously uh risks.

We have seen um proliferation of state laws that make it easier to redevelop properties and bypass local planning review.

And as a result, many small and long-standing laborhood small businesses face growing pressures and uncertainties.

What troubles me more is that there are many gaps in the protections and supporting our small business.

There are so few remedies at our disposal to ensure that we do no harm.

In my own district, an SB 423 project is displacing several cherished neighborhoods serving small businesses that have been rooted in the community for many years.

Small businesses already face many challenges, and this new pressures result in uncertainty in their lease and store fund.

This is very destabilizing and undermining the essential fabric of our neighborhoods.

Our neighborhoods lose our business that provide critical linguistically, culturally, and economically accessible goods and services, as well as jobs and vitality for our working class and diverse communities.

Without stronger protection, we risk losing a very well establishment that gives San Francisco its unique identity.

We at this moment must do everything that we can to protect, to preserve, and to promote them, especially our legacy business that have served generations of residents and continue to hold our neighborhood together.

As San Francisco opens the door to increased development and new housing production, the impact on small business often gets lost in the conversation.

I don't disagree.

I don't think I don't agree with planning's uh assertion that this tool is not appropriate to address the land use issues.

I believe that our land use framework should be incentivizing the kinds of uses that deliver the kinds of benefit that legacy businesses do for our communities.

A stable long-term workforce anchor for our commercial corridor, as well as locally rooted merchants that have deep community connection to their surrounding neighborhoods.

This legislation provides some dis incentives to displace certain businesses and protect what is never and protect what is near and dear to us.

It provides an additional layer of protection for the legacy business that carry out our city's history, culture, community spirits, and create the character and sense of place that makes each neighborhood very special.

So thus I would like to support this legislation today.

Would you like to make a motion, Supervisor Chan?

Or wait, we have that public comment.

Okay.

Let's go to public comment, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before we go to public comment, just a quick bit of housekeeping to note that with the presence of Supervisor Chan now, as well as Supervisors Mandelman and Sauter in the chamber, we are presently constituted as a special quorum of the Board of Supervisors.

Conduct of this committee will still continue as usual with three voting members, but we do have a special quorum, so everyone knows.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number five, legacy businesses in neighborhood commercial districts.

If you have public comment for this agenda item specifically, please come forward to the lecturer at this time.

And if you're waiting for your time to give public comment for this item, you can line up to speak along that Western wall that I'm pointing out with my left hand.

Mr.

Wooding is up front.

You may begin.

Good afternoon, committee.

I just wanted to say very quickly.

She has four other amendments, and I think they should all be seriously looked at.

But that comes to number six.

But I want to thank you for adopting her legacy business.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

My name is Mark Bruno.

Thank you for letting me speak again on this issue, and I agree with the prior speaker that Supervisor Chance on amendments regarding legacy businesses are important to all of our neighborhoods.

I know in North Beach, where I've helped some businesses become legacy businesses, it's not an easy thing to do.

And I don't believe in contract I'd like to contradict very directly what planning said about oops, we're in trouble here because businesses could lie to us.

That was the implication of the comment by planning.

That after all, we don't have access to the tax assessors' records, and so we don't really know what their uh sales are every year.

I don't believe businesses are going to lie.

I don't believe they do lie, and I certainly don't think they're gonna lie to become a legacy business.

The benefits aren't that great.

When you read an affidavit or a deposition, all of you who are a lawyers know, it says right at the bottom, under penalty of perjury of the laws of state, that's the loss of penalty of perjury of California.

I swear to the that the above is true and correct, and I don't think a business is gonna lie about that.

So I think that it's a great piece of legislation, and I thank Supervisor Melgar, Chair Melgar, for supporting it, and please vote in favor of it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello again.

Um, I would just like to briefly speak in favor of um Supervisor Chan's amendment.

And um I I've written a few um supporting letters for legacy businesses over the years and and helped craft some of their um verbiage, and it is not easy.

It is not um, it is it is not an easy process, and I don't think that um we need to make that any more difficult.

And you know what Mark said about people lying on their applications and so forth.

I don't know anyway.

Please support Chan's amendment, and thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen.

Supervisors all for supporting this amendment.

The legacy businesses are part of our lives.

There is something very special when you walk into Mr.

Bings or your favorite other stores and restaurants.

They are part of our city's heritage.

It's part of our who we are and the history, and you can't recreate that with a new chain restaurant or store or entity.

I was part of a process to help our very tiny legacy yacht club on Treasure Island become a legacy business.

It's an it is a former Navy recreation club and has history that goes back throughout the Navy's presence on the site, as well, and it is well loved by many people who across the country who have been part of that history.

And I encourage you to protect these businesses and support this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Hello, I'm Yolanda with Small Business Forward, and we are here in support of Supervisor Chan's legislation to extend the requirement for a conditional use for sites where legacy business has been displaced.

In absence of having many other tools available or financial resources to support the successful relocation of a legacy business within their community, the conditional use is an imperfect but necessary mechanism to discourage the displacement of legacy businesses in the first place.

That is why Small Business Forward supports that the CU legislation be extended until other more effective protection measures are in place, such as commercial rent control, the right to return and relocation assistance.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Legacy businesses are staples in our communities.

They provide vital services and resources to our neighbors and help us live in the beautiful, vibrant walking cities that we enjoy.

If we cannot provide meaningful financial assistance to our displaced businesses, then ensuring conditional use is a good tool to prevent that displacement in the first place.

So thank you for supporting this amendment.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

I'm Justin with Small Business Forward.

I would also like to speak in favor of Supervisor Chan's legislation to extend the conditional use permitting process.

Supervisor Amud, I would like to get your earlier question and what I believe is a somewhat disingenuous response from planning uh to imply that this legislation exists to simply hamper a building owner of a vacant commercial space that sat vacant for a while, and now this is hurting a new business would like to come in, is quite obviously silly.

This legislation is intended to protect existing legacy businesses, pillars of their communities that are at risk of displacement because of a non-renewal of lease by their commercial landlord.

I'm thinking specifically of the Uptown, a bar in the mission that served its community for over 40 years and was evicted in bad faith by a commercial landlord who wanted to move them out, move in a shell business so that he could sell the building more expediently.

Now, in that scenario, we went for the commissional use permitting process.

It was unsuccessful, but we did get to make our voices heard.

We did get to express our opposition to this change.

Is the conditional use permit process perfect?

No, it is not.

But in lieu of further processes such as the right to return or commercial run control, it is a useful tool to disincentivize the closure and expulsion of our legacy businesses.

So I'm gonna speak in support of the legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello, my name is Pat Huey.

I'm um 40-year resident, and I'm just want to uh express my support for uh Supervisor Chan's legislation.

We need to support our legacy businesses, our city will lose so much by not doing this.

People who run these businesses, they are far better citizens than some corporate headquarters in Chicago somewhere.

I know so many visitors who come to our city and they just love that we have these legacy businesses.

What dull places they live in, how envious our our visitors are when they see our legacy businesses.

So please support uh Supervisor Chen's legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

My name is Lisa Argus.

I am uh speaking today in favor of Supervisor Chan's amendments.

In listening to the planning department, it occurred to me that I think it what is at odds is this urbanist view versus a community view.

And the planning department looks at small businesses as interchangeable units or cogs, not as unique, not as essential fabric of our community.

And I think that, you know, when I moved here 21 years ago, that was one thing that someone pointed out to me was how how much thought and care was taken into protecting our small business and to um trying to deter uh formula businesses from coming in.

I hope we don't lose sight of that.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker for agenda item number five.

Good afternoon.

My name is Steven Torres.

I'm a small business worker.

I'd like to also speak in support of this legislation and echo what was shared by Small Business Forward.

There are thousands of small business workers in the city, though it may be called imperfect, this is a way to protect their employment as well as we continue to hyper focus on other industries that we want to carry favor with or enticed to move to San Francisco.

We have to understand that the small business sector employs thousands of San Franciscans right now.

We need to protect them.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker for agenda item number five.

Hello, supervisors.

My name is Andy Katz, a North Beach native, and I support Supervisor Chan's legislation.

North Beach is filled with legacy businesses, and tourists come from near and far to our neighborhood because of these businesses and our rich history.

This makes up the heartbeat of our unique city.

Thank you, Supervisor Chan, for this legislation.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker for agenda item number five.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Uh Catherine Howard.

Um, I support Supervisor Chan's amendment her legislation.

A few years ago, there was a cartoon in the New Yorker, which I have unfortunately not been able to find.

If anybody can, please send it to me.

There are two people in a coffee shop, and one turns to the other and says, are we in this Starbucks?

Are we, or are we in the Starbucks down the street?

And this is, I think the whole thing in a nutshell, this is not what we want San Francisco to be.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Hello, again, Rami Tan, local architect.

I'm speaking uh generally in support of uh Supervisor Chan's amendment.

Uh, do want to make sure I think there's a little confusion again now with the planning staff to make sure that if the legacy business um has vacated because they wanted to close, retire or whatever, that that space is, you know, not considered a legacy business because that's you know the business is gone.

So we want to make sure that that space is quickly filled without any any delay, so we don't have a vacant storefront, which is really I mean, if you look at Stockton Street, Powell Street, San Francisco Center, it's all vacant, and it looks terrible and embarrassing every time we have a conference.

Um just kind of note how important to preserve the legacy business.

I was at an art opening yesterday in Pacifica, and uh local Pacifican artists painted the Green Apple bookstore.

So and then uh met uh some other people um over the week who you know came for the tech conferences, and you know, you know, they love going to you know city light books and you know, a lot cafe trieste, a lot of our very famous um legacy businesses.

So that's really part of our tourism and convention um uh revenues, so we have to make sure that we we do preserve that, but then at the same time making sure if those businesses close under their own accord that the space, the vacant space can be quickly filled.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker for agenda item number five.

Good afternoon, Supervisors Bridget Maley.

On behalf of Neighborhoods United SF, we support uh Supervisor Chan's comments uh amendments on this uh legislation, and uh we support our legacy businesses citywide.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Howard Wong, I'm a architect and a native of North Beach.

I support uh Supervisor Chan's legislation and legacy businesses.

When we travel, it's often very common for us to kind of look at guidebooks, look at websites, look at cities, and zero in on businesses that have been around 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 years, because those type of businesses reflect the essence and the soul of a city, and it's very important that we nurture those things that last.

You want to find out why.

Some financially tax breaks, tax incentives, incentives.

How do we keep those businesses around?

How do we build a neighborhood that has a character and legacy businesses are part of it?

But we have a whole role of legacy businesses.

That's pretty remarkable, and that's something we we should strive for.

Thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker for agenda item number five.

Um, hi, I'm representing um Deep Forward and from the just district deep port.

Um why do we have to come here not only to this committee meeting but to our city hall and have to fight for small businesses and residents, and anything for the big corporate businesses, just slide right by the entire family housing plan, gives it to the big corporations, and we're here begging for legacy businesses.

It's an outrage, really.

Please support not please support small businesses and residents in the city.

Let's have a turnaround here from the right wing shift that has happened in the city where everything's for the billionaires and the corporations.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number five?

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Mr.

Clerk, public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I want to make sure we make some comments based on what we heard public comment, but also from the planning department uh in regards to this legislation.

Um to start with, I am a supporter of the legacy business program, and our office has helped multiple applications under this program.

I cherish the impact these businesses have with deep roots in the community for 30 years or more, especially in the neighborhoods of district five.

And it's with that understanding actually that I cannot support this legislation due to the unintended consequences that our departments have indicated that they would have on neighborhood commercial districts because they outweigh the perceived benefits that they could offer to legacy businesses.

While it's true that having a conditional use permit may dissuade a landlord from forcing out a legacy business, as several commenters noted or asked, it's important to clarify that the rules in this legislation do not distinguish between whether that business vacated as a result of displacement forced by the landlord or they left voluntarily.

Without that distinguishing factor, we may lead to a higher rate of vacancies because we're not able to fill them because of this conditional use.

This would have a chilling effect as a separate unintended consequence, as the planning department indicated on the legacy business program because it turns what is a win-win situation into something that landlords may be more hostile to.

The conditional use authorization could also make it more difficult to fill spaces that can be a higher barrier for businesses.

We've already dealt with this in District 5 and across the city, where only formula retail more often formula retail businesses are able to provide grocery stores or pharmaceutical pharmacy stores, which are often formula retail.

And if we have a vacant storefront that could be a wholesale grocery store or could be a pharmacy, but we're adding barriers to fill a much-needed service in our city that is setting back the needs of our residents.

I'm glad that small businesses are exempt from needing a conditional use authorization under the new amendments that have been proposed, but this requirement to demonstrate business side business size is going to impede on those other goals that we have about filling empty storefronts.

While this legacy business programs are often community landmarks, new businesses should not be something to be feared, especially when they help to fill in much needed services like grocery stores and pharmacy services as well.

And because formula retail businesses in these areas need to get a conditional use authorization, it's local businesses that would suffer the most from this legislation.

So for that reason, I cannot support this legislation and will be agreeing with the planning department and the small business and the planning commission's affirmation on declining this legislation.

I look forward to working with everyone here on other ways to improve the outlook for our legacy businesses.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Before I go to you, Supervisor Chen, I'm just gonna make uh a couple points and then let you make the motion.

Um, first, you know, I think that uh while the you were correct, Supervisor Mahmoud about the differentiation of whether a legacy business went out to retired or uh was displaced.

Um it is a real world phenomenon that uh sometimes landlords uh will displace the business because it is in the way of uh development plans, and that is something that we see more often.

Um, and so because I think that this um particular legislation is targeted towards providing protection, you know, in the event of a rezoning conversation.

Um I think it's it's the right thing.

Um the second thing that um I will say is that the definition of a small business is consistent with the amendment that Supervisor Cheyenne introduced last week, uh which I also think is a good thing because we want to be using the same definition that the small business uh you know office uses that the um feds use, that everybody uses in terms of what is a small business.

So I think it's good to have that definition uh in the um legislation.

Okay, Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chairman Alga.

Uh I would like to make a motion to move item number five as a committee report with positive recommendations.

I'm sorry, uh Vice Chair Chen.

This item was not on our agenda as a committee report, and it may not be sent to the board meeting tomorrow.

If you could remake the motion, please.

I would like to make a motion to move item number five to the fullball with positive recommendations.

On the motion offered by Vice Chair Chen that the ordinance be recommended to the Board of Supervisors.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I.

Member Machmud.

Machmud no, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I.

Madam Chair, there are two ayes and one no with member Makmood in the descent.

Okay, that motion passes.

Thank you.

You thank you, Supervisor.

Thank you.

Um okay.

Now.

Let's go, Mr.

Clerk.

Two.

Items six through eleven.

Agenda item number six is an ordinance amending the general plan to revise the urban design element, commerce and industry element, transportation element, Balboa Park Station Area Plan, Glen Park Community Plan, Market and Octavia Area Plan, Northeastern Waterfront Plan, Van Ness Avenue Area Plan, Western Soma Area Plan, Western Shoreline Area Plan, Downtown Area Plan, and Land Use Index to implement the Family Zoning Program, including the Housing Choice San Francisco program by adjusting guidelines regarding building heights, density design, and other matters.

It amends the city's local coastal program to implement the Housing Choice San Francisco program and other associated changes in the city's coastal zone.

It directs the planning director to transmit the ordinance to the coastal commission upon enactment.

It affirms the planning department's secret determination and makes other findings.

Agenda item number seven.

Is an ordinance amending the zoning map to implement the family zoning plan by amending the zoning use district maps to first reclassify certain properties currently zoned as various types of residential to residential transit oriented commercial or RTOC.

Second, reclassify properties currently zoned residential transit oriented RTO to RTO1.

Third, reclassify certain properties from residential districts other than RTO to RTO1.

Fourth, reclassify certain properties currently zoned neighborhood commercial or public to community business C2.

And fifth, reclassify certain properties from public to mixed use or neighborhood commercial districts.

The ordinance also amends the height and bulk map to first reclassify projects in the family zoning plan, excuse me.

Reclassify properties in the family zoning plan to R4 height and bulk district.

Second, change the height limits on certain lots in the R4 height and bulk district, and third, designate various parcels to be included in the non-contiguous San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency sites special use district, also known as SFMTA SUD.

The ordinance also amends the local coastal program to first reclassify all properties in the coastal zone to R4 height and bulk district.

Second, reclassify certain properties to RTOC and neighborhood commercial district, and third, designate one parcel as part of the SFMTA SUD.

Fourth, it directs the planning director to transmit the ordinance to the local coastal commission, sorry, to the coastal commission upon enactment, and it affirms the planning department's secret determination and makes other findings.

Agenda item number eight is an ordinance which was duplicated from agenda item number seven and amended during the land use and transportation committee meeting on October 20th, 2025 to incorporate additional amendments, which first remove the base zoning and height and bulk changes to parcels in the priority equity geography special use district, except that any parcels in the RTO zoning in the priority equity geography special use district shall be reclassified to RTO1.

Second, it removes the base zoning and height and bulk changes to parcels located in the coastal zone north of Fulton.

Third, it removes two parcels in the coastal zone from the SFMTA SUD.

Fourth, it adjusts the base height for the R4 height and bulk districts for the street segments in the inner Clement N C D Outer Balboa and C D Geary Boulevard between 32nd and 43rd Avenue and other portions of Geary Boulevard, portions of Marina Boulevard, portions of North Point Street, and portions of Block 0025 along Hyde Beach and North Point Streets.

And it eliminates the proposed change from RH2 to Geary Boulevard NCD for assessor parcels block number 1070-002.

Moving on, agenda item number nine is an ordinance amending the planning code to first create the Housing Choice San Francisco program to incent housing development through a local bonus program and by adopting a housing system sustainability district.

Second, modify height and bulk limits to provide for additional capacity in well-resourced neighborhoods and to allow additional height and bulk for projects using the local bonus program.

Third, require only buildings taller than 85 feet in certain districts to reduce ground level wind currents.

Fourth, make conforming changes to the RHRM and RC district zoning tables to reflect the changes to density controls and parking requirements throughout the ordinance.

Fifth, it creates the RTOC, residential transit oriented commercial district.

Sixth, it implements the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's transit oriented communities policy by making changes to parking requirements, minimum residential densities, and minimum office intensities, and requires maximum dwelling unit sizes.

Seventh, revise off-street parking and curb cut obligations citywide.

Eighth, create non-contiguous San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Special Use District.

Ninth, permit businesses displaced by new construction to relocate without a conditional use authorization in way of development impact fees for those businesses.

10th, it makes technical amendments to the code to implement each of the above changes.

11th, it makes conforming changes to zoning tables in various districts, including the neighborhood commercial district and mixed-use districts.

And 12th, it reduces usable open space and bicycle parking requirements for senior housing, and it amends the business and tax regulations code regarding the Board of Appeals review for permits in the housing choice program housing sustainability district.

Also, it amends the local coastal program to implement the housing choice San Francisco program and other associated changes in the city's coastal zone.

It also directs the planning director to forward the item to the Coastal Commission.

Agenda item number 10 is an ordinance which was duplicated from agenda item number nine and amended during the land use and transportation committee meeting on October 20th, 2025 to incorporate additional amendments, which first amend the local program to exclude projects that demolish or substantially alter category A historic resources, demolish, remove, or convert dwelling units or residential flats, or demolish or convert any portion of a tourist hotel.

Second, it amends the local program to state that other city laws would apply to local program projects, such as dwelling unit mix requirements in section 207.7.

Article 4, development impact fees and requirements, displace business requirements, tenant protections in the planning code or SF rent ordinance or other permitting or licensing requirements outside the planning code.

Third, it requires that projects comply with the inclusionary ordinance through off-site units or land dedication to provide these units within a half mile of the project.

Fourth, it amends the local program approvals to expire if the project sponsor fails to obtain a building permit within 30 days, subject to six-month extension.

Fifth, it amends the local program to include additional bonus square footage of 250 additional square feet for each two-bedroom unit in excess of the dwelling unit requirements for the local program.

Sixth, it amends the housing sustainability district to prohibit any projects using the housing sustainability district streamlining from demolishing or substantially altering category A historic resources or demolishing or converting any portion of a tourist hotel.

Seventh, it amends the SFMTA SUD by adding findings regarding the purpose of the SUD, adding pre-application requirements and excluding properties in the coastal zone.

And eighth, it removes the exemption included in the ordinance in board file 250701 that did not require a conditional use authorization to merge, reconfigure, or reduce a residential flat if the project adds at least one unit.

And finally, agenda item number 11 is a resolution that transmits to the California Coastal Commission for review and certification an amendment to the implementation program and land use plan of the city's certified local coastal program to implement the family zoning plan and it affirms the planning department's secret determination.

Madam Chair, items 6 through 11.

Thank you, Mr.

Clark.

It's a lot.

Okay, so uh I want to welcome my colleagues who are still here, who are not on the land use committee.

Uh we have Supervisor Soder in Dorsey.

Uh, and we did have Supervisor Chan and Mandelman earlier, and they may come back in.

For the folks who are standing for public comment, I just want to let you know that we have presentations of each of the items as well as the economist report and some comments from my colleagues before we go to comments.

And I know everyone is really eager, but just in the interest of people's feet, I just wanted to let you know it's gonna be a moment.

Um so with that, uh I would also like to uh respectfully request to my colleagues that we hold our questions and comments until after the presentations from staff.

So after the presentations, uh we will have uh the supervisors ask their questions, you know, share their comments about the economists report because I know people have a lot of thoughts about that.

Uh we also have staff from the planning department available for questions.

Um since all the amendments were introduced, I know folks have a lot of questions.

Um supervisors can discuss any proposed amendments so that the members of the public are able to hear about them before we go to public comment.

Then we will go to public comment.

Each speaker will have two minutes per speaker.

And I wanna note that while amendments will be discussed, no motions will take place until after public comment.

I also want the members of the public to know that after amendments are adopted.

I will make a motion uh to request that the items, all items be continued to the Monday, November 17th, 2025, to allow time for further review.

So with that, I would like to welcome our Teeth Economist Ted Egan to make his presentation.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Egan, for uh your hard work uh and for this contribution to our process.

Well, Mr.

Egan is coming up.

Just a reminder, i everyone needs to get their get back in their seats.

It's gonna be a while before we get to public comment.

Please take your seats again.

Thank you, Chair Melgar, and good afternoon.

Supervisors Ted Egan with the Office of Economic Analysis.

Um, please.

Last week our office issued an economic impact report on two of the items before you, and I'm going to briefly summarize that report and happy to take any questions at this time.

Uh specifically, our report covers the zoning map amendment item 250700, which raises some building heights and changes some of the zoning districts, and also 250701, which implements the housing choice San Francisco, the local program.

There were amendments that were made prior to the release of our report on October 20th.

That should be those are not considered in our analysis or in this report.

And I would just like to stress that this report comes about because of the controller's office uh independent responsibility to review legislation for economic impact.

This has nothing to do with the state planning process or the compliance of any of the city's planning efforts with state uh with state law.

Um you're already quite familiar with the plan, and I'm not going to go through the introductory sections of this uh report for that reason.

I'll go straight to the economic impact factors.

Uh essentially uh they come about from the the costs and benefits of more development.

Relaxed zoning leads to more redevelopment in a city with little vacant land that has some positive effects.

The increased housing supply we can expect uh puts downward pressure on housing prices, it stimulates investment in construction and related industries that are part of the construction process, and it also supports the city's economy, getting larger through a larger population, more customers and more workers in the city's economy.

The primary negatives of the redevelopment are the loss of existing housing units and also displacement and relocation costs for some businesses.

And these are the factors that we consider and try to quantify in our report.

Fundamentally and most importantly, the economic impact depends on the amount of housing that the rezoning will lead to.

For this report, we've defined a statistical model that we've worked on over the past nine or ten years that predicts how housing production changes based on policy changes.

This model is based on 20 years of data in the city, whether or not it produced housing and how much, and that covers every parcel in the city.

It's a statistical model, and it found certain statistical factors make housing more likely.

Those are things like higher housing prices, lower construction costs, higher allowable height, and a larger building envelope on the site.

Are the existing properties on the site smaller?

The lack of any existing residential units makes housing more likely.

The lack of historic resources makes housing more likely.

A location closer to downtown makes housing more likely, as does form-based zoning and eligibility for the state density bonus.

And when a parcel does build housing, the number of units that it produces is further a factor of the size of the building envelope, whether it's eligible for the state density bonus and whether or not the zoning is density restricted.

So essentially, the model enables us to take estimates and forecasts of information for all of the parcels in the rezoning to estimate the expected number of housing units each parcel could produce over our 20-year forecast period, and we are adding that up over the entire city to get our totals.

Like any statistical model, it has limitations.

I mentioned on the previous slide a lot of the data that we look at to make the model.

That is not everything that affects the likelihood of housing for every parcel at every time.

So there's specific site features we don't have data for.

We can't put in the model.

Our treatment of land use policy is really at the level of what zoning district is it in.

Obviously, there are many more many more dimensions of the policies that are in the plan than that, and we don't have enough data to calibrate the model at such a fine-grain level.

Additionally, the model covers or was calibrated on the period of 2004 to 2024.

The end of that period, after 2020, development in the city has been heavily curtailed because of our post-COVID economic situation.

But during that time, both the city and the state have implemented new policies to accelerate housing development.

They might make housing much more likely in the future in ways that our model can't possibly predict.

So those are, I think, two significant limitations of the model, but still, when we look at our responsibility of what's producing an estimate of the citywide economic impact, and we need a housing estimate for it, we still think this is the best approach for our purposes.

To do this, we need to make reasonable forecasts of what the future housing market might be in San Francisco over the next 20 years, and so on.

Now I'm going to turn to those questions this time in both scenarios, which is slower than what they've done in the past.

This is a look at the relatively wide spread of housing prices that come about from our two scenarios that I just discussed.

This is indexed here to 2016.

So you can see that, for example, in the low growth scenario, by 2045, we're just barely back to where we were in 2016 in housing prices, and under the high growth scenario, we're about 80% higher than we were in 2016, adjusted for inflation.

So this is quite a wide spread, reflecting I think the real uncertainty about what the city's economy will look like over the next 20 years.

So as I mentioned, we developed this model in this forecast to allow us to estimate how much housing would be created by the zoning.

We also have to, of course, estimate how much zone, how much housing would be created on the same parcels under the existing zoning.

And under the low scenario, that number is around 1,600 and around 3,200 under the high growth scenario.

There is significantly more under the proposed rezoning, about 10,000 under the low growth and close to 18,000 under the high growth.

And the net effect of the proposed rezoning then is about 8,500 units for the low growth scenario and about 14,650 for the high growth scenario.

I should mention this is not considering the effect of housing units that would be lost during the redevelopment, but I'll talk about those in a moment.

This is a summary, and this table is quite complicated, and I won't talk about everything in it, but it is a summary of the results by the current zoning district.

And for those who are not sort of familiar with the codes the planning department used to describe zoning districts, RH1, RH2, and RH3 are essentially residential zones.

The vast, vast majority of the parcels in the family zoning plan are those parcels.

Under current zoning, under either scenario, they have a really negligible chance of being developed into housing or redeveloped as housing.

Under the two scenarios, their likelihood of developing housing over the next 20 years goes up a lot, but it's still quite low.

So, for example, the 43,000 RH1 single family parcels have a likelihood of developing housing in 20 years of less than 0.5%, which suggests that maybe one house in 200 would be redeveloped for higher density housing.

You can also see on the rightmost column the change in the number of housing units for that number is less than 5,000 for those three zones out of about 80,000 parcels.

For example, the public publicly zoned parcels, which are far fewer, we're forecasting under the high growth scenario to produce more housing than all of the residential zones combined.

Our model that's able to estimate how much new housing is produced can also estimate how much existing housing is lost, and that would be our estimate is 463 units lost over 20 years under the low growth and slightly over a thousand in the high growth.

In either scenario, that translates into 6 to 8% of the housing units gained.

So for every 100 units gained, it's six to eight that are lost through the redevelopment.

The report discusses potential financial harms to tenants that could come about from eviction, and also the potential demolition of rent controlled units.

That is quite challenging to quantify because of the really lack of data, recent data on the demolition of rent-controlled units, and it's the loss of the rent-controlled units and the termination of rent controlled tenancies that would bring about the financial harms to tenants.

So while that is possible, we just don't feel that we have the data to try and incorporate that in our analysis.

Taking the housing production net of the lost units I just discussed and its impact on housing prices.

Under the two scenarios, it's between a two and 3.4% growth in housing supply.

We forecast that that would lead to a 2.5% to 4.2% drop in housing prices, and this would be 20 years hence when the housing would be completed.

And those numbers there just indicate that in terms of context, what that means in terms of today's housing prices or today's annual rents for market rate asking rents for apartments in the city.

Some disruption and relocation costs associated with that, and we've annualized that cost is between 16 to 28 million dollars a year.

All of this, the investment, the decline in housing prices, the loss of residential units, and the displacement and relocation costs for businesses.

We entered into the RIMI model, which we use for economic impact analysis in our office.

And under the low growth scenario, the result of the family zoning plan would make the economy about 560 million dollars larger, leading to an increase of about 3,000 jobs.

Under the high growth scenario, it's a 940 million increase to GDP or about 5,000 more jobs.

The job gains are found in every sector, but are particularly found in construction, health care, real estate, and the accommodation and food services sector.

We can note that despite the replacement displacement of some businesses, who may be retail trade in particular, retail trade is also forecast to grow.

So just to summarize, COVID and the post-COVID economy in San Francisco has really changed the context for development in San Francisco.

The decline in housing prices in the city has been real, as has been the increase in construction costs, and that will make it challenging for the city to replicate the levels of housing construction, even with such an expansive rezoning program that we saw in the previous decade.

And there is obviously a range of economic impacts that we're forecasting here because of the uncertainty of what will happen to the city's economy.

But under both scenarios, the economic impact is clearly positive.

And what we see is the positive factors of lower housing costs and additional residential investment outweigh the negatives by quite some margin.

So that's the summary of my report, and I'm happy to take any questions now.

Okay, do it.

Do it.

Okay, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you, City Economist, for the presentation and the context on some of the metrics for this economic impact analysis.

I had a couple questions about we were seeing the results of your report.

There's been projections from the planning department as well.

Then the planning department is saying that the plan will help produce 30, 36,000 additional units by 2031.

And that's based on looking historically at how much of our zone capacity has been built year over year.

Do you think the planning department's methodology for that claim is a reasonable analytical model for predicting what development this rezoning will produce in the next five years?

How does your model differ and why the difference in the assumptions?

Well, as I mentioned, the model that we refine for this is the latest iteration of a model that our office started working on, I think in 2016.

And at that time, when we were considering alternative approaches for doing this, I mean, obviously, it's a fairly complex model, and it always has been.

But we felt that in the past, people had kind of tried to do representative proformas of projects that seemed representative of other projects and said, well, how feasible are those proformas?

And what we found from that is there's just too much variation across parcels in the city to look at a few prototypes and extrapolate from there.

We really needed a methodology that went in parcel by parcel and sort of did the best we could do in terms of making an estimate about what any individual parcel would do.

I think your question about the planning department's choices are barely better directed to the planning department, but that's the rationale for the choice that we made.

How does the threshold of reasonable capacity the question of reasonable capacity has come up in the context of this plan?

How does the threshold of reasonable capacity that the planning is using differ from yours?

Well, I would say the issue of reasonable capacity doesn't really come up in the context of an economic development report.

The only thing that has economic development is new housing.

And and one of the things that's that's important about our model is it's calibrated against actual housing production.

And of course, there's always a challenge of you know, you can um look at the building envelope that you create with um uh an upzoning, and you look at what's there now and you can measure that difference, but how much of that is actually going to happen is the challenge.

Um but I think to answer your question specifically, it's just it's not something that we're concerned with in the economic impact report, the question of reasonable capacity.

What we're trying to do is actually estimate how much housing would occur under specific assumptions, and one could make other assumptions about what the housing market might do in the future.

Is it correct to say that you're answering a different question than the planning department is trying to answer?

I mean, again, I'm not an expert on the question the planning department is answering, but uh I do think that's the answer that's the question that we're trying to answer.

Is is we can't really assess the economic impact until we have an estimate of how much housing will be created.

Okay.

Um it's no uh mystery that the amount of specific units you are estimating is maybe it's apples to oranges comparison with how the planning department is asking the question, but the number is about a third of what the the mayor's office has projected.

In your opinion, what would be some ways to improve the plan to generate a higher number of units given we do still have to meet housing element goals?

Uh I'm afraid that's a difficult question for me to answer on the fly.

I just that hasn't been part of our study on this so far.

Are there gaps or levers that you identified in the model that you feel based on your assumptions where different parts of the assumptions were lacking in terms of that that variable was not as highly uh leveraged?

Well, our report does lay out what we think clear policy levers are for increasing housing production, and that could be a starting point.

And I'm I'm I don't think those variables that I listed are a surprise to anyone.

Um but if you're asking the question, have I done any work to figure to do sensitivity analysis to see what would lead to more housing production under our assumptions?

I have not done that work.

Okay.

Um, did you incorporate the potential impact of SB 79 into your analysis as well?

Uh no, we did not.

Why not?

Um SB 79 is um not part of the ordinance that is before you.

We looked at the height increases and the zoning changes that are part of the ordinances that are before you.

But it is recognized that it will have implications should this not pass or certain components not be introduced, it has an effect on zoning capacity.

Uh okay, I understand your question.

We did not consider as a baseline that if this was not adopted, SB 79 heights would go into effect.

That was not in our baseline.

Our baseline is simply um the existing zoning and the existing heights.

Got it.

Thank you.

That's my questions for now.

Thank you, supervisor.

Supervisor Connie Chan.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, in your um evaluation, was it inclusive of affordable housing production?

No, our model doesn't make any distinction between market rate and affordable housing production.

But did it include at all of affordable housing production?

Any affordable housing production would be incorporated in the numbers that we're showing here.

Because I I'm kind of curious.

Here it says zero production for the Richmond in terms of housing production.

I think maybe maybe I'm incorrect, uh, or maybe me maybe I misunderstood.

In uh one of your slides, you know, in discussion about like housing production, I think it indicated there's a zero units that was for uh two thousand between two thousand and two thousand twenty-four for the Richmond.

And uh so I'm just kind of curious because even then I I would think that both market rate and um and affordable housing units have been produced in the last like three years in the Richmond.

So I'm just trying to curious, like what it's happening there, and or maybe I misunderstood.

It's it's your seventeen of your slide.

I understand, and it's a good question that I don't have uh an answer for at the top of my um fingertips.

Um the only thing I would say is that these are not the entire planning districts, just the area that are rezoning, but I would I I can go back and check that.

I would appreciate it.

Only because I know just right at the top of my head that there's 98 units of you know, 100% affordable housing, we tell it all the time, and then clearly there's also plenty of market rates, like they're not a lot and significant, they're just roughly about 10 units here and 12 units there.

So I'm just kind of curious curious about the discrepancy there and try to see if it was it because you try to differentiate market rate and affordable housing.

Um with that though, I I wonder if this is a question.

Maybe it's not just to you, but a mix to planning, but I I think because you indicated you're evaluating sites, um, try to be realistic about whether housing production is possible based on site feasibility.

Um, and then here's my questions.

You know, I I saw look at the file.

I'm trying to understand better uh what these uh lots really are, and and one of the file that is included in the planning co-amendment with the family house with family zoning plan.

One is a rezoning lower income sites.

That's uh that's uh item 23 in the in the legislative file, and then also the housing elements 2022 reuse sites, and they are both files that actually has specific lots uh block lots and addresses, and for example, 1175 Columbus Avenue.

I know that I identify some of them like 35, 30, 35 Gary Boulevard, and some of them are sites that I'm familiar with, and some of them are not.

Is there a is there an answer to sort of like are these the sites that we're looking at for both affordable housing and potential develop uh sites that we can actually develop housing, and if so from planning, then back to our you know, Mr.

Egan, where then there's a sort of mashup and say looking at these sites, how feasible are they in your indication and projection of housing production.

Good afternoon, Supervisors Joshua Switzer, the planning staff.

To answer your question, Supervisor Chan, though those lists, the uh low income sites lists and the reuse sites list.

There's not a direct connection to Mr.

Mr.

Egan's work, and I'll explain what those lists are.

Uh first uh simply the reuse sites is simply a list of of sites that the planning department included on our sites inventory that were listed in the prior housing element.

So for all sites that were previously listed, we have to carry those over because there are certain state laws that apply to the entitlement of housing on reuse sites.

The low-income sites list um is a subset of of sites that we are rezoning that we are projecting are reasonable development sites based on their level of underdevelopment, and based on the uh capacity of those sites that fall they fall within a certain range.

There are sites over a certain size, and also they're not they're not too big.

There are sites that generally fall within the range of sites that the mayor's office of housing would typically identify as potential sites for 100% affordable housing.

They're generally they um they have a capacity.

There's slightly there actually there are more sites on there than probably the mayor's office housing would build on.

There are some at the smaller end that also there's particular uh state housing element law about what qualifies as a low-income site as a site that has at least 16 units of capacity.

Other jurisdictions, you know, maybe built at a smaller scale, and that's what state law recommends.

So we basically identify a set of subset of of all of the the rezone sites that we think are reasonable development sites, and uh we identify those for for the state.

And the implication of those is that they um uh they uh projects that achieve certain minimum amounts of affordability have to be approved uh ministerially, um and there are certain minimum density provisions which apply to those sites.

And sorry, and then I guess now I'm taking those quick questions, and that will be my last question, Chair.

Um, is then with a combination of these two lists, uh, what is the projection of housing uh number units that can be produced based on these two sites list?

Off the top of my head, I don't I don't have we don't have those immediately.

We could find those numbers for you.

Um the reuse sites doesn't necessarily have a specific number associated with them, it's just uh some of them are not even in the rezoning area.

There are sites all over the city that were previously listed and that are being listed again.

Um I could find the information for you on the uh uh the uh low income housing sites.

It's that it's thousands of units, it's probably tens of thousands of units.

Great.

I just out of curiosity, and and this is my statements, and thank you, Chair, and I'm my apologies, Mr.

Egan, for sort of changing the subject.

I guess uh it's it's all I'm trying to understand is within the context of projection of how many units that we can produce as a city, both from an economic standpoint, but from a also uh feasibility from the sites that it's available.

I'm just trying to understand with the sites that previously identified clearly in 2022 and again 2023, we have identified low income sites.

Well, technically we would call them affordable housing sites, uh, as well as perhaps a mixed income or mixed sites.

Um it seems like I would like to understand them based on the lots of those two lists.

What is the projection and will that actually bring us to the mandate of 36,000 units or will it not?

And is it something outside of of this both this report and outside of maybe we need more from there?

Yeah, so we have to identify uh sufficient sites with sufficient capacity that meet the low income standards of the state uh to meet as that's part of this rezoning exercise is not just to create overall capacity, but also to identify sites that that meet the state's low income um minimum criteria that qualify.

So, yes, this proposal does provide sufficient sites to meet the low-income standards.

Of course, we know that the actual production of those units is certainly dependent on available funding and other other things besides besides the zoning, but we do are providing sufficient sites.

Thank you.

And I I think it's just uh one more thing that I would like to just understand better and to see how we can be more strategic and surgical in the way we up zone the our city and instead of sort of just this one size fits all approach.

Thank you, Chair.

I really appreciate you allowed the time.

Thank you, uh Supervisor Chan.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Egan, for your analysis for this this report.

Um, having developer, you know, rezoning, I would think there must be some reasonable expectation for developer to build.

It's like they will assume that the rents that they can charge are high and we'll keep increase, right?

And also um, this is probably how our developers can continue to use this to address the earning uh earnings and expectation of the investors.

Um, so based on the model uh on increasing rents in order to entice developers to build, uh, this continue to seem to be reinforcing the dynamic that we have been seeing repeatedly in San Francisco for over the last decade.

Uh the city, it's overbuilding housing supply that most San Franciscans cannot afford.

Um so it I also see that in the report uh we the proposed zoning, the proposed rezoning will lead to a negative 2.5% to a negative 4.2% change in housing price in the city by 2045.

Um so for a two-bedroom apartment today, the rent uh the rent is around 3,700 per month.

That would mean a potential reduction between $92 and 155 dollars.

I'm really not very impressed with the number.

Um I also see that, especially because the price we are being asked to pay for this outcome, including them demolishing existing housing where existing resident residential tenant and small business will put at a higher risk of displacement.

And we should be pursuing strategy that to do no harm.

So I also believe that there must be more tools in our toolbox that we can and we should explore a strategy that will more likely in resolving more affordable housing.

So, besides what uh Supervisor Connie Chan talked about, uh, did your analysis explore any other strategy that could resolve a more affordable rent?

Uh no supervisor, we were simply trying to estimate the economic impact of the ordinances.

Okay.

So I I want to be clear that I requested a report from the budget and legislative analysis to analyze to have an analysis of our city's strategy to create more affordable housing and I'm hopeful that we can explore additional policies and revenue strategy to make sure that we solve our fundamental problem which is the housing affordability crisis for our future generation for our workforce for families and seniors in the city.

Thank you.

Okay please if you approve of something someone saying just hands up in the air no audible activities please okay supervisor solder.

Thank you, Chair Melgar.

Thank you for your work on this I just have a few questions.

I noted that you mentioned construction costs um projections around that.

Did you look at interest rates as well?

How did you account for that?

Um interest rates actually wound up not being a significant uh variable in the model.

And we know that um you know one outcome of the next few months uh if we do not have a compliant uh plan is a builder's remedy scenario did you look at that outcome no we did not um I will think of public uh you know you broke down the different categories of housing production looks like public sites that category was number two in terms of uh the second highest source of units can you remind me when you did that analysis what affordability um percentage did you look at and I asked that because there are um for for production of units um and I asked that because there are suggestions and amendments before the body of for public sites in particular of higher affordability requirements.

We did not vary affordability requirements and affordability requirements are actually not a variable that was part of our model.

That is really a function of the the higher developability on the public parcels is largely a function of the fact that they are relatively larger parcels with smaller buildings per you know lot square foot and are getting significant height increases.

But you don't go one step further and look at scenarios and outcomes with different affordability requirements for those large sites?

No we did not have sort of site specific 20 year history of affordability requirements to see how changing affordability requirements would affect availability on a parcel I mean that is part of the policy toolkit that is just too detailed for us to be able to model with this.

And then in terms of you know kind of sources of new units did you look at specifically at units that are projects that are already in the pipeline did you look at um potential conversions uh from from office to housing did you consider those two sources?

No we only looked at the parcels that are being rezoned as part of the family zoning plan and the difference between what we estimate uh would be produced under the current zoning and under the proposed zoning okay thank you those are all my questions.

Thank you a supervisor uh supervisor Mandelman thank you uh Chair Melgar and thank you Mr.

City Economist for uh your work on this report um I guess I I also have questions about sort of what's in what's out and it looks like other I mean uh Supervisor Mahmoud I think asked about SB 79 but there have been a ton of local and state changes in law around processing and around reducing uncertainty for developers and property owners with the idea that that that not just would we be speeding applications along but that more people might be coming in and more entities would be trying with taking on development projects that they might not otherwise have done because the process is easier.

And it looks like from your presentation that was not a factor in your in your analysis, or those changes were, or um what I would say is that many of those changes occurred during a time when the development climate in the city was weak, and we can't really see what how effective they would be in a healthier housing market.

Right.

I mean it occurs to me that a lot of that is sort of 2018, 2019, 2020 to presence, which is a not a you know, we're in a we've been not in a strong development environment in that time.

So, and sort of hard to figure out how I mean the reason you didn't, why didn't you look at it?

Why didn't you try to figure that out?

Um we did have a variable in the model for when the state uh density bonus was strengthened in 2016, which is very positive.

Um, but we yeah, we did not have a way to sort of um parse out other specific state or local policy changes, and we just felt that uh particularly the ones that went into effect, say post-2019, we would be underestimating their value anyway.

So, so uh just to conclude my answer, you could argue that our that that is uh leads to an underestimate in our behalf of what you know the housing element, the housing uh rezoning might actually produce with those with that with those um enhancements in place.

Hard to know, but if all of this state legislation and the local efforts to implement and comply with it have meant very much, presumably the numbers would be larger going forward.

Right.

I mean, but I don't think you can judge the current climate and sort of indict those policies on that basis.

That's the issue because it might be that if we get closer to 2017, 2020 eighteen housing prices, you get that much more housing because of these changes in law.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Um so before I go back to you, uh, Supervisor Mahmoud, I also wanted to ask some questions.

Um you mentioned during uh your presentation that uh you were not um the data that you have on the demolition of rent controlled units wasn't sufficient for you to do an analysis.

So why is that?

Well, the demolitions are not only of rent controlled units.

That's the f that's the first hurdle is we have an estimate of how many housing units are on each parcel, but I don't have an estimate of how many of them are subject to rent control.

Do you have an estimate of how many of the demolitions were of units that were built before 1979?

I do not.

I see.

Um, okay.

Uh what uh would be the increase in rents in San Francisco over the next 20 years if we were not to adopt the plan?

I think that that's the right comparison to whether 125 dollars is adequate or not.

Well, um I I would say that would be, and again, that would be under the assumption that the current zoning just continues.

Yes.

Yeah, then we would be looking at somewhere between two and a half to four percent higher rents than we do now.

And somewhere in the report, I believe it's on page uh um 21.

We sort of estimate that as between 900 and 1500 a year.

An increase.

Yes.

Or you know, a di a reduction that is deferred is effectively an increased.

Correct.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Um the other question that I had for you was uh when the last big rezoning that I remember us passing was the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan.

Did we do an economic analysis when we passed that?

Yes, I did.

And what how does that compare to this economic analysis?

Well, it was many years ago, and one of the reasons we developed this model is because we didn't have a model like that to do eastern neighborhoods, and I don't think it was the most fine-grained analysis as a result of that.

Um but we found that eastern neighborhoods, you know, on a net was a downzoning and the economic impact was negative.

And this is a net upzoning and the economic impact is positive.

Okay, thank you so much.

Uh, you know, there's been lots of chatter in the press about this plan.

I do uh think that uh I'm glad that folks understand a little better what the chief economist does uh for our city, and I uh I'm very appreciative of your work.

I actually thought this was a very good report, and uh sobering uh also because uh despite the attention and anxiety that this whole process has cost uh with folks, um what it says, what your report says to me is that zoning is one factor in a lot of things that it takes to produce a housing um and to build out a city, um, and those were not things that uh you necessarily uh put in as variables like um interest rates and uh you know the overall availability of affordable housing dollars and many of the other things that need to happen, and that this body has a responsibility to make happen if we want to see the outcomes that we say we want to see.

So thank you so much uh for everything uh in this report.

I appreciate it.

Uh and I will go back to Supervisor Mahmud.

Uh forgive me for asking a couple more questions about the the nerd me wants to go into the logistic regression model that you used.

Um, just going through the appendix.

Sure.

Um, correct me wrong, but the the logistic regression is looking at the past behavior to predict future behavior, correct?

And so it looks like given the main component of this plan is predicated on the local density bonus program.

Is it correct to say that your estimates for you looked at how much housing is gonna be produced and agnostic to a plan being forced as like step one of the methodology?

And then you looked at step two of the methodology, was to look at based on the state density bonus program how that has resulted in increased capacity historically, correct?

That's what the regression looks into.

Um the logistic regression covers every parcel year combination from 2004 to 24.

During that period, the state density bonus is strengthened and has a significant impact on developability post-2016.

So it is one regression that covers both periods.

So then given are we using the state density bonus program as a way to project how the local density bonus program is going to behave?

It's an though that is an excellent nerdy question, supervisor, if I may say so.

Um and that question, my consultants and I spent a lot of time debating.

And the short answer is no, and you describe in the appendix.

We we came up with a rule that basically says whether a parcel would take under what conditions the parcel would take the state density bonus versus the local program, and the benefits of the local program for for the purposes of our modeling is simply that they get the benefits of form-based zoning, which are profound and which accounts for a lot of the growth in housing even when there isn't height increase that happens there.

So did you ask did this regression estimate a what is there a different coefficient for a parcel that gets a local density versus a state density bonus program?

And do we have an estimate what that factor difference is?

It's actually a different calculation in terms of calculating the expected number of units depending on whether they take the local program or the state density bonus.

And that logic is on like page 37 of the report.

It's in the appendix somewhere, and I'm I'm happy to go through with you.

Well, me.

Tell me what is the differential between the local program and the state density.

It's not a differential in the sense that there's one coefficient that you could point to.

Um it's that when you um you when a parcel takes the state density bonus, the units calculation is a function of the envelope, plus a bonus that's associated with the state density bonus, and plus if applicable, a penalty if the parcel is density restricted.

Okay.

If it takes the local program, it gets actually the local program height as the base height, and no state density bonus bonus, and no penalty for being density restricted since the local program is all form-based.

So just so it's really two different ways of getting the calculation depending on whether you take state density bonus or local.

What is the relative coefficient for both?

Um the coefficient for the building envelope is the same.

Uh if I recall correctly, the coefficient for the state density bonus is a little bit bigger than the coefficient for the envelope.

It's actually essentially a doubling.

Um, and then this the penalty for density restriction is uh is somewhat smaller than that.

The issue though with the local program is we're giving the local program height as if it was base height, not as if it was bonus height.

And we just did that because we didn't want to assume that the local program was the same as the state density bonus because we don't have evidence that it is right.

Okay.

So in your estimate that the primary difference of is the primary where is majority of the capacity being increased.

From the local density bonus programs, is it from the D control?

Well, I think that table that I discussed earlier about the breakdown of the housing by, and again, we're not measuring capacity but units production on page um 19.

Um gives you a pretty good answer to that.

The RH1, RH2, RH3, RM1 zones are, you know, together maybe a third of it, and that is by far the majority of the parcels, and that's local program.

Um it's the density restricted multifamily, many of which would avail themselves of the state density bonus and are getting height increases as well as the public parcels that are producing the majority of the remainder.

Thanks for hearing my questions.

Thanks for asking them.

Thank you, uh Supervisor Mahmood uh for mathing with us.

Um let's um so with that I think that that's uh all the questions that we have for you, uh Mr.

Egan.

Um so now colleagues, um, I would like us to be able to uh ask questions about the amendments that were introduced uh last time or or even ask clarifying questions at this point if that if you know that can be that can happen.

Um, and uh any remarks that you have uh in any amendments that you would like to talk about before public comment.

Yeah.

Supervisor Chan.

Yes, okay.

So um thank you again.

I do have some amendments that I clarifying updates for the amendment that I make uh on um last meeting.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, do you want me to read everything from my all the amendments?

I believe the chair has invited you to discuss your amendments.

Yes, if you don't need to read each amendment into the record, but you can talk about the amendments because you know uh we will add any amendments uh and then people will have the ch the opportunity to uh read them as included in the record, but I would like you to talk to them about them at high level so that public commenters can respond to them when they come to public comment, if that's okay.

Yes.

So for uh item 10 uh the proposed amendment would incorporate uh during unit mixed standard for building under 10 units or recommended by the planning department, given that at session 207.7 uh it's what currently it's only applies to the building 10 units above.

So um I would amend this uh to include it um uh from five to nine units as well, and then also for um the proposed amendment that would uh limit the requirement for a feasibility study for 100% affordable housing in the SFMTA special use district, only to those sites that meet the minimum specification for 100% affordable projects as recommended by uh SFMTA, and I think I we make some amendments on page 170 on line 19, uh especially on DEED.

Uh it's a pre-application requirement.

Uh and then also uh with uh number one point that should provide a feasibility study that the models that development of the project site as a hundred percent affordable housing, as that term is defined in session for oh six B 1A and C, and also uh to make sure that the documentation that the project sponsor in conjunction with San Francisco um MTA has conducted at least one pre-application meeting.

And then I also have an amendment for the proposed amendment that would establish the uh first right the right of first refusal for qualified and nonprofits for the sell or lease of San Francisco uh MTA sites within the SFMTA special use district for nonprofit for non-transit purpose.

So the amendments also it's read on page two line one that uh the amendments it will be amending the administrative code to set policy regarding the sale or lease for um or lease of properties within San Francisco uh MTA uh special SUD.

And also on page four 471 93, section 2.6-4 uh policy for approval of the lease or sales of property within the non- within within the non-contiquous San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency site special use district.

And I think those are some of the highlight, and we also have a table uh that it's on that it's for item A.

That's also a table of proposed amendment that would correct that discrepancy between some PASOS in District 11 that are within the Department of Public Health area of vulnerability map, and therefore it should be categorized as priority equity geographies, but we're not uh in but we're in uh but we're in advertising uh omitted from the priority equity geography SUD.

Um I would like to introduce the introduce an amendment, a new amendment to also include those parcels in the exemption of the priority equity geography special use district uh for the uh family zoning plan.

So those are the the four that I'm making.

Okay, thank you, Supervisor uh Chen.

Uh, Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, you will remember that I was here a few weeks ago to introduce two amendments, and I was grateful to have our amendment uh on small business protections and preservation adopted, and that was work that um was done in partnership with the mayor's office and with the San Francisco Council of District merchants.

Um, I want to just briefly um speak again to and ask for your support on an amendment that I've been working on in partnership with Supervisor Cheryl, which will incentivize more homes for growing families.

Uh, and we are seeking to do this by expanding a multi-bedroom unit incentive program to provide a square footage bonus for additional two-bedroom homes provided in new buildings, which will create more pathways to encourage the production of new homes that are sized for families.

I think um by now we've heard loud and clear there's a lot of appetite for more units in this plan so that it can truly live up to the name of the family zoning plan.

Um I think also we would all agree that we've seen far too many families leave our city due to both the price and availability of homes.

So our amendment, which would create more two-bedroom homes, is a step forward that will allow young families to be able to afford to continue to call San Francisco home.

And I know he just had to step out, but uh this amendment is informed by Supervisor Cheryl and I's own experiences, both raising young families in San Francisco, and uh I hope that you will consider this today and adopt it so that more families can start grow and thrive in San Francisco through this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Sauter.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Melgar.

Um, as one of the co-sponsors of the family zoning plan, I want to both express my support for this package and speak to how I am approaching the amendments.

Um, I see this plan as the minimum we need to do to right the wrongs of decades of stifled housing production.

Our existing zoning is not the only barrier, of course, but it is a significant barrier that we must address to meet the needs of our city and to comply with state law.

Um, this map and the local program proposed are thoughtful and reasonable changes, which scale up our development capacity while also preserving our ability to control our own destiny.

While I don't serve on this committee, despite my um my many guest appearances, uh and I don't get a vote on individual amendments.

I do believe that it's important for this committee to hear from uh board members on how this legislation will affect our districts.

Um for my district, the proposed upzoning is concentrated in the hub.

The hub is a neighborhood I'm very bullish on, and I'm not alone in that.

Um I've been to community meetings in the hub, and I've talked to many residents there in and around this neighborhood, and what I've consistently heard is enthusiasm and support for new neighbors and new neighborhood amenities.

Uh, like many other parts of District 6.

This is a community whose DNA is to say yes to celebrate 21st century urbanism, to invite height and density and to welcome new neighbors.

It's exactly the kind of place we should be prioritizing for development.

Uh, it's transit rich and accessible to many opportunities and amenities.

So I'm disinclined to support amendments that reduce the capacity uh in the hub specifically or other parts of the city more generally for a few reasons.

One, I worry that we will tip ourselves out of compliance with what uh what uh HCD is expecting from us.

Two, I worry about what a reduction of heights anywhere will do to our overall capacity, especially without additional areas proposed for increases, and three, every foot of height we take away is a real impact.

Um every foot of height is a reduction in units and affordable housing fees.

I think this plan will be complemented and enriched by policies I'm proud to support, like Supervisor Chen's tenant protection legislation, Supervisor Melgar's amendments to protect rent control.

Uh these are sensible changes that protect communities from displacement and balance our housing production needs uh prudently.

I have spoken with several of my colleagues about uh my hope to expand opportunities for new rent control housing, and I would welcome collaboration on that.

We still have the underlying protections of the priority equity geographies.

In fact, I was a co-sponsor of the legislation in 2023 that implemented the SUD, the hub and other upzoned areas within the priority equity SUD still maintain existing neighborhood notification and dwelling unit demolition controls with the required conditional use to remove any dwelling unit.

Uh, and I think it is wise that we are offering an alternative to the state density bonus in these sensitive areas.

While we may have policy disagreements on some of its components, uh I want to once again reiterate my support for a plan that gets us the capacity we need while balancing the city's needs.

This plan with the agreed to amendments from Supervisors Melgar, Cheryl, and Sauter do that.

Uh, and I appreciate their leadership and their hard work on this.

Um thanks so much.

Thank you, Supervisor Dorsey.

Um, I'll just share some remarks before I go back to you, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Um, so I wanted to uh first of all just uh provide some comments on the issue of uh rent control.

This has been something that incites uh uh passion among the population of San Francisco, and rightly so.

I have spent many years of my career fighting for rent control, and in fact, I think we need to expand it.

Um last week, my amendment to exclude buildings with three or more units of rent control from the local program went into the original file.

We landed on that number of three uh or more buildings of three or more units after the planning department calculated that it would not affect the capacity goals in a substantial way.

There is a separate amendment uh brought by Supervisor Chan to remove many types, many more types of buildings from the local program.

The mathematical effect of that idea has not yet been signed off on, but it does live in the duplicate file.

But what I would like everyone to understand is that both of these ideas are only tied to the local program.

And that is really important to understand.

An owner of a parcel can always use SB 330, the state law, to redevelop their property.

Uh there is nothing that this zoning plan can do about that.

So the trick is to make our plan as attractive as possible so that we can get all of the things that we believe in in San Francisco.

Affordable housing, uh, tenant protections, uh, protection for small businesses, those that that is what we're trying to do.

In order to protect existing tenants and rent control units, uh, we can do that through Section 317.

And that is best done in the tenant protection ordinance that was introduced by Supervisor Chen, in which I and eight other supervisors support.

So I also want to thank Supervisor Chen for in her staff for all the hard work uh that has gone into it and actually continues to go into that.

Um, so just because the family housing plan does not discuss uh demolition protection specifically, uh, doesn't mean that they're not there.

There is trailing legislation that I believe will help protect tenants uh from displacement, and that will be at the Planning Commission on Thursday.

So, with that, um uh I do have some uh amendments as well.

Uh I have a one-word edit to my previous amendment proposal to remove hotel conversions from the housing choice program.

Other than removing the word tourist, um, the this amendment is ready to be adopted.

And as you know, we also have a duplicate to the zoning file so that we can deliberate and review various amendments.

I know that a lot of my colleagues are still working on language and issues, and I just want to thank you for all your hard work.

Um, there are many amendments that were proposed last week uh that do not have impact on capacity overall.

So I am intending on acting on those later this meeting, but there are many other amendments that folks are introducing or still working on, and I want to provide time for those discussions to continue, so they will remain in the duplicate file.

So I will reiterate to everyone who's here today paying attention to this process that it is my intent to move as many amendments as we can into the original file, but we are not voting on anything today.

Uh we are gonna try to continue everything to the meeting on November 17th, if my colleagues agree, um, as we move through the process.

So, with that, uh Supervisor Mahmood.

Thank you, Chair.

Before we go into public comment, I just wanted to um thank everyone from the planning department as well as the city economists for their presentation and the conversation about the analysis that's been produced.

Um, and I want to just kind of reiterate that the city economists report drives home that the family zoning plan is a net positive for housing affordability in San Francisco.

The more housing that gets built, they've documented that it's going to lower the rent and housing costs, and the more lower housing costs go as well.

And it also indicates that why we are developing a broad coalition of support across labor, public safety, small business.

Just this morning, the Building Trades Council uh endorsed the family zoning plan.

That's 27 construction and trade unions that actually build housing in San Francisco and small business.

There's a San Francisco Council District Merchant Association representing small business associations and merchant councils across the city.

Public safety of the firefighters supporting this plan as well.

Because of that coalition, though, we also know that there's a lot on the line.

It confirms that we already know from the city economist report that the HCD's letter that we have no room for error if we want to pass a plan that meets our housing element goals and gets approval from Sacramento.

As such, I want to reiterate that I will not support items when we discuss after public comment for the amendments that have a negative effect on the estimated housing capacity or create new development constraints that hold back our ability to meet our housing production goals.

In the conversation going forward, I will be asking my colleagues and the planning department about the impact on our housing goals that any amendments that we have to vote on.

And when it comes to proposals to remove areas from the family zoning plan, I also want to know what impact that will have with respect to SB 79 on those respective areas.

I'll also remind this committee that we don't have much time to get this passed before state imposed deadlines on December 21st.

So I ask that we move the family zoning plan to the board as fastidiously as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, Chair Malgar.

I think before we go to popular commons, um, just wanted to understand a little bit about um what your thoughts process um uh is for today, and how shall we continue to approach just so that I can understand?

And thank you.

We know that it's been very difficult, and you're being put in an impossible position to help us guide us through this process.

And so I just wanted to understand today, you have mentioned and indicated that there are amendments that you'll be moving to adopt, and then allowing some to remain for discussion.

But I I just wanted to understand sort of one, what those are that you're intended to adopt and move forward, particularly I would say probably concerning with the ones that I proposed, and then which ones are you intended to for a continuing discussion?

And for those that you know continuing for discussion, I I wanted to have a better understanding that from your perspective as our chair and being conversation with C D.

Okay, you're welcome, uh Supervisor Chan.

So if I could answer that question before I go back to you, Supervisor Chen, is that okay?

Um, so in terms of the thought process, uh in the past uh few weeks, uh we have been uh, you know, I asked all of my colleagues, including yourself, if we could see the amendments, look at the language.

Uh you were um so kind as to share like the high level first, and then the language as was drafted by the city attorney, which allowed us to crunch some numbers.

Um, so the issue of capacity uh as we saw today is different than the issue of how many units do we think we will build.

And the issue of capacity is you know how much zoning there is per parcel times the number of parcels that we are rezoning, and that yields us a number that HCD and their art and science, you know, will say, yeah, this complies with your housing element.

So uh the amendments that all of you um introduced run the entire gamut.

There are some amendments that are just uh procedural in nature, some of them are specific to a district, some of them deal with rent control, some of them are down zonings uh for specific areas in some of your districts, some of them are up.

So it's all over the place.

And so we went through all of the amendments and looked at what is neutral is just procedure, or is you know, uh it's not a constraint, but it's just like something that specifically addresses something in the district.

So of those, um, I am suggesting today that we move those into the original file or the you know the the first file.

That way uh we can just get them out of the way because they don't have impact.

Um, and I don't think it or we collectively with the planning department and the sponsor of the legislation after looking at them, uh, don't think it has an impact on the issue of compliance with HCD.

Um the rest that I'm not proposing we move today, do which is why I am giving folks a chance to work on it some more so that we can potentially uh meet the goals that you all want with that legislation and at the same time not risk being out of compliance with HCD.

So I'm just giving it a little time.

But if you want me to read what it is right now, there are several of yours that are neutral.

So I I would like to, if that's okay, I will save those now.

Um, and um so um section 206.1, housing choice in Francisco program, um, on page 11, line 23 to 24.

That's yours, uh Supervisor Chan on page 17, lines 15 through 8, add language to section 206.1, housing choice San Francisco program, uh, as previously proposed by you again, Supervisor Chan on page 21, lines five through eight and line 25, add language to section 206.1, housing choice program.

It's previously uh proposed by Supervisor Cheryl and Sauter, uh, that incentivize two bedroom units on page 27, lines eight through nine, amend section three three four, housing Choice San Francisco project authorization under uh administrative review to add the following language, as I previously said that it was a technical clarification, affirming that other parts of the code applies.

On page 29, lines 23 to 25, and on page 30, lines 1 through 9, section 344, Housing Choice Sustainability District, our amend language as previously proposed by Supervisor Chan.

On page 31, like line four, section 344 housing choice sustainability district, add the following language as previously proposed by Supervisor Malgar, with modification from the version presented on October 20th, 2025 on hotel conversions.

On page 189, lines 1922 through 22, delete language in section 317, loss of residential and unauthorized units through demolition, merger and conversion, as previously proposed by you, Supervisor Chan, to strengthen the review of the residential flat demolition policy.

And finally, on page 190, lines 5 through 7, delete language in section 317, loss of residential and unauthorized units through demolition, merger and conversion under residential demolition as previously proposed by you.

Thank you.

If I may, my apologies, Supervisor Chen.

I just want to make sure I also understand.

And with those that remain as a questions and debate about capacity, and we wanted to have further discussion about what that actually looks like.

Could you help me understand better and help me like give me some guidelines what we're looking for?

And is this a conversation that planning staff will have and do a presentation specifically based on the amendments that we are now have questioned with and or how would that process take place to just help us better understand those amendments?

Sure.

Thank you for the question, Supervisor Chan.

So I am hoping that in the next two weeks, you know, we have no meeting next week because it's Veterans Day, that in the next two weeks, you uh the sponsors, you or whoever didn't make it on that first list that has amendments, will sit with the planning department, with the mayor's office, who is the sponsor of this legislation, and perhaps with the city attorney if some alternative language is required to see if there's any way to negotiate whether you can still meet your goals in the legislation while still maintaining compliance.

So I think that that is something that only the sponsor of the amendments can do.

Um I certainly can't do it.

Um, and so uh it I'm hoping that everyone in in, you know, I think every almost everyone on our board has had uh these amendments that they want something or other, will go through that exercise and that we'll do it on time so that by the time uh we come back uh on the 17th and perhaps even on the first, we can get as much as possible uh from what you need for your district and for your constituents, and that we can still uh be in compliance with, say, law.

Thank you, and and I this is not a question that but I just want to be transparent and just be able to be on the record about um where we're at or where I'm at at this moment with all the amendments that we have proposed.

And thank you, Supervisor Malgarn.

Thank you so much for going through that.

Um, first and foremost, you know, I think that the priority has been and always will be is um the protection of rent control units through city Y, um, and uh to that extent that it will continue to be my position, and I'll do everything I can to work with planning department to really identify how we can protect those rent control units and while still increase capacity somewhere else.

Um, and it's most also that I think um local uh coastal zone, and that as I have heard from, I want to say, you know, in not just district one, but also district four constituency and and talking about just that 10 total lots that is now in the local coastal zone program is a concern.

And so how can we, if we were to carve those out, increase capacity somewhere else?

And of course, you know, uh historic resources protection.

Um it's also really critical for the characteristic and most importantly, the history of our neighborhood citywide and definitely for the West Side.

And again, how do we do that to to be able to protect those and then increase capacity somewhere else?

Form-based density, I think that I really appreciate the economic uh economic impact report actually did mention form-based uh density as a way to increase capacity and how it's actually one of the ways to be able to help us to build housing.

Um, and it's a reason why I still support it for it to be a local density program, but I think that for it to be uh either in a neighborhood commercial district or a residential transit oriented commercial zones, or that is in its base zone, that is simply only going to encourage uh state density bonus uh utilizations instead of actually does not make the local density bonus um program more attractive.

So how do we reach that balance?

I look forward to those conversations as well.

Uh while I see that my colleague, Supervisor Dorsey is here.

Uh, if I may say, you know, I I I know that unlike me, he loves the density.

Um, and I'm gonna throw it out there.

You know, I think if there were a room, because Supervisor Dorsey is here, um, that you know, there could be a conversation to reevaluate central Soma, given that there's a lot of office space, and what can we do to perhaps reconsider those spots and to into uh residential, encourage density and and residential uh zoning for those areas and to maybe offset uh some of the challenges that we're seeing uh be it protection for the rent control units, um historical resources, uh as well as our coastal zone.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, supervisors.

Uh so uh finally, Supervisor Chen, I think you had a correction to make.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair Malga.

Um I just want to make sure that I correct myself for one of my amendments to restore the during unit mixed for family size unit to the current citywide standard.

I said uh five to nine units uh in my original uh reading, and it should be uh buildings of four to nine units uh because they are currently not converted, not covered by Section 207.7.

And and I also want to share a feeling of I know that we do have an obligation to meet the state requirement, but we do have other obligation that we also have to meet locally.

First, I think uh it's building our accountability to the people of San Francisco and the needs and the priority of our local community.

It is also our obligation, also including the most vulnerable among us.

It is also, I think, as a supervisor, it's the reason that I'm elected is because I want to make sure that we allow elevate community concerns and priorities.

And that the family zoning legislation is not addressed effectively.

So I want to make sure that we're not approaching this legislation simply because this is a math problem.

We need to meet the number.

But in my will, the Department of Housing Community Development's framework, it's really one-sided.

It pushes us to prioritize mostly above moderate income housing over real workforce housing, and also to deliver capacity outcome, even if it means to incentivize displacement of tenants and small business and eroding our stock of rent stabilized, uh stabilized it housing.

So I I really want to convince that we I am, I am always looking for partnership to my colleagues to really work together to find a pathway, find a math that can be more inclusive and more just to San Franciscans.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen.

So for the folks who are standing right in front of the door, uh please don't because that is a fire hazard.

Uh please find a seat or if you're in life for public comment, we're gonna go to public comment now.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item numbers six through eleven.

I understand that we have two gentlemen up front who have made prior arrangements for accessibility.

Let's get those two through the line, and then otherwise, if you're waiting for your opportunity to provide public comment, you may, as you already have, line up to speak along that western wall and come forward to lecture and when there is when it is your turn.

Mr.

Wooding, if you want to pull that mic down.

Good idea.

And we'll start your time.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Good afternoon, uh committee members.

Uh George Wooding.

I first want to thank specifically Supervisor Chan.

I've read through her amendments and I really think that they're valuable.

I'd like to see, I've heard that at least two or three have been mentioned, and I'd like to have the other two revisited.

So specifically, the sacred cow is density decontrol.

Now, this was an address when the mayor introduced his um planning uh family zoning in June 25th, and what it does, it allows developers free run over the city to control what they want to do.

So if you build an 84-foot or eight-story building, you can put 40 units into it, or you could put one unit into it.

This is terrible for affordable housing, and nobody knows what is going to be happening because all the control is by the developers.

This is a bad way for city planning to be running.

I know that they have to do this because they have to read a quote-unquote number, but the number may end up coming back to haunt the city as infrastructure, increased noise, overcrowding, tenant displacement, loss of community character, disproportionate impact, low-income.

Thank you, Mr.

Wooding for sharing your comments to the committee.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Herbert F.

Mince the second.

I live in I've lived in D4 for more than 30 years.

Mayor Lurie's family zoning plan does not make sense to me due to the fact that the city's emergency firefighting water system infrastructure does not extend much into the western and southern neighborhoods.

Without this life-saving infrastructure in place, hundreds of blocks of wood frame buildings will likely succumb to fire storms of unimaginable proportion, uh proportions immediately following the next great earthquake.

City residents, like seniors and the disabled will be the first to perish.

Right outside of my living room window is a fire hydrant with a white cap.

This piece of infrastructure will be useless in suppressing the conflagration expected after a gas mains burst, as this fire hydrant isn't hardened.

What I understand though is that much or many of the eastern neighborhoods of the city currently have infrastructure that supports an emergency firefighting water system that acts as a kind of city-funded infrastructure-based fire insurance.

So, where is our on the western and southern neighborhoods?

Where is our infrastructure parity when it comes to fire protection?

This means the mayor's family zoning plan cannot, in good conscience, be considered seriously or implemented in any way without Western and Southern neighborhood residents getting the fire protection that they need instead of being stuck without adequate fire protection at this moment.

So, first things first, complete the emergency firefighting water system infrastructure work before adding any upzoning infrastructure to our neighborhoods.

Western and southern neighborhood residents deserve.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Maybe that's not gonna work.

Good afternoon, afternoon members of the Board of Supervisors.

My name is Ray LaRocca.

I'm a resident for about 40 years in Noy Valley.

I'm a retired attorney.

I started my career doing planning work in the city, California Academy's master plan per city of planning, the failed attempt to do affordable housing at Balboa Reservoir, among other things.

Our neighborhoods are really essential to the fabric of our communities.

They are what make our city unique and different.

We began in the 70s and 80s creating neighborhood commercial districts to protect and preserve them, recognizing their small scale character and their small businesses.

While there are many good aspects of the family zoning plan, its overemphasis on increased heights is not the way to go.

Fine.

I could do it, but on two-lane commercial districts like Noy Valley, you're going to put them in a canyon of building in perpetual shade.

The town square will never see sunlight.

Most of those buildings are 15 to 30 feet.

You're allowing 65 feet.

So what's the solution?

You've already alluded to it today.

The form-based density is one of the main factors that we can you can do, expand your capacity and maybe exceed the capacity you have now.

Right now, you're only allowing it on narrow shoulder on each side of these neighborhood commercials.

People will walk more than three or flock, four blocks to get to transit.

You could even make form-based density citywide.

And that would be one amendment, certainly.

I would also say you can make RH1 the genesis of our unaffordability and exclusionary zoning RH2.

It's the most number of dwelling units as Mr.

Egan posed out.

Number three, you need to amend it simply to say that if you take advantage of the local plan, you must increase the number of dwelling units.

You'll have people otherwise tearing down 40, you know, two-unit buildings and putting up a 65-foot two-unit building.

Finally, your sequel compines is questionable.

Speaker's time is concluded.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Kim Yvonne with SCIU Local 2015.

I'm here representing the concerns of 32,000 home care workers in the city, who are mostly women of color and immigrant women, and have been bearing the incredible oppression of this federal administration, whether it is the terrorizing of communities with ice or the looming cliff of losing Medicaid, which means them losing their ability to live and take care of the people that they provide care to.

So they have two imperatives for this leadership body.

The first is to make sure you adopt in this family zoning plan.

Absolutely do not touch rent control properties, period, full stop.

Second, we want to make sure that when we talk about affordable housing, there needs to be something in this plan that says we are committed to making sure that public lands are used to develop affordable housing, and I want to be clear what affordable is.

A home care worker, a hotel worker, a public sector worker, a teacher can afford housing.

Thank you much.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Naj Daniels.

Our right to have, excuse me, I'm sorry.

I'm just going through a little bit of air and cold.

But we need to just reserve the fact that we have a hundred percent affordable projects on public land, that we are protecting rent control, and that we are maintaining a high road for labor standards.

We have work to do, but we do not want to leave out our working families who are going to be the most impacted.

Please keep us in mind.

We are doing the work, we are here to stay, we have done the work, and we want to be considered in the changes that are going to affect us.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Nash Daniels.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Kristen Hardy.

Um, I've been feel like I've just been all over San Francisco today, just speaking.

Um, anybody that doesn't know me, I'm a San Francisco native, born and raised.

I grew here, I did not flew here, and I am also a city and county public sector worker out of San Francisco General Hospital 14 years, and right now I am here in um representing my 16,000 um public sector workers that we represent here in San Francisco.

Um I am also a proud resident of District 7.

Um, and I also just want to let you know that we're I'm also representing workers and working families.

Um we all want more housing in San Francisco.

This has been an issue with me being one of the last few of a lot of my schoolmates that have been gentrified out of the city and have not been able to afford that housing that protects the people who are already here, that we maintain housing to protect the people that are already here, and including let me just uh make this clear that you know, as we're talking about housing for low-income families, um, we also need to talk about as me being a public sector worker, that we need to talk about workforce housing.

Majority of the public sector workers that kept this city running during COVID, the pandemic, and that's still keeping this city running, and that's been detrimental detrimentally uh short staffed since prior to COVID, are commuting as far as I have members coming from Reno.

I have members coming from Sacramento.

This is this needs to be changed.

They grew up in San Francisco, they went to public schools out here.

They're serving the city by working for all the public services.

We need to make sure that we're listening to the communities, we're listening to the residents, and not just the contractors, and we're not letting this new administration in San Francisco take over and take away our right and re-and reconstruct our city that has had these these incentives in place for a reason.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you much, Kristen Hardy.

Next speaker.

My name is Mark Bruno.

I want to point out in reference to the controller's uh report today and to some of the questions by Chairman Melgar that we at St.

Vincent DePaul Society in North Beach in June of this year asked with an immediate disclosure request for these same numbers.

How many rent control units we ask of the planning department uh fall under the maps that are being proposed for the family zoning plan, how many rental units fall under these maps?

We were told in person, in writing, in testimony in front of the Sunshine Ordnance Task Force, these are unknowable.

We cannot get these for you.

Was a long hearing.

At the end of that hearing in front of the Sunshine Ordnance Task Force on August 19th, one member said, it makes no sense to me to displace renters only to build affordable housing.

The department, meaning the planning department, who we oppose at the Sunshine Ordnance Task Force, should know those figures.

They seem to still not know those figures, and I think this is a lapse in their uh their project because they've been working on it for many years, and that's something that should be knowable because it's a downside of their project.

With this in mind, not knowing the figures, I appeal to our sense of fairness and say that the criteria being used by land use to protect rent control units is no different than that that applies to non-rent controlled units.

These tenants also should be protected and with equal force in the code.

Tenants in non-rent controlled units are just as likely to be struggling to pay rent, they're just as likely to be seniors.

They also may be new residents to our city.

Artists, musicians, and writers graduate each year from college, they come here, they get rental units that might not be rent controlled.

They have the same rights, I believe, and they offer the same to the city as those of us I do live in a rent controlled unit.

So with this in mind, I ask you to offer the same protections to these renters, to all renters, whether they live in a renter non-control, uncontrolled unit or non-controlled unit.

Thank you so much.

And thank you, Mark Bruno.

Next speaker.

Thank you.

I don't envy all these plans you're reading through.

I'm Julie Fisher.

Next month I will have lived in my rental unit 40 years.

I'm a legacy myself.

There are a lot of legacy residents here in this room and throughout the city.

And like me, they went to movies at the Coronet.

They bought pickles from Herman's Salad, uh, Hermann Stelley on Geary.

So if you don't know those, talk to your elders.

I could not be here without my rent control.

And I didn't hear any mention of this, and it's an old formula.

Your rental or living expenses, your accommodations should be no more than one-third of your income.

That's what's affordable.

So please, I hope you'll work that in there.

And one thing I also have not heard is new buildings need to have at least a couple ADA units.

Walkable showers, roll-in showers.

We have a senior population here, you all know that.

Many of us are going to need those accommodations, and we need to have that housing available.

So there's something to build, and that still, I believe, meets the criteria of the state plan.

All right.

Good luck.

Thank you.

And thank you much, Julie Fisher.

Next speaker.

My name is Jessica Visnis, and I'm from District 2.

I'm speaking today in strong opposition to the current version of the proposed upzoning plan.

I fully support more housing in my neighborhood.

I just want it to be thoughtful and in scale.

I'm distressed about the increased heights in many parts of District 2, but with only two minutes to speak, I want to focus on the proposed zoning for 14-story buildings on Lombard Street, starting at Laguna and going east.

This change in heights seems to have only been added in 2025.

And my understanding is that it occurred because heights were lowered at the west end of Lombard near the Palace of Fine Arts, and as a result, they were simply popped up at the other end to 14 stories to maintain the count, which does not seem like a very thoughtful approach to rezoning Lombard Street.

My understanding from talking with Supervisor Cheryl, she expects about 10 14-story buildings on the three blocks of Lombard from Laguna de Franklin.

Many people, even those in favor of the zoning plan, view the Fontana Towers as ISOs.

To me, 14-story towers on Lombard Street.

Well, they're not the 18-story towers like the Fontana Towers, is just like putting possibly 10 ISOs in an area that would block some of the nicest views in San Francisco, so only a privileged view can see them.

And people living in the new luxury apartments on floors 7 through 14 of these towers are probably unlikely to be taking the bus on the transit-friendly Lombard Street.

It's the reason for allowing such tall buildings there in the first place.

Lowering heights on three blocks doesn't seem like it would upset the apple cart for this plan with the state, and I urge you to consider it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Just for Business.

Next speaker.

Supervisors uh Tony Hall here, the current or former supervisor of District 7.

The current upzoning plan that calls for 84,000 new rental units here in San Francisco is the outgrowth of the one shoe fits all state-mandated housing dictate in Prop 79 that was designed not to meet our true housing needs, but to pad the re-election coffers of those running for higher office in collusion with chosen developers and all on the backs of single family property owners, especially on the West side.

As none of the projected units is slated for home ownership, it does nothing for the 10% of renters that have left our city in the past few years, or the more than three million people that have left the state in hopes of actually owning a home somewhere somehow.

It does nothing to address the multi-billion dollar infrastructure needs that have plagued the western end of the city since the early 80s.

Needs that must be met before any construction can take place.

What it does do is totally destroy the very unique qualities that exist only in San Francisco's residential neighborhoods that no other city in the United States has.

What it will do, if not amended or fought, is drastically change the landscape of San Francisco and destroy any true legacy that you, as our leaders, want to leave behind.

Thank you.

Hello again, supervisors.

I'm Rommel Schmaltz, and I'm sorry to report that San Francisco has Yimby cancer.

It's an aggressive move fast and break things cancer that, like all cancers, needs to destroy lives in order to keep growing, even when, as Mr.

Egan's report says, more is not the answer, but more is all a cancer nose.

Please stop making excuses for not making affordable housing a priority here, and please amend this plan to provide for affordable housing and middle income housing.

This plan offers nothing to people making under like a hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year.

And please let's stop with this Stockholm syndrome with State Senator Scott Wiener.

Some board members pretend to be held hostage by legislation crafted by a man standing next to them as a friend in town halls, making sure that he they scare us with his builder's remedy.

Scott Weiner is not San Francisco's friend.

Please, at a minimum, adopt all of San Francis uh Supervisors Chen and Chan's amendments, particularly zero demolitions of rent control departments.

There's no excuse to save some homes and not others.

You at least are incumbent to try.

And again, don't allow 16 blocks of walls on the waterfront.

The voters roundly rejected a single building at 8 Washington, like 12, 13 years ago.

I voted against it too.

Put this on the ballot, and voters will save your names from going on those cancer towers that you're proposing.

Thank you.

And thank you much for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, and thank you again, Supervisors.

I'm still Apollo, a working musician and a North Beach resident.

Nothing in the proposed, as I call it, one big billionaire's bill, or as you call it, family zoning plan will make it easier for actual working families or artists like me to live in my neighborhood.

It's mostly luxury or market rate studios and one bedrooms.

Even Ned Sagal, Mayor Lurry's handpicked housing czar, has gone on the record admitting that this plan isn't even for middle income residents or families.

So please approve all of Supervisor Chen's and Chan's amendments, especially the protection of all rent controlled units.

Around 40,000 residents stand to lose their place in San Francisco forever without this amendment.

They deserve protection as much as the residents in my for the moment protected triplex.

And please, please spare our waterfront from upzoning.

Treating it like the east wing of the White House is not the unremovable stain you want on your legacy.

Thank you.

And thank you for addressing this committee.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Jonathan Budeman.

I live in District 2, and I'm with Northern Neighbors, a group focused on housing and transportation issues.

I'll be honest, it's frustrating to give public comment on this again, and even more frustrating that the board intends to repeat this ritual on November 17th.

We've spent hours on this already, and it's fair to ask how representative this process really is for San Francisco as a whole.

The city economists made it clear this plan isn't even the bare minimum.

It's not going to solve the housing crisis on its own.

Far from it, but it's a start, and much more work is needed.

Meanwhile, rents are up nearly 10% this year, and homes in San Francisco are selling faster than anywhere else in the country.

The housing crisis is really quick is clear and is accelerating right now.

Every round of suspicious potential poison pill amendments.

Just choose up more time, and we don't have time to lose.

Please pass this plan without what it does or delaying it.

Thank you.

And thank you much, next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Uh my name is Mike Casey.

I'm president of the San Francisco Labor Council.

I've spent over four decades representing workers in the workplace against bosses that treat people very unfairly.

Unfortunately, I've also spent a fair amount of time with our members who have been evicted from this city because they can no longer afford to live here.

I get that this city seems hell bent on uh building more luxury housing, more market rate housing, none of which is gonna help working people in this city.

What I don't get, and I'll be damned if I can understand, is why we are going to eliminate as many as 20,000 rent controlled units.

Supervisor Melgar, I applaud you for the work that you've done in preserving and protecting those units that are three or more.

However, we need to protect a hundred percent.

I'm proud to be in a city where we push back regularly against an orange-haired fascist in the White House.

What I'd like to know is why we can't muster up the HUTSPA, the backbone to push back against neo neoliberal policies coming out of Sacramento that make it more difficult for working people to live here and will increase the uh number of people who are being evicted.

We need to stop the erosion of affordability.

What little there is here in this city.

Thank you.

And thank you, Mike Casey.

Next speaker.

Hello.

Um, again, uh architect and uh building owner at 2755 Sutter Street in San Francisco.

Um I've um wrote to the planning department several times and as well as uh Supervisor Mahmood.

Um our property is basically surrounded by sixty-five-foot um upzoned um uh properties, and uh, you know, we actually like to be included in that so we can add to the housing in the city because uh we're surrounded by multi-units.

Uh we're a single unit, our neighbors are uh uh a duplex unit.

Um there's plenty of capacity there.

Um we also are within a quarter mile of the Geary BRT, so it's an ideal, you know, a property to be upzoned.

And you know, looking at um the zoning map, there are a lot of other properties that are similarly situated.

There are near the uh transit, near BART or Muni Metro or the BRTs that could be upzoned.

Um, this is really important because uh unfortunately the um uh economic report that was just prevent presented um had um less than half the units that are required um by the um HCD that would be projected to be built.

So somehow we need to actually unfortunately add more units and ideally we add those units near transit as per SB 79, which is I think is well written, and then um look carefully at reducing the amount of units where we don't have transit.

We have a lot of single-family houses, and also uh step down, you know, from six stories down to the one two-story single-family houses.

And we also need to preserve all of the historic buildings we have in the city that um brings the tourists and makes our city special.

So I think there's a lot more work to be done in this family zoning plan to really make it work.

And uh, you know, I hope the planning department and and the land use committee and the rest of the board, you know, work together in the next month to make this really be a great point.

Speaker's time has expired.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, supervisors.

My name is Holden Moisman from Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco.

It's a pleasure to speak to you all again.

I just want to make sure that I have this opportunity to re-emphasize for you all as you consider the plan going forward to not lose sight of including ways to increase affordable home ownership throughout any of the deliberations.

The development that we provide for the city is all 100% affordable development.

By affordable, we mean it's income restricted, and no none of our habitat, none of our homeowners that live in habitat built homes ever pay more than 30% of their income for homes.

We want to be able to produce more of that in the city and need the opportunities to do so.

Part of that is, as was mentioned by several supervisors today, that this is just one step in the process, and we hope that you continue to look forward to ways to fund opportunities to provide these going forward.

Um it's not just a matter of rezoning, it is definitely a matter of helping get this built.

And just overall, uh, I just want to uh make sure that I emphasize one more time that homeownership needs to be thought of uh throughout the process of zoning, and if there's any way to uh through these amendments, we are going to be supportive of anything to provide opportunities for uh additional homeownership, affordable homeownership opportunities, particularly as it relates to public properties that become available.

Thank you.

And thank you for addressing this committee.

Next speaker.

Hello, this is uh Pat Huey again.

I've still been here for 40 years.

I ask you to seriously rethink these dreadful rezoning upzoning ideas.

Mayor Lurie's plan will demolish existing homes, displace renters and small businesses, and turn our neighborhoods into unaffordable high-rise corridors.

I urge you to adopt supervisors Chans and Chen's amendments to these plans.

The current project has no detailed plan for infrastructure and certainly no concern for historic preservation.

Most of the units are one to uh or one to one bedroom or studios without parking.

This is not family housing.

There isn't even any concern for safety.

The upzone I saw at 26th Avenue in Irving is built on toxic landfill, and we have Scott Weiner to thank for that.

What will we get?

We will get blocks of uninhabited housing that no one can afford, and certainly no one wants to look at this housing crisis is a myth from greedy real estate developers.

We have plenty of housing.

The Park Merced apartments have some 3,200 uh units, apartments that are available for renting.

What will we lose?

We'll lose a thriving community full of beautiful, charming historic neighborhoods that people from all over the world come to visit.

Please re th please uh adopt the the amendments from supervisors Chen and Chang.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Pat Yuni.

Next speaker.

Um good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm here to oppose the upzoning plan because it won't help families or housing affordability.

Taking away local zoning regulations on real estate developers to deal with high housing costs is an anti-democratic authoritarian strategy.

Giving real estate developers free reign is like putting a very well-funded fox in charge of guarding the hen house.

There are much better and more direct ways to address affordability without risking displacement of residential and commercial tenants, or destroying the historic resources that are the heart of our communities and a tourism draw.

But here we are.

I do appreciate the amendments to improve this flood plan, including amendments to exclude all rent-controlled buildings, to protect legacy businesses, to exclude priority equity geographies, to exclude historic resources, to limit density decontrol and height increases to the local plan, and to require 100% truly affordable housing on publicly owned land.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you much.

Next speaker.

Hello, supervisors.

My name is Andy Katz, and I'm a native of North Beach.

I'm here to support our small scale village like communities and to oppose the developer and real estate speculator-driven Lurie Wiener solder so-called family plan.

This plan will cause a great deal of harm to our unique neighborhoods, despite the various proposed amendments.

First of all, remove all of the rent controlled buildings from the upzoning plan.

This is vital to support workers and the elderly in our city and address their very real fears that they won't be able to stay in their homes.

The plan does not focus on affordable housing, but instead on market rate development, which we need more of like a hole in the head.

The required affordable housing percentages are too low.

Also, there is no actual plan to build affordable housing in the family zoning plan.

We need to house our SF workers hanging on by their fingernails rather than building still more housing for the rich and investors.

Many already built existing luxury units sit empty as we speak.

The state of California now projects that in 2030 and even in 2050, thousands fewer people will live in San Francisco than in 2020.

Why are we rushing through this ruthless upzoning and why now?

Developers sense an opening, period.

Lastly, other amendments are needed in the plan.

One, require that all publicly owned parcels like the SFMTA ones be 100% affordable housing.

And two, exclude all historic resources from the upzoning plan, including local historic districts and those eligible for the California and national registers.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

And thank you, Andy Katz.

Next speaker.

Carol Berberg, I live in North Beach.

I first moved to San Francisco in 1971.

I've lived all over the city.

When I first came here, the reason that North Beach area got the transportation that it now has and the infrastructure is because it was the densest North Beach in Chinatown residential area in the city.

The transportation followed the density.

Now you're proposing to have more density follow the transportation.

It's circular, it doesn't work that way.

But then most of the figures I've seen today don't reflect reality as I have experienced it as living in San Francisco since several years before the uh numerical part of this presentation was started and several years after it ended.

You know that the factors even now are changing.

Interest rates, demand for housing, types of work, places that people need to be, kinds of workers that need to live near the heart of a city, all are changing.

Please do not do a me-li, do not do a central subway, don't destroy the village in order to save it.

Thank you much.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm Laurie Brooke.

I'm president of the Cow Hollow Association and co-founder of Neighborhoods United SF.

Let's be honest.

Many in City Hall are listening only to Yimbi lobbyists and the politicians who profit from them, while tuning out actual housing experts.

Experts that have shown blanket upzoning in a dense built-out city like San Francisco does not create affordability.

It fuels speculation, demolishes sound homes, displaces tenants and small businesses, and drives prices even higher.

Your authority over land use has been stripped away by Senator Scott Weiner's overreach and his enforcers at HCD.

Yet we all pretend a few amendments can fix it.

They can't.

Not while the entire system is broken.

Senator Weiner weaponized the RENA process, inflating targets, imposing penalties, and silencing community voices.

The state's 82,000 unit mandate was never real.

It's detached from population trends, construction costs, and economic reality.

The result is a punitive top-down framework that rewards developers and punishes communities.

RENA must be completely overhauled to become a planning tool rooted in data, not politics, a process cities can actually use to plan responsibly.

That's the bigger fight ahead.

But today you have a choice.

Stand with your constituents, not the lobbyists.

Support your colleagues' amendments as the last guardrail left to protect our neighborhoods, our small businesses, our residents from irreversible damage.

San Franciscans are awake now.

They don't feel heard, and they're stepping off the sidelines to take their city back.

You were elected to lead, not to follow.

Do so.

It's not too late.

Thank you, Laurie Brooke.

Next speaker.

Hi, good afternoon.

Bridget Maley representing Neighborhoods United SF.

On behalf of our over 60 neighborhood and community groups, NUSF adamantly opposes Mayor Lurie'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 housing element 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 small and legacy businesses, cause tremendous transit disruptions, and require extensive but unfunded infrastructure investment.

Further, this plan will fail to protect rent control units in both the plan area and across the city, including in the priority equity geographies identified in the housing element.

The housing element was a component of the general plan, and it specifically called for tenant protections.

Since rezoning proposals must be consistent with the general plan, the mayor's plan creates an unlawful general plan inconsistency.

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.

Thank you much for addressing this committee.

Next speaker.

Good evening.

My name is Donna Hurwitz.

I've been a resident of the city for over four 40 years.

Most of that time I've been in the sunset district.

I spent many years being a renter while I saved up money to buy a house in this very expensive city.

In the sunset, all of the years I was there, there were two small apartment houses built in my immediate neighborhood.

One of them on my block was only two stories.

I think one two blocks up was four stories.

In both those cases, I think they made the block look much improved.

They were nice looking.

Today, I agree with those who say we could have a number of other apartment houses of modest size in several reasonably closed chosen areas in the sunset.

Mr.

Egan mentioned how we need new people in the city.

We need them for our customers, but general vitality.

And he also mentioned we lose people.

I owned a small business, so I had a small staff.

I can recall one patient saying she liked me.

She liked the city, but she wanted to buy a house.

She wanted to have children.

So she and her husband were moving to North Carolina.

That was not uncommon.

Having staff and retaining staff was always a problem because of the high cost of housing.

I can remember Mayor Lee once saying this is a problem of our own.

The first time is concluded.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

We have to go move on to the next speaker.

Thank you so much.

It's still afternoon.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Catherine Howard, District 4, Sunset Parkside.

I'm here on the behalf of uh D forward.

The entire city voted on the Great Highway, a district four issue, but because no one has been appointed to replace Mr.

Angardio, District 4 has no voice in this upzoning legislation, which could bulldoze our entire neighborhood.

This is upzoning without representation, and you should postpone these votes until a mayor acts.

And that new supervisor should not only be here to hear our comments, but also in our neighborhood.

We are tired of being ignored.

Many changes must be made to the legislation.

Eliminate in lieu fees.

The fees delay affordable housing, and they create exclusive enclaves of luxury housing.

Dedicate all suitable public land, excluding parks and public open space to 100% affordable housing.

Preserve the coastal zone as it is today, and prohibit upzoning in the tsunami zone.

I mean, who is proposing increasing building heights or density in the tsunami zone?

It doesn't make sense.

Repair and reactivate our local tsunami warning system.

The cell phones failed recently.

We don't have a warning system.

All category A and A eligible historic buildings and districts should be exempted from upzoning.

We have many mid-century homes and other buildings that reflect our unique cultural heritage.

Prevent height increases near parks and schools, casting shadows on open spaces and classrooms undermines the quote unquote rural resource character of our district.

And please install the emergency firefighting system before more density is built.

With a major quake and ocean winds, you are going to have an unstoppable fire, and it's not going to start with our neighborhood.

It's going to start at the ocean and go over the hill and engulf the whole city, and San Francisco is not capable of fighting it at this time.

Thank you.

This time is concluded.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, committee members, Chen Mahmoud and Supervisor Chan.

My name is Nick Ferris.

I serve as president of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers and speaking on behalf of our nearly 600 residents and small business owners.

The proposed family zoning plan will not work.

Financing construction and land costs, not zoning, are what primarily limit housing creation?

This plan relies on trickle-down economics, and we all know how that story ends.

It won't build affordable housing for most San Franciscans, and this plan contains no plan to actually fund affordable housing.

The plan is also based on outdated and inflated population data.

The state of California now projects that by 2030, and even by 2050, thousands fewer will live in San Francisco than they did in 2020.

So why are we letting Sacramento and Scott Wiener's mandates push us to build 82,000 new units with no funding for affordability?

It's unfair and unacceptable.

Some of the deepest, densest neighborhoods in this city, especially in the Northeast Waterfront, North Beach, Telegraph Hill, and the waterfront are being asked to take on far more than their fair share, and they were never part of the original housing element.

We urge you to remove these neighborhoods from the upzoning plan.

If the plan does move forward, we strongly support supervisors of Chan and Chen's amendments to make it fair and responsible.

Specifically, exclude priority equity geography parcels and all rent-controlled housing with two or more units.

Require publicly owned land to be 100% affordable, protect historic districts and local landmarks, limit density and height increases to local plans, and require affordable housing to be built on site or nearby.

Please do not more move forward with this plan.

It's not family zoning.

This is fantasy zoning.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Board and uh and staff.

Um, my name is excuse me, Niels Pearson.

I'm the president of Bel Air Tower Homeowners Association.

We represent 64 owner residents at the peak of Russian Hill.

Our building has been called variously the Jewel, the Superman Building in uh Armastad Moppin's book, and we recently obtained a historical evaluation review and soon will be a state and national landmark.

I'm not telling you this as an aside, this is part of my presentation.

I am filing now uh and lodging with the uh the clerk of the court our written response.

Thank you.

You can leave that up front.

I'll pick it up.

Thank you.

To complete, we only have a small and discreet ask that is historically correct in two major respects.

We are asking that the six square block area that is our northern perimeter, uh Leavenworth to the north.

I'm sorry, Leavenworth to the east, uh, Filbert to the north, Vallejo to the south, and Larkin to the east, six-block area be rezoned.

That was its legacy classic.

I say historically correct because up until the end of 2024, the planning department had our zoning maintained at 40 square 40 feet.

We're asking that be restored, and that should be restored because that was the legacy, and we comprise a historic district that deserves to have that restore.

Kathleen Courtney, Rush Neal Community Association District 4.

Congratulations.

Uh for the three of you for the all that you've done, and particularly our leadership team wanted to thank uh Supervisor Chen for reminding the supervisors that you're elected to preserve and protect your districts as well as the city at hall.

I have our basic mantra that I keep on repeating.

One, we want to we ask you to reduce the allowable heights on alleys in district three and throughout the city from six stories to four stories and prohibit off-street parking in these alleys.

Two, exempt historic designation category A buildings from upzoning.

Three, um Robin Tucker from the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association, PANA was totally blindsided by what was done by the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District.

And so we're asking that you preserve the 40-foot height limit and 45 year rear yard that they had negotiated over two years ago.

Restore the 40-foot uh height limit for the six blocks on the top of Russian Hill.

Uh, and no, this is ridiculous, but we'd give you anything if you could void the consolidation of the North Beach special use district and neighborhood commerce districts in District 3.

The supervisor was not listening to his constituents.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Good evening, supervisors.

Um, I'm Eileen Hurst.

I live on Russian Hill.

So I would like to support my neighbors in restoring the original zoning of that six-block area, smack in the middle of Russian Hill.

It makes no sense.

We have asked planning why they keep including it.

I haven't received an answer.

I don't know anyone who has.

Since I have been involved in this, I have now heard two experts say that very little is going to be built as a result of this upzoning plan.

One was in a public meeting, a statement made by a planning staffer, and now the city economist has said the same thing.

So I have to ask you, why aren't you listening?

You need to listen to that.

We need workforce affordable, family-appropriate housing.

An amendment that calls for two bedrooms as family housing is not adequate.

Family doesn't live in two bedrooms, and there's nothing in there about it being affordable.

I urge you also, after hearing uh from the person from the uh Sunset, you all should read Denial of Disaster by Gladys Hanson, written specifically about what happens in an earthquake and fire, and specifically what's going to happen to the sunset unless the infrastructure is upgraded.

I also urge you to take a look at the three-dimensional map that is making the rounds that the one that planning said they couldn't produce.

If you say that you are voting for this plan to encourage future generations to live here, see if you'd want to live here after looking at that map.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is George Seary, 47-year resident of San Francisco, currently living in D2.

I'm for affordable housing, but this family zoning plan will not lower housing costs and improve affordability.

It's supply and demand argument is behind it.

Building of supply, you're going to get the prices down.

But recent studies have shown when the demand is driven by a rap rapid population increase of high high salaried workforce, high rents are sustained independent of supply.

That's recent study.

New housing supply can't keep up.

But on the flip side, when take example, the COVID workforce from home showed up.

So supply and demand really isn't a symmetric operation, very dependent on what's causing the demand, what the population is.

Demand fluctuations due a tech boom and bust cycle has been here before, beginning with the dot com event.

But work from home following COVID was devastating to downtown and reduced our population.

Don't expect that to recover.

Smart businesses realize that they can cut back on expensive office lease costs with the modern compute capabilities.

That's business savvy.

And don't count on San Francisco as the AI capital of the world to solve that problem either.

AI has already triggered layoffs in tech, including an AI company's white-collar jobs are vulnerable.

Department of Finances showed the San Francisco population forecast is down considerably from the early ones that set our targets.

San Francisco needs to appeal for dramatically reduced housing targets, build what is already in the pipeline, not this plan.

It provides no guarantee guaranteed affordable improvement in affordability while negatively impacting the character of our neighborhoods and the city.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, committee.

My name's Frank Reedy.

I've lived in San Francisco for 11 years, all of which in District 3, formerly North Beach and now Rushman Hill.

I love San Francisco and I love its community, but it's clear that our city and our state's housing choices over the past 50 years have led us to fall behind other major cities in the US and abroad.

Within the past year and a half, I've become both a first-time homeowner in Russian Hill and a first-time parent.

Even though my family won't personally be able to benefit from lower rents now that we're homeowners, we support the family zoning plan because it's a forward-looking inclusive step towards creating a city for the next generation.

From 2010 to 2019, jobs in San Francisco grew by 39% while housing grew by only 8%.

That gap has driven up both rent and pushed out young families like our own out to suburbs or other cities.

Family zoning introduces the opportunity for multifamily sized housing where only single family houses are now permitted.

It further addresses climate change by allowing for population growth along our important corridors of our transit-rich city.

I want to share my love of San Francisco with the current and future residents like myself and make sure that the next generation like my sons uh can build their lives here too.

Uh please forward this broadly supported proposal with your recommendation to the full board so our city can remain a place where everyone can thrive for generations to come.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

My name is Lee Sargis.

I'm a District 4 resident.

Um, District 4 voters resoundingly recalled Joel and Gardio for lack of representation.

Um, more than 45 days later, we still lack representation, and so we're trying to figure out how we participate in this process.

Um Chairman uh Melgar, you mentioned earlier that um uh amendments could be worked with through the mayor's office.

I guess I would like to understand how district four might work through those amendments and make sure that our voices are heard.

In lieu of that, I'm gonna talk about a few of these things now.

Um, uh what's very important to us is the coastal zone protections.

Uh Mayor Luri's plan makes legislative code changes to the city and and to the city's general plan, which undermines protections, specifically stated in the California Coastal Act.

It includes more than 10 parcels that are zoned for high-rise development.

These changes must be removed and the parcels deleted.

Um it's important that the changes to the general plan and the legislative code, those changes, those proposed changes, be rejected.

This is introducing a local zoning ordinance into the coastal zone, which is um not acceptable to District 4.

Um, we also priority of first things first, where our uh very vulnerable on the west side and the southeast side as well to auxiliary water supply system has not been extended.

Um, in spite of three bond measures, uh 2010, 2014, 2020, over 312 million million dollars, and two civil grand juries, both of which recommended the AWSS be extended and urgently.

This has not been done.

Um, so this needs to be done as well as other critical infrastructure.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Lila Holzman.

I am speaking in support of the family zoning plan.

I'm a native Californian and have lived in San Francisco for about a decade, first in North Beach for many years, and more recently as a homeowner in District 5.

I lost my job at a climate change nonprofit a few months ago, a sign of the scary times we are in nationally, and I've been getting more and more involved in my local communities, and I love San Francisco.

So I'm somewhat new to this space and have been learning a lot through coming to these hearings and getting to know folks and reading up on it.

And as complicated as it is, and even with all the buzz that arose with the economists report, which that we heard about today, it still seems clear to me that passing this zoning plan makes sense as an important step with lots of other factors that will continue to need addressing, but that can't be dressed through a zoning plan regardless.

I do hear that we need to make sure folks from here can continue to live here.

San Francisco is a rapidly aging city.

But that also means we need to make sure younger generations can also live and work and have kids and families here to continue to ensure our city can thrive.

Right now we are driving millennials and younger generations away.

That's a recipe for an unsustainable city.

Please support this item.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

I urge you to vote against this destructive and useless useless legislation.

The upzoning plan devastates your constituents and benefits only the investor class.

It is solely a land and power grab.

The trickle-down economic justifications for the plan are absurd.

The arena numbers are bogus.

The plan is Byzantine.

The planning department can't or won't fully explain it.

The monstrous successes, 800 million new unit capacity in 50-year time frame, are megalomaniacal.

It is a sellout of the small business, cultural, architectural, and social fabric of the city.

It plunders rent control, which is the largest, most successful, and most important program the city has for affordable stable housing.

The amendments, they only cover the local program, and the so-called tenant protections are inadequate.

The plan remains a betrayal of the half century of tenants' rights on which your constituents have relied and built their lives.

City government is abdicating its responsibility to its constituents.

It is abusing the power of government to regulate for big business and against the people.

Big business gets free range for profit.

The people get insecurity, financial and personal loss, and displacement.

The upzoning will not deliver an adequately housed city.

It will deliver only real estate speculation and misery to the majority of your constituents.

It destroys trust in city government.

Grow up and stand up to the wiener boogeyman.

Vote no on this dishonest and destructive upzoning.

Thank you for your comments, next speaker, please.

Thank you for also not interrupting the speaker with applause or any kind of audible expressions of support or disparagement.

We'll hear from you if you are next to give public comment.

Please begin.

Hello, commissioners.

My name is Teresa Dulala Swedes on Kent.

Upzoning is framed as a solution, but in truth, it accelerates displacement, deepens inequity, and repeats the same planning failures that destroyed Manila Town, where our entire Filipino community lost homes and identity in the name of redevelopment.

We must protect all rent-controlled housing, affordable housing and small businesses from one story and above.

Not reward them to weak into weak amendments that just serve upzoning's agenda.

We want strong tenant and small businesses protections.

No one should ever have to face the same.

It's easy for proponents to say build and expand.

But what happens to the people directly affected?

So it's okay to displace rent controlled buildings in order to build new affordable housing.

A big question, Mark.

No matter how big or small, you know, the businesses and buildings are, the negative economic impact of people and business are tremendous in their own rights and situations.

Upzoning is taking advantage of what the housing element requires for states.

Commissioners, please, I ask that you also demand also the figures and how much affordable means to print.

Maraming Salamat Po.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Good evening to those of you who are left in this chambers.

My name is Lena Bayo with Boder, and I just want to say we appreciate uh Supervisor Chen and Chen's leadership in introducing critical amendments to strengthen tenant protections, prioritize affordable housing, support small businesses, create real family-sized housing, and ensure sustainable affordable development.

We urge the committee to move these amendments forward.

Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to say hands off our public lands.

Public land should be for affordable housing, a 100% deeply affordable housing to be able to stabilize the community.

And as a personal note, uh, where's the housing for single parents with multiple kids?

Because that does decrease the AMI and the ability to qualify for housing.

So as we talk about affordability, I really appreciated the comments earlier about defining what that looks like.

Because 120 AMI may not be what's affordable for me.

So thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Dane Willette.

I live in Cole Valley, and I'm here to ask y'all to support the family zoning plan.

My wife and I recently moved here from Texas.

We are trying to start a family soon.

And as you may be aware, in Texas, it's not necessarily a safe place at the moment to start families.

There's a lot of laws and rules that get in the way of safe family creation there.

Unfortunately for us, housing prices are incredibly high here in San Francisco, though the family zoning plan is a good start to get these housing costs under control.

As we heard earlier from the report of the City Economist, it paints a stark picture on our goal of meeting those 36,000 units.

But there are some good things in it as well.

It points out that even with this relatively small increase in housing, we will see a decrease in housing prices.

Those decreases will be even bigger if we are able to build even more.

And that is going to be good for bringing down prices, which is going to help me and people like me.

Again, I hope that you support the family zoning plan, and I hope you do it without the amendments that could endanger hitting any kind of increased building goals.

And thank you for your time.

Thank you for comments, next speaker, please.

Hello, everybody.

My name is Divya Singh, and I'm with Growth of Richmond.

Also, separately.

This is the earliest that I've ever spoken to public comments, so I'm really going to say for this.

I feel like a lot of the comments that have been made today have had kind of a doom and gloom flavor.

Um so I'm just going to talk about things that I'm excited about.

Um I ext I'm excited by the prospect of newer buildings, um, potentially ones with elevators, so my neighbors don't have to take the stairs to get to where they need to be if they're mobility challenged.

Um I'm excited by newer buildings with potentially energy efficient appliances, such that we can pay lower energy bills.

Um, as I know that's like at the top of mind for a lot of people right now.

Um, and you know, just based on the conversations that I've had with bar and restaurant owners in this in the Richmond, particularly where I live, people are just excited to have more liveliness and more foot traffic come through to actually come support and ensure that their establishment thrives.

So with all that said, I support the family zoning plan.

I acknowledge that it's one step in like the broad coalescence of things that actually needs to happen to ensure that rents come down and uh units actually get constructed.

But um I trust that you know it's gonna set us in the right direction.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments to have the next speaker, please.

Good evening, supervisors.

Um, Phil Praffle, I'm SFEMB, and I reside in Noe Valley.

I'm here to support the this necessity of the family zoning plan, pose any amendments that delay construction for for the housing that we need, and acknowledge that there are additional steps needed to be taken.

Throughout the hearing today, much has been warned about the perils of developers and luxury housing and pricing out workers who are keeping the city functioning.

Our housing is a luxury in a way that clean water is a luxury after a hurricane.

It's become scarce because but and it becomes a luxury.

We can't blame nature for our shortage.

Like it's a history just of bad policies, and we're just created unaffordable housing, which the family zoning plan is one of many things at the local level and and at the state level, like SB 79, which are we need to fix.

Rent control is strong in SF, and it will be, and as studies have shown, rent control will protect how as it stands, will protect housing with up zoning.

I shouldn't have gone through that, and no one else should go have to depend on family or a pandemic.

Will help the legacy businesses that we all love and share that will that will keep these businesses running for the next 30, 50, and 100 years.

Support F ZP, the family zoning plan, and oppose any legislation that doesn't meet our housing goals.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Howard Wong, an architect and a native of San Francisco and North Beach.

I hope that San Francisco citizens and political power work with the state to really create a real regional and statewide plan to increase housing.

San Francisco has always been the largest, one of the largest developers of housing and the projects in the state and in the country.

Look at all the buildings we have throughout this half of the market and waterfront that we didn't have when I was growing up.

In particular, the northern waterfront needs to be protected.

In the dark of night, I don't understand why we suddenly introduced tall buildings along the border in contradiction to the waterfront battles of generations, the freeway battles, the many developments along the water, the 40-foot height limits, the and the ballot initiatives, the urban design elements, the codes, all of that contradicts development in the northern part, northeastern part of the city, which is the densest pure neighborhood in the United States.

Also, things have changed, depending on how you count housing, the time frame.

We already have fulfilled arenas.

AB 670, which was passed recently, allows us to count uh preservation of affordable house certain types of affordable housing in the count.

We have new housing being proposed each day in the presidial.

There are unmet undeveloped untitled projects yet to be built in Pier 70, Mission Rock, Park Merced, Bay View.

Speaker's time is concluded.

Thank you for sharing your comments with the committee.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Hello, supervisors.

Um, my name is Gwen McLaughlin.

I'm here today speaking on behalf of Small Business Forward.

Uh small business forward supports Supervisor Chan's amendments to the family zoning plan.

As it stands, the proposed upzoning along neighborhood commercial corridors places hundreds of small businesses at the risk of displacement with no financial support in place for their successful relocation.

Small businesses are likely to be displaced with a non-renewal of lease.

With no right of return or financial commitment to their continuation, we know there will be small business workers that will lose their livelihood.

Small businesses are being sacrificed for housing development, affordable only to the most affluent in this city.

The housing that will be built under this plan will not be affordable and will not be accessible to small business workers.

We support Supervisor Connie Chan's amendments to preserve all housing, including all rent controlled units, from being demolished.

And we support demolition and impact fees that luxury housing developers pay into a fund which assists with small business relocation programs.

Furthermore, we support the elimination of density decontrol from the NCDs and ROTCs because San Francisco needs family housing, not just dorms.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

Next speaker, please.

I'm Paul Conroy, president of Ingleside Tourists' Homes Association.

Not a homeowner's association.

We include renters and homeowners.

We strongly oppose the so-called family zoning plan as it will dismantle existing vibrant communities through speculative redevelopment and demolition.

It will drive up land values and displace families.

If you do pass this plan, which in its present form is an unnecessary demolition and relocation plan, we ask that it first be amended in the following respects.

Remove density decontrol.

The plan should maintain setbacks, height transitions, and massing rules to maintain green space crucial for environmental sustainability.

Remove provisions that allow 65-foot heights on interior residential street corner lots and 8,000 square foot lots in RH1 districts.

This provision will result in randomly placed towers with no relationship to neighborhood form or any broader planning vision.

Provide for a 40-foot height limit on commercial corridors adjoining low-scale residences, similar to an amendment already proposed for District 1.

Protect historic resources and prohibit demolition of existing housing stock.

And finally, provide housing choices scaled for families with children and increase the required family housing units consistent with the city's family-friendly policies.

And please stop blaming the state's arbitrary mandate for this proposal.

Ask the city attorney's office, which is well staffed, to represent San Francisco as a charter city with home rule authority, unlike the many general law cities in California, and challenge the state's attempt to dictate land use policies.

Thank you for sharing your comments with the committee.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Hello, supervisors.

My name is P.

Siegel.

You've probably read letters from me.

I am the uh director of a small nonprofit trying to get housing for artists in San Francisco.

I've been trying for nine years.

And very recently, when I was trying to figure out why this hasn't happened, I discovered that I have been ignoring about 10 years of sheer unadulterated cronyism and corruption in City Hall.

It's almost staggering how much there is.

And the Board of Supervisors has acted as our protection from a very corrupt city hall for many years.

And so I am hoping that you will oppose this project completely because almost a dozen or perhaps even more of the neighborhood associations in the northeast quadrant of the city have said we hate this.

Don't do it.

So if somehow it manages to happen, one really has to ask: who are our representatives working for?

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

My name is Ruth Ferguson, and I'm here with District 9 Neighbors for Housing.

For the past six months, I've come to this podium to urge you to pass this plan.

Along the way, I've shared personal stories about why I support it.

About my parents who risked everything to build a small business that's lasted 31 years.

About my sister, an ICU nurse that lives in a rent-controlled duplex that will be rezoned by this plan, yet still supports this plan to give working people like her a fighting chance.

And about the young San Franciscans who shared heart-wrenching stories with me, who overwhelmingly support building housing to provide a home for their generation, their aging parents, and their community.

I support the family zoning plan because it gives us a path forward toward shared prosperity.

One that's possible when we invest in affordable housing, transit, public education, including community college, and a strong social safety net.

I also support family zoning for my family.

My husband and I couldn't be prouder to be San Franciscans.

We hope to grow old in our neighborhood, and we want to raise a family who cares as deeply for our community as we do.

We want to know that our tax dollars are building a more inclusive future, one that extends to our unhoused neighbors and to the generations who will come after me.

Us.

I love this city.

I don't care what anyone else thinks about whether San Francisco is doomed or not.

The people who get it get it, and San Francisco is the most extraordinary community I've ever known.

We are resilient, creative, kooky, and full of people who care deeply about each other in the world.

Change is never easy.

The implementation of this plan will take persistence and an equity focused North Star.

An editorial in Jacobin magazine this week, just this week noted that we need zoning reform for things like social housing.

So we'll keep showing up to organize and to make this city more affordable for working people, low-income residents, and future generations.

Please pass this plan soon so we can build a San Francisco of opportunity and belonging for everyone.

I promise I'll be back at this podium to fight for that future and to ask you once again to please rezone Bernal Heights to improve.

Our housing affordability.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

Hi, my name is Charlie Natoli.

I live in District 6, and I wanted to speak in strong support of the family zoning plan.

I also wanted to thank the board and the planning department for all the hard work, revisions and details and walking a very um difficult tightrope for all this time.

So I think, you know, I think the recent city economic report noted that even while the plan would fall short of its goal, it would still create around 3,000 to 5,000 new jobs and have massive benefits, which is really great.

I think we can create an even better future if we added more, considering, you know, more high height increases in more places, reducing impact fees, more financing and grants, especially for um below market rate housing in every neighborhood.

Um I think that there's a lot of great stuff, and we can absolutely build a better SF.

Um that said, I was here last hearing, and what bothered me is how much of the debate seemed to be around, not so much around whether or not we're building how much housing we're building, but how much was market rate versus affordable or family versus studios, or how much we need to kind of raise up our hands because you know we can't control interest rates, so there's nothing we can do, or demonizing home building companies in the middle of a housing shortage.

To me, there's something very revealing about how this debate has been framed, or at least misleading, right?

Many of our neighborhoods are largely single family or duplex.

The average cost of a house like that is around 1.5 million, which is a mind-bendingly high number.

Um, and yet, again, the debate keeps being framed around what types of apartment buildings do we want to have in our most exclusionary neighborhoods.

Um, fundamentally, I think that we need a lot of everything.

Um I also wonder if this framing serves a purpose, right?

When opponents make the debate about certain types of apartments versus others, they don't have to defend the fact that our zoning policies have turbocharged wealth inequality and force out so many people from our city over the last 30 years.

So I wanted to give credit to everyone again for working so hard and walking this political tightrope.

But I think this is a true crisis, and we need to do as much as we can to make as much housing as we can.

Uh, thank you so much for all your work.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Mozu.

I'm here uh to urge you to uh support the family zoning plan.

Um I am uh in the process of starting a family, and we are looking uh very much at the daunting prospect of raising a child here in San Francisco where we would like to stay.

Uh, and so I think that this uh family zoning plan will be uh a really great step towards that.

Um I know that uh the recent report uh indicated that we will be falling short of our goals under this plan.

Um, but looking further and deeper into that, um, I observe that um over the course of the next 20 years or so, uh, we will have uh dec slightly declining rents when falling short.

Uh, we're going to have uh a lot many more neighbors uh for our businesses uh to be customers, and um we uh are going to generate a lot more jobs and economic activity, all of which will not be going to our landlords, uh instead will be uh staying in our pockets because of that, uh, because of the reduced rent.

So I urge you guys uh to pass uh this family zoning plan and also make it bigger by including uh Burnal Heights, as well as uh more areas uh near public amenities such as schools, parks, um, and uh and uh commercial corridors.

Um increasing uh density around there will allow us to meet uh our actual target and also uh further reduce uh the rents and the house prices.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Okay, I said earlier I spent the last five days showing people from the East Coast around San Francisco.

Another thing they absolutely loved is the cable cars.

In 1947, the mayor tried to get rid of the cable cars, and the people said no.

Thank God.

You have a chance now to save the character of the city as being the equivalent of Paris and Rome.

Okay.

Trees are disappearing wherever you put those new buildings.

I live right off of Vaness, and my rent controlled building is being um zoned 14 stories when it's currently six, which means the incentive is to demolish it.

So I support the amendments of uh supervisors Chan and uh Chen to uh to protect the rent-controlled buildings.

Now, the young people are complaining about how unaffordable this is.

The plan does nothing to preserve affordability.

So it's very frustrating because um it there should be overwhelming support by Supervisor Mahood to I'm sorry, all the supervisors to support the amendment that would 100% uh make the anything developed on public land affordable.

Another thing the 38 Geary is already too crowded, and you're gonna put more people on that line.

Okay, all right.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Hello, supervisors.

Annie Freiman here with Spur, also a renter in the sunset.

I'll be short and sweet.

You all have heard plenty from me over the past number of months.

Um this plan represents years of work from the planning department, from supervisors from our former mayor, from our current mayor, and yet it's still the bare minimum of what we need to pass, and it is still very worthy of a swift passage.

This was reiterated earlier today in the presentation from the city economist report that showed that although we are not in an economic position right now to have this plan in the very short terms per the degree of housing construction that would address 40 50 years of compounding housing shortage, we still need to get it passed and get to work because all housing is a benefit to San Francisco.

Spur also supports Cheryl and Souter's proposed amendment to expand the incentive for building more two and three bedroom units.

And so we look forward and urge the committee to adopt that amendment and also reject any amendments that weaken or dilute the plan and also prepare to pass additional legislation in 2026 that's supplement um not just the zoning, but also some of the policies and programs that will spur housing construction.

Um so thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, thank you, supervisors, staff.

Really appreciate all the hard work that's gone into this.

Uh my name is Deborah Solomon.

I'm a resident of District 7 in the Sunset.

I strongly support the family zoning plan.

I think it's fantastic.

It's a great start.

Um, and support amendments that also support the increase in the supply of housing, and I really discourage amendments that would decrease the supply of housing.

Um I did want to mention that sometimes my children come and comment at these venues.

They are both very strong supporters of more housing in San Francisco.

They're teenagers.

They would like to stay in San Francisco.

Unfortunately, my 17 year old is applying to college.

She couldn't come.

My 14 year old is at a model UN meeting, but they did want me to express their support for the family zoning plan.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Sean Burgess, and I support the Family Zoning Plan.

I have two children who will grow up, move out, and look for a place of their own.

I'd love for them to stay nearby, but if we keep stifling housing growth, I doubt they'll be able to.

San Francisco didn't always prevent growth.

Many neighborhoods we celebrate today were born from their ability to grow and densify.

In the 1930s, it was flexible housing that allowed older homes in the Fillmore to be subdivided into denser, affordable units, housing the musicians who turned it into Harlem of the West.

Later North Beach's cheap split up Edwardians housed the B generation, shared Victorians in the Haight Ashbury fueled the hippie movement, and subdivided homes in the Castro became the foundation of one of the world's first openly LGBTQ communities.

All of these movements share the same pattern, cheap, flexible housing that could densify.

But in 1978, zoning change, housing flexibility was outlawed, replaced by rules modeled on suburbs designed to exclude lower income and non-white families.

Those rules didn't just reinforce segregation.

They stopped the kind of cultural movements the city is known for, and they're still stopping whatever might come next.

That's why keeping our current zoning isn't neutral.

It's a choice to keep exclusion alive.

Let me repeat that.

So I wonder when my children are old enough to find a place of their own, what will they find?

A neighborhood that preserved its buildings but left no room for them, or one that preserved its values by making space for people.

I hope it's the latter, and that's why we should pass this plan.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening.

My name is Marie Joyce.

I am a 13-year homeowner in the Outer Richmond.

First of all, I want to thank Chairman Melgar and her committee for all the hard work they've been doing around this very, very complex issue, as well as supervisors Chan, who's my supervisor, and Chen, for the amendments they propose that I think are really strong.

I also want to say one thing that's concerned me about this whole issue is how polarizing it has been.

You're either a YMB or you're a NIMBY.

Well, I speak to you today as a SIMB, smart in my own backyard.

And this plan as it stands now is not that smart.

I want to bring to your attention an excellent article that came out in the New York Times last March and was said the headline was how does Paris Remain Paris by investing billions into public housing.

In the article, it says, quote, Paris is being buffeted by the same market forces vexing other so-called superstar cities, like London, San Francisco, and New York.

A sanctum for the world's wealthiest to park their money and buy a piece of a living museum.

And unfortunately, the way this upzoning plan stands now, I'm very concerned that is what is going to happen.

I don't think it's an accident that so much of the upzoning is crammed into the northern and western parts of our city where we have the iconic views that developers crave for luxury housing.

Views of our parks, our beaches, our landmarks, our waterfronts.

These are the things that belong to all of us.

These are public vistas.

And it's what makes our city circulation so much.

Thank you.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

And I'm speaking for the group D forward.

I've lived in D4 for 50 years.

When I moved to California in the early 70s and San Francisco, it was extremely hard to get an apartment then too as a young person.

But we have a bunch of young people.

They wrote about them.

They were the entitled clubs.

And they became entitled adults, and they think they don't have to put years in at work to be able to live in the most expensive city in the country.

But anyway, I want to tell you that I was at a meeting where we were trying to come to unanimity in D4, and there was a hundred percent unanimity on protecting the coastal zone.

That is a uh be very, very careful how you vote on that, because everybody is watching that, not just in D4, but uh throughout the city.

We need to protect the coastal zone.

We totally support uh Chan and Chen's uh amendments.

If we have to live with this at all, by the way.

And the more I listened to it today, I've been here many, many times.

You've heard all of these points before, and yet none of the points uh from the people's point of view, the affordable housing didn't really get into this plan.

The protect the protections for uh rent controlled and small businesses didn't make the plan.

They all had to become amendments, and we weren't and we have to push and beg for them.

So you're addressing the wealthy this is the rich zoning plan for rich people and speculation.

And uh our planning department, they've come out of education system that teaches the UMB triple.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition as their community organizer.

The plan before the Board of Supervisors today is a compromise and a fairly modest one at that, shaped by years and of negotiation, technical analysis, and community input.

Now, the plan is ready to move forward, and the city cannot afford to delay it any further.

The new report from the city economists makes one thing undeniable.

The map, the map before you is a start to bring homes to a city that was affected by decades of housing shortage.

Delaying is not an option.

Delaying means seniors, families, workers will continue to struggle, and the city will remain vulnerable to state intervention, loss of funding, and the builders' remedy.

We urge city leaders to pass the plan and immediately commit to expanding it.

We're supportive of thoughtful amendments that protect small businesses like Supervisor Melvar's legislation and Supervisor Cheryl and Souter's push for larger family-sized units.

These make the plan stronger.

And the bigger picture remains San Francisco San Francisco must stop settling for symbolic action when the data shows we can and must do more.

And I want to be clear: the status quote is displacement, the status quo is unaffordability, the status quo is not working, but we have an opportunity in front of us to make the change of a new status quo for more neighbors and families and transit and small businesses and neighborhoods where people of all ages can remain and live.

So please pass the plan today and make it bolder.

Our city really depends on it.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

So nice you have to hear us twice.

Uh Whit Turner, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition.

Uh, also coming to you as a district three resident and speaking on behalf of my grandmother, Linda Muir, who is a 20-year Russian Hill resident.

Um, what's clear from this process is how much work has gone into getting us here.

Um, but what also is clear is that San Francisco can't afford another cycle of uncertainty.

We need a housing framework that gives clarity to both communities and builders.

The data shows that currently we are not on track to meet our housing goals, and the cost of that shortfall isn't abstract.

It's lost jobs, lost homes, and lost opportunity for people who want to stay in the city.

Um, city has to treat this as a foundation, not a finish line.

Use this as a chance to bring predictability and momentum back to our housing process, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening, supervisors.

Uh, my name is Jatin.

I'm a resident of District 6, and I'm here in uh strong support of the family zoning plan.

Um I moved to San Francisco about a decade ago and have in the year since fallen in love with the city and decided to make it my home for the long haul.

Um I want to share something personal here.

Um, San Francisco is where my uh career began.

Um, it is where I went and met my wife, and in under two months, um we will be welcoming our first child at UCSF in Mission Bay.

I want to raise my son in the city.

I want him to grow up feeling like he can afford to live in the city that he was born in without needing to win the lottery to do so.

The only way we can make that a reality is by building far more housing than we do today.

That means allowing the construction of duplexes, triplexes, small apartment buildings in neighborhoods where it's currently illegal to build anything except low density single family homes.

The city economists' report last week only underscores the urgent need to make it legal to build more housing.

It also reinforces why we must pass the family zoning plan without any amendments that would reduce the housing capacity that this plan creates.

I urge you to pass the family zoning plan and to reject any amendments that would reduce the housing capacity created by this plan.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening, Supervisor Chen, Melgar, and Mahmoud.

I hope I've got the pronunciation correct.

Um my remarks will just be very brief.

Uh I want to congratulate and thank Supervisor Melgar for what is hopefully the smallest amendment that has ever been made in the form of removing one key crucial word that in turn would uh forestall a potential huge problem that really would have threatened the tourist identity of fisherman's wharf and created an unintended consequence that would have harmed a lot of jobs.

So fingers crossed that uh all commas make their way in, and thank you, and uh have a good evening.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, everyone, I'm Stan Hayes.

I'm uh also from the Telegraph Hill dwellers and I had a kind of funny thing happen to me tonight.

I was listening and I found that one of my friends inadvertently read my speech.

I have no speech, but I liked it.

I spent time on it.

I know you probably are tired of hearing this from anybody, but I'm gonna say it again.

Let's see if you can tell whether this is the same speech.

Most of all, this plan will not work.

Financing and construction costs are limiting housing, not zoning.

This plan will not build housing affordable to most San Franciscans.

This plan is a major overreach with its arena housing target based on outdated, overstated pre-pandemic population data that no longer applies.

The state of California now projects that in 2030 and even in 2050, thousands fewer people are going to live in San Francisco than lived there in 2020.

So, why is it we're letting Sacramento force us to build 82,000 new units?

This plan is unfair.

Some of the densest parts of San Francisco will bear far more than their fair share, especially North Beach, Telegraph Hill, and the Northern Waterfront.

Put them back where they were in the housing element.

You should not move forward with this plan yet.

But if you do, please adopt the amendments proposed by supervisors, Chan and Chen.

And I won't read a whole those.

Please make this plan better, make it work.

Above all, do no harm.

See, it wasn't that bad.

Thank you for your patience.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening.

Honest Charlie Bodkin, D5 renter, co-founder of San Franciscans for Social Housing.

Also a member of SFMB.

At the October 20th meeting of land use, I talked about the market conditions that make building costs prohibitive.

Right now.

So I wasn't surprised to read the headline in the chronicle last Wednesday.

Lori's family zoning would fall far short of state housing goals, new report says, referring to our chief economist's new report that shows this zoning plan won't meaningfully add enough new housing.

If we want to stay compliant with state law, we need to fund what voters were told in 2020 we were going to fund a robust social housing program.

Last month on October 6th at a town hall in the sunset, Mayor Laurie was asked by a resident there if he would use 2020 Prop I funds for social housing.

And the mayor said he would look into it.

Voters want more housing, but when presented with the facts that the market isn't building it, they're asking you, our elected leaders, to present the real plan for funding and building social housing.

Now's the time for government action.

I'm asking you to take action.

I'm asking you to follow up with the legislation's author, Mayor Laurie, to seek assurances that will put actual money into social housing, as was promised by the board in 2020.

If the people can't trust San Francisco city government to live up to its stated intent, how can the state?

Now's the time to build social housing.

Now's the time to build housing.

Now's the time for my fellow Yimbies who are excited for more housing to call on you, our lawmakers, to actually fund housing, to fund social housing.

Come on, where are my shimbys at?

Alright, thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening, supervisors.

My name is Mike Chen.

I'm a renter in District 2.

I support a strong uh family housing plan that builds homes and meets our state law obligations.

Uh I was really excited to look at the economists report uh to talk about how this plan could save renters money and you know, especially when affordability and cost of living is are really key issues.

It's amazing to think that this is a plan, this is a way that we don't have to raise taxes, we don't have to like pull from the city budget.

We can save renters and working working class folks over a thousand dollars a year.

That's money that doesn't have to go to landlords.

I can go to other things that can help, like you know, help with food security with making sure that people can get to enrichment with with lots of other stuff, especially when we know that San Francisco is an expensive place to live, and I was really heartened to see that and to know that also if we build more, then we can also help renters save more.

Um, you know, I've lived through um I've lived through very competitive renter markets like 10 years ago, uh, when everybody was trying to find a place, and my landlord did raise the price from his list price because he was like, look, there's a lot of demand.

Would you would you take would you take this place for 200?

And me and my roommate said, yeah, because it was a crazy market.

Uh and we know that this year, like the market stuff is is back.

Like renters are competing for not that many homes.

And this is one way we can build more supply to make sure that we can create more affordability, put more money into the pockets of renters and not landlords.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Diane Josephs and I live in Russian Hill between Van S and Polk on Union.

And uh I've heard all about the free-for-all with the builders' remedy, where skyscrapers will be where 40 foot heights used to be.

That's what our supervisor keeps telling us.

Well, my neighborhood is going to be that way, irrespective of builder's remedy.

In fact, builders' remedy at least puts affordability in.

It won't even do that.

It will replace my 40-foot going up union with a hundred and fourteen story buildings, because we are off of Van S.

It also is an upper Vanessa.

It's just not the area to have that kind of high rise.

It feels almost like a redo of 1906, where they tore down all the east side from Filbert to Clay.

Skyscrapers are not the simple social solution.

They are huge steel that has to go down into the ground 100 feet to go up, especially when you're dealing with the upper Van F area with the geophysical conditions that exist there.

They're not going to happen quickly, they're going to be extremely expensive, not for affordable housing, and they're going to take five, six, seven years if we're lucky and they even work.

But please putting them on the intersecting side streets, where would the cranes go?

Also, what I'm concerned with that no one really has brought up is that the new amendments to the builders' remedy would make it very difficult to fix things once this zoning is approved, because they will just go in and say, here's the zoning, you've approved it.

There is no room for corrections.

They will say that's causing uh problems for them that are unnecessary.

So when you do this, please do it right.

Also, I'm a supportive of supervisor channels.

So the next speaker, please.

Good evening, Supervisors Jane Natoli.

I'm the San Francisco organizing director for Yumby Action.

Here to speak in support of the family zoning plan with amendments that won't water it down.

You will heard from some of our members today on behalf of the other 1300 or so who couldn't make it and provide comment.

I wanted to make sure that you know that there are a lot of people who support this and who could not be here today.

Someone mentioned earlier that you were elected to lead, and isn't that the truth in this moment?

Wouldn't true leadership be reversing our decades-long crippling housing shortage?

True leadership is creating a city that does not drive out all of its young people due to exorbitant housing costs.

True leadership is creating a city where you can stay if your living situation changes.

Not, you know, being forced to move to another area just because you're having a family or because you can't find the kind of building that you can age in place in.

I said this to someone earlier, and I it feels more and more true as we have this discussion.

We're in this to solve a housing shortage, not a math problem.

There's so many debates about what number means what, and I think that's what we have to keep in mind.

This plan can't simultaneously do nothing and destroy our city, and yet that's the kind of conversation we're having.

When folks are mentioning that our population might decline, that's because we have not built housing.

We've not done this for almost five decades.

And you can see examples of what happens when you welcome new people and when you build new homes.

We can look at other cities in other places and see that, right?

Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis all show us these kinds of paths are possible.

It's going to take more than just this plan to solve our housing shortage.

This is necessary but not sufficient.

It's folly to expect any one law or rule change to dig out of a five-decade hole.

Please pass this plan expeditiously so we can get to work on the rest.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Supervisors, I'm Monica Morse, Chair of Land Use for the West of Twin Peaks Central Council, representing over 40,000 residents.

San Francisco is on a path to recovery.

So why are we threatening to destroy the stable, livable family neighborhoods that anchor this city?

Our focus should be clear.

Revive downtown's economy, confront the humanitarian crises of homelessness and addiction head on, and streamline the building of 70,000 housing units already approved in the pipeline.

That's how we fuel real growth, not by leaving a legacy of unnecessary demolition.

The Economist Report exposed the truth.

This plan doesn't even close half the rousing gap for the next five years and relies on higher rents to incentivize construction.

So much for affordability, and the supposed urgency is hollow.

Builders' remedy requires affordable units, exactly what developers aren't lining up to build.

And any move to decertify the housing element will take another year.

So let's try a smarter path.

Zoning alone doesn't build housing.

Everybody has said this.

Zoning alone doesn't build housing.

Delivering the 70,000 approved homes does.

We can support duplexes, unlock fourplexes and sixplexes while protecting neighborhood character by removing density D control in residential neighborhoods and safeguarding eligible historic resources.

We urge you to strongly we urge you to strongly move forward with wisdom and not demolition.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello.

My name is Brighty Newman.

I live in District 1.

According to the Planning Commission, 65% of all San Franciscans are renters.

In his report, Ted Egan says without any way to meaningfully estimate the number of evictions or demolitions of rent controlled units or the financial impact on tenants, this report does not attempt to quantify these potential costs.

Great.

Families and businesses displaced by this plan will not be returning.

Ask the 45,000 people displaced during the 2009 mission district upzoning.

Ask the thousands displaced during the Western Edition redevelopment, which was not some really beautiful thing.

The housing plan being is being rammed down our throats, complete with coercive threats before most Westside and Northside residents have even heard of it without any meaningful official estimate of the number of evictions, demolitions, or financial impact on current tenants.

Yet it proposes demolishing the homes, businesses, and communities of current residents while offering developers countless incentives to avoid building affordable housing if they just build bigger, wider, taller, uglier.

Great.

How are we San Franciscans here and now to see this housing plan as anything other than a plan to dispossess and replace us?

Scott Weiner has boxed us into an ugly and unnecessary scenario.

San Francisco is a beautiful city to live in.

Now those of us who live here want to stay in our homes.

Thank you to Supervisors Chan and Chen for your tenacity and your loyalty to your constituents.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening, Supervisors Eric Brooks, uh coordinator of San Francisco CEQA defenders and also our city of San Francisco.

I've spent the last two decades of my life fighting for housing justice in San Francisco.

Most of my full-time job has wound up being that.

And while it's great that you're protecting affordable housing, some affordable housing in some of the existing units, that doesn't solve the problem.

The problem that Supervisor Chris Daly talked about 20 years ago, which is that every year, without fail, on average, we build 12% affordable housing in San Francisco and 88% market rate housing that never changes.

It's been the same way for decades.

And it's what's causing the homeless homelessness crisis.

The uh this legislation and its findings in the first two pages starts out with a lie.

It says we do not have a capacity to provide the housing that the state uh requires.

There are 70,000 units in the pipeline.

There are 40,000 vacancies in San Francisco.

That's a 10% vacancy rate.

And there are thousands of units available where there is currently empty office space.

This plan in front of you is not is going to perpetuate those problems.

It perpetuates all those numbers that I just put out.

The only way to solve this is for you to dramatically rewrite this legislation so that you're focusing specifically on those 70,000 and 40,000 and office units and show the state that we can actually build those.

Thank you for sharing your comments to the committee.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Greg Giacchino, and I am a district three resident.

I urge you to support the Chan and Chen amendments.

They are much needed to triage this deeply flawed upzoning plan.

The so-called family zoning plan is built on the flawed arena numbers that are frozen in amber in pre-pandemic 2019.

At the time they were grossly inflated, today they are comically ridiculous.

Those numbers ignore current realities of housing demand, infrastructure, and economics, yet they're being used to justify permanent deregulation.

We need to protect all rank controlled units, including two unit buildings.

Otherwise, this plan is nothing more than a cynical urban renewal redevelopment plan that serves only capital.

This is a plan the city crafted with the MD lobbyists instead of the community that should be chilling for all San Franciscans.

San Francisco desperately needs thoughtful data-driven planning rooted in affordability, community, and context, not a top-down upzoning plan that is about deregulation for profits rather than housing for people.

Fisherman's Wharf and Columbus Avenue must be removed.

They were never identified in the housing element for upzoning, and they are not appropriate for upzoning or density decontrol.

Please support the Chan and Chen amendments to restore balance to this flawed plan, integrity, and accountability to the process.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Excuse me, Eileen Bogan was speak opposing unless amended.

This upzoning plan seems to be detached from reality and seeks to colonize the West side.

Even the city's chief economist report can be seen as a minimal impacts over 20 years.

That being said, should the mayor put on his big boy pants to sue the state, countersue the MBs, and begin to get rid of London Breeds cronies on boards and commissions.

The planning department is pretending that it can down zone next year when SB 330 expressly prohibits it.

Especially 30604G.

Statewide RENA numbers are inflated because of Wiener's SB 828.

Hundreds of state housing bills in recent years haven't moved the needle.

Wiener's most recent bill, SB 79, is based on transit-oriented development, a concept which has come and gone.

Residents in luxury housing don't take transit.

And at the end of the day, Emperor Weiner has no clothes.

Wiener's crony was dethroned because he seemed to be to bastardize the district.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item numbers six through eleven called together?

Madam Chair, it appears we have no further speakers.

Okay.

Public comment is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who came out to provide comments for uh this ongoing process.

Um, I am going to call on my colleagues to provide any uh or to respond to any comments that were uh given during public comment or ask questions before we uh move any amendments okay.

Okay, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I wanted to ask the planning department uh a couple questions about the list of amendments that uh the chair mentioned before public comment as the ones we're gonna be voting on today.

Um, and I wanted to ask um kind of three questions uh about any of the amendments that are proceeding and get your assessment.

Uh firstly, do any of the amendments that are proposed today to be moved impact housing capacity in any way, um, or add constraints to housing development?

Two, what has HCD specifically said in respect to these amendments since our last meeting?

And three, if any don't pass, um, or say these amendments do go forward or don't go forward, how will SB 79 be taken to effect, or is SB 79 not relevant for these amendments as well?

Thank you, Supervisor Lisa Chen with planning staff.

Um, so to answer your first question, um, the uh it's a mix, right?

We have, you know, a couple dozen amendments.

Some of them are neutral, as Supervisor Melgar noted at the beginning.

Um, some of them do have an impact on capacity or on constraints, and then the impact varies depending on what the amendment is.

Some of them are quite minimal, some of them are more moderate, some of them are bigger moves that um you know could have uh serious implications for our capacity and our compliance with state law.

And then uh uh to answer your question about um SBC.

Sorry, the second question was about let's let's stay on the first question.

Can you walk us through which amendments that we're gonna vote on today that Chairman Algar mentioned that we're not voting on all the amendments, we're just voting on a couple of them.

Can you walk us through of the amendments that we're gonna vote on today?

Which ones have a neutral impact on capacity or constraints?

Which ones you have more concerns about?

Sure.

Um, so you know, maybe we won't go line by line, but I could just maybe start with some of the neutral ones.

Um, so kind of broadly um ones that are tend to be more neutral are um ones that are kind of referring to other um elements of our code.

Um, so for example, ones that reinforce, you know, here um are the requirements under our under Article 4 around fees or other affordability requirements, but they're not actually changing those requirements per se.

Um there are also um scrolling through.

Um, yeah, some uh so I think that's also under that same.

Um there's also some amendments to our housing sustainability district, the HSD, which is a ministerial program.

Um so I think there were um a couple amendments that were really related to the eligibility for that program.

Um that is a additional ministerial program.

There are other state ministerial programs, so this is just really um, you know, playing with which pro which projects are eligible for this kind of local version, which is the HSD, but that's not really impacting um necessarily.

HSC refers to the housing sustainability district, uh, which is a uh basically another ministerial approval pathway.

Um there were um some changes to um section 317 around our residential flats policy.

Um so that is uh basically making some amendments that would apply a conditional use authorization to slightly more projects, uh but it's not really impacting our capacity calculations.

Um so I think those were the main um policies that were neutral.

Um I will say there were also um I didn't mention there were a few amendments that could have a positive impact on capacity.

Um so those were the ones that had um you know basically bonuses for various community benefits like family size units or you know different commercial incentives.

Uh we haven't quantified, you know, how many uh projects might take those incentives.

Um in terms of the ones that have uh kind of more um negative impacts um in terms of the numbers on uh for either capacity um or um impacts on development constraints.

Um, you know, there as I mentioned, some of them were, you know, maybe more modest, especially if it's just affecting one parcel or a couple couple parcels.

There were some that implicated either broad geographies or um categories.

So, you know, for example, different types of historic properties or um, you know, all residential units, you know, things like that.

If it's, you know, you can kind of just tell by reading the language whether it's something that is pretty broad or uh pretty specific in how it's applied.

Um, in terms of the ones that were affecting constraints, um, I'm just gonna look through real quick.

So I'm sorry to interject.

Uh perhaps it would be helpful.

Uh we're gonna vote on these amendments to move them from the duplicated file until the original file uh one by one.

So perhaps we could uh just before we vote, turn to you and say do you think that this, because um I think that we're not getting.

I think yeah, I think you went through all of the amendments, including the ones that we're not gonna touch today.

So for it, would that be okay, supervisor?

Okay.

All right.

So with that, I should ask a question.

Yes, of course.

Um I would like to ask a question for the planning department for um the house uh family sized housing uh standards.

So if we if this SB79, if the people if the developer chooses to uh state density program, do they still need to apply and follow our city standards?

Um so this is in reference to the unit mix requirements.

United requirements.

Um if a project chooses the state density bonus, um they could choose to use one of their waivers or incentives to get out of those unit mix requirements.

So that is another reason why we're trying to incentivize projects to use our local program.

Right, thank you.

Okay.

Um so um I think that we are at the point that we can make uh some motions.

Um again, uh thank you to everyone who came out to public comment.

I think we saw the entire uh spectrum of feelings uh about this plan uh from folks in the community, and you know, our job here as supervisors is to do the best we can in a very diverse city with uh lots of differences of opinion uh from different neighborhoods, but also uh generations of folks who uh see our land use uh needs in different ways.

So with that, um supervisor Chen, I think that I'm gonna let you make uh the motion for your amendments first.

And then I'll just thank you, Chairman.

Thank you.

So I'm gonna also do it one by one uh for item for item number 10, file number 251073.

Uh I would like to make a motion to adopt a new drawing unit mix amendments for buildings of four to nine units into file number two five one zero seven three.

And let's be clear.

This is to the to the second file.

Right.