Okay, good afternoon everyone.

This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the December 1st, 2025 regular meeting of the Land, Use, and Transportation

Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I hope everyone had a very enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday last week.

I'm Supervisor Myrna Melgar, Chair of the Committee, joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor Cheyenne Chen, and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood.

The Committee Clerk today is Elisa Samara, and I also want to thank Jeanette Engelauf with SFGovTV for staffing this meeting and broadcasting it to folks in their homes.

Madam Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices you have.

Documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the Clerk.

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 line up to speak on your right.

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

First, you can email them to the land use clerk, John Carroll, at john.carrroll at sfgov.org.

Or you may send your written comments via U.S. Postal Service to our office at City Hall.

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlick Place, room 244, San Francisco, California 94102.

If you submit public comment in writing, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and also included as part of the official file.

Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of December 9th, 2025, unless otherwise stated.

Madam Chair.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

I appreciate all the members of the public who are here I just wanted to go

over a few things because I've heard some feedback that folks are confused

especially to the family zoning item of what we are doing and what the public

participation will be since this is the fourth hearing of the rezoning item we

will limit comment from the public to one minute but we will take public

comment because that is required. And we have really two files, one that we

created when we duplicated it when this was first introduced and had to go back

to planning. Planning heard the amendments in that file which supervisor

President Mandelman's amendments dealing with historic preservation and I

I understand that the supervisor and the planning department have agreed on all the modifications.

It's not controversial.

So what we will do is take those amendments into the original file and then table that second file.

We're not tabling the amendments.

We're just tabling the file because it's a vehicle and it's already served its purpose.

We will hopefully, if my colleagues agree, vote on the amendments and put it in the original file,

and then we will vote on that file.

So that is what we're doing.

It is an action, so we will take public comment on that action, but it is about the entirety of the family zoning plan, not just those amendments.

So keep that in mind.

Okay, so with that, Mr. Clerk, I'm sorry, Madam Clerk, let's go to item number one.

Thank you.

Yes, agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the building code to revise the timing of expiration of certain building permits and building permit application and affirming the CEQA determination.

Thank you so much. Okay, so this was introduced by Supervisor Mahmood. So the floor is yours.

Colleagues, appreciate the vote to support this ordinance last time. Again, this ordinance is about amending the building code to reduce some red tape and bureaucracy for any applications submitted to the building department so that it shall expire within 365 days of submittal.

Colleagues hope to have your vote again for a second time.

Okay. Thank you so much.

We took this.

We've already heard this item.

So Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair Amelga.

I just want to be very clear that I am also really supportive of reducing red tape

and to make sure that we can continue to develop as soon as possible.

but this is also, all of us really want to see it's also the same.

It's more housing to be developed as quickly as possible.

For developments where developers have displaced the tenant,

the timeline to bring projects to completion,

it's even more urgent at this moment.

So tenants who are displaced and awaiting the completions of housing projects

to be able to exercise their right of first refusal into the newly developed home

face an expiring shot clock.

Based upon standards established by the state

and within the Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance, which I sponsored it,

and tenants may receive a maximum of 42 months of relocation payments.

It is critical that the timeline for building permit expiration

and the length of time tenants receive relocation assistance are aligned.

Otherwise, developers can indefinitely extend their timeline

while relocation benefits to tenants run out.

Tenants who face displacement will have the double burden

of expiring relocation benefits while continuing to remain in limbo

and awaiting to move into the new developed unit.

In my tenant protection legislation, the maximum of 42 months of relocation assistance provides an incentive for project sponsors to complete constructions of new housing projects as diligently as possible within this time frame.

What I see in this legislation is movement in the opposite direction.

It provides unlimited flexibility to protect sponsors to receive their entitlement without a shot clock to incentivize constructions and enable displaced tenants to exercise their rights of return.

So my office has reached out to Supervisor Mambo's office to ask if there's a willingness to better align the policy goals between this legislation and the Tenant Protection Ordinance.

Unfortunately, without a meaningful amendment to align building permit timeline with the maximum length of relocation assistance for displaced tenants, this legislation would undermine a right to return for displaced tenants.

So without meaningful amendments, I would vote no for this one.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Yeah.

Thank you, Supervisor Chan, for sharing some of your concerns.

I wanted to share I am also supportive of the Tenant Protection Ordinance,

and actually this law is not in opposition to that,

and I want to address some of your concerns.

Because I know there is renewed interest here.

So firstly, the time period for which a project can sit without being built is already longer than 42 months that is allotted for tenant relocation benefits under your TPO.

Putting a hard deadline on projects that are making progress towards completion would only add an undue burden.

So the expiration is only in the context of if no one has provided progress and proven progress towards their building permit.

Otherwise, we're just making them repeat the work that they're already doing.

And so they have to prove that progress has happened.

Second, putting that hard deadline, we put an undue burden on the small number of projects that require relocation.

There's also, I understand, concerns that you raise around speculation.

And just to be clear, this ordinance does not change the three-year window in which an entitled project must get pertinence.

Under current laws, a permitted site can sit for multiple years without any work being done on it.

also this legislation makes it harder for someone to take an entitled permitted project

and shop it around if they have no intention of doing the work at the site because progress

by this law has to be made within 365 days so we think this issue on this issue the item is a step

in the right direction in alignment with the tenant protection ordinance as well and uh tayana

from dbi is here as well if you want to comment on any of these components as well

Thank you, Supervisors.

Tate Hanna, Legislative Affairs Manager at DBI.

I would concur with what the supervisor said that this does provide an actual shorter timeline

for that first initial work to get done, whereas the existing timelines go beyond the relocation

assistance timelines as well.

I would also note this aligns with state law.

This is typically what's done in most major jurisdictions with some minor modifications,

but the state really does, in the state building code, sort of lean towards allowing projects that have progressed to continue progressing.

And so that's what this ordinance does.

If I could, before I let you go, Mr. Tainan, what percentage of projects that DBICs would you say this applies to?

Like what percentage of people who pull a building permit, go through entitlement, then have to keep extending beyond this?

You don't have to be exact, just like ballpark.

Certainly, yeah.

So I would take this in two portions.

The percentage is pretty small.

The vast majority of our permits are done over the counter.

They're completed well within a year timeline.

They're smaller projects, a kitchen remodel, not necessarily new construction, which I think is more so the crux of this conversation.

What I would also note is that in the past, the department has been relatively generous with extensions.

It's written in the code that the building official can provide extensions as needed.

And so when we see these larger projects that do take multiple year timelines, even though,

so as the supervisor has already noted, that timeline is longer than the relocation assistance timeline as is.

And the department has been consistently providing extensions because we don't want to be a hindrance to additional work.

So the proportion of project that this applies to for the conversation that Supervisor Chan is having is relatively small.

And then of those projects, the existing time frame has some of the similar, I think, potential concerns that have already been highlighted.

So the shifting of the timeline here really is addressing other problems and not what you've identified.

Okay, thank you.

Let's go to public comment on this item before we make a motion.

Thank you.

Members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item number one, please

come forward now.

Seeing no speakers.

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Someone like to make a motion.

Ms. Supervisor Mahmood.

I request to make a motion to send this to the board with a positive recommendation.

that motion vice chair Chen I couldn't hear I'm sorry you said no no Chen no

member Mahmood Mahmood I share Melgar I Melgar I there are two eyes and one no

with super of vice chair Chen voting no

thank you okay let's go to item number two please item number two is an

ordinance amending the Planning Code to allow the city to waive the inclusionary

housing fee and other requirements in areas outside of the priority equity

geography special use district in exchange for a project sponsors

agreement to subject all units in the project to rent control and allow

projects outside of the SUD to comply with the inclusionary housing ordinance

by dedicating land to the city and making appropriate findings okay thank

you so much this is an item that I introduced and have worked with the

Planning Department on to go along with the rezoning plan that we will be taking

and the reason I wanted to have this move forward is because I am a firm believer in rent controlled.

I think that it has provided stability to a lot of communities in our city and we are losing units

every day and I feel like we should be adding units. It is not going to solve all our housing

problems, but it is a legitimate way where we can stabilize community and provide affordability for

some of our residents. So this is an option right now. When a developer builds new housing,

they have three, four ways that they can, you know, meet their obligation by either providing

BMR units on site, paying an in-lou fee, doing an off-site, or in some areas doing a land

dedication. This would provide a fourth option for the west side, the areas that we are rezoning,

in that folks could meet their obligation by opting into rent control from the get-go,

rather than building BMR units. Why that may be advantageous for some developers,

is that right now under a very high interest rate environment,

if you are providing BMR units, you have to finance that up front,

whereas if you're providing rent-controlled units,

those units become affordable over time,

so you're essentially deferring that obligation over time.

I know that some folks have expressed concern

that this might be a little too advantageous

So people will just opt into this rather than doing BMR units.

So this legislation, I do have some amendments that I have floated to my colleagues

that restrict this option only to the high resource areas on the west side.

And there's a reason for that too in that compared to the east side of San Francisco,

So the west side lags behind significantly in terms of rental housing.

In District 7, people have very few options for rental housing, either rent-controlled or non-rent-controlled.

In all of the debates that we've had on the family zoning plan, there are a few maps going out.

They're showing two-unit buildings.

Those maps are a little misleading because it shows all two-unit buildings, not just rental two units.

It also has condos and ticks and single-family homes with ADUs.

The issue is that on the west side, homeowner-occupied structures are actually much more common than rental structures.

And on the east side, it's flipped.

And so if we are going to create housing for the next generation, for younger people,

or for folks who want to downsize from the big four-bedroom single-family homes

and still live in the communities that they know and love and they have, you know, friends and churches.

We need to provide options.

And so I think this is an option.

It is not mandatory.

Folks have asked me how, you know, we can't do any more rent-controlled units after 1979.

That is true.

But because we are giving a benefit in the upzoning plan, we can do this if the developer opts in.

So it is a choice, not an imposition.

I do hope it works in talking to the development community.

I've gotten good feedback from folks who think that this may work.

I want to see more housing construction on the west side, particularly of rental housing.

And if we can have rent-controlled housing to boot, that would be awesome.

So I do have amendments, as I said.

I would love to have my colleagues' support.

and this item did pass the Planning Commission unanimously.

So I do hope that this can be a good alternative.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair Melga.

I appreciate your creative problem solving

by creating more affordability strategy

in the high resources community.

This is an issue that I also care a lot about.

In October, I also initiated a BLA analysis study to examine the trends in our inclusionary housing program requirements.

Since its inception in 2002, the inclusionary program has created over 4,700 affordable housing units throughout the city.

These units provided a critical safety net for tenants who face housing insecurity in our housing market or experience displacement.

The budget and legislative analysis is examining the impact and forecasting created by removal or waiver of impacted fees and inclusionary requirements.

Something that is being proposed here in this legislation, the board has considered multiple pieces of legislation to erode standards

and also in some cases completely waived the inclusionary housing requirements and fees over the last few years.

There are two main issues that I am grappling with.

First, I agree that the rent control is a vital protection for tenants.

However, this poses a significant tradeoff since these new units will be market rate at initial occupancy

and will not provide any affordability when they are built.

Second, we are not building consensus on the board and with our mayor to identify replacement funding strategies

for affordable housing as a result of measures such as this one.

But because of these two concerns,

I would also feel much more comfortable

if we began with a program at a more modest scale.

So I'm very pleased to see that you are proposing to do so

with amendments that you prepare for today.

So thank you, and I would love to support that.

Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor.

I did work with advocates to have those amendments be the case

in that they proposed that it be limited to the high resource areas and not other areas,

which have, as you very well pointed out, provided a lot of fees and BMR units.

Not on the west side, unfortunately, but thank you so much.

So with that, I want to go through my amendments unless Supervisor Mahmood has any.

well actually why don't we have Veronica Flores come up and give her presentation

and then I can go through the amendments and then we can go to public comment.

Thank you Chair Melgar. Veronica Flores, Planning Department staff.

The Planning Commission heard this item on October 9th and adopted a recommendation of approval with modifications.

The first recommended modification was to explicitly

prohibit condominium conversions of the new units resulting from this proposed

ordinance and the second recommended modification was specifically related to

the land dedication alternative and that was to specify that the dedicated land

needs to accommodate 35% or 35% or greater of the potential units that

could be provided on the principal project site and chairman I believe

you'll be going over some of this in more detail during your additional remarks.

But this concludes the commission report.

I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ms. Flores.

So the amendments that I'm proposing today were a result of the feedback we got from

the Planning Commission and, as I said, some of the advocates.

So I have distributed them, but I will go through them.

So first, the amendments would limit the areas where the new waiver would apply to residential and residential mixed

or neighborhood commercial or named commercial districts with a height limit of 65 feet or less in well-resourced neighborhood.

This is to target the use of this waiver to areas that do not have as much multifamily stock now.

Clarify that projects using the new rent control option will not be subdivided, meaning turned into condos or other ways

because they are, you know, meant to be given this option and advantage to create rental units.

Clarify that if a developer uses the land dedication option to meet the inclusionary requirement,

that they would need to accommodate a total amount of units equal or greater to 35% of the units that are being produced.

And lastly, we want to include some reporting that any new units produced by this waiver would be included in the housing inventory.

So the department will figure out how exactly to do that.

We're not going to mandate that or prescribe how, but we are saying that there needs to be some communication between the planning department and the rent board so that these units be somehow reflected in the registry.

So the reporting also allows us to see how this option is being used and whether it needs to be reassessed, amended, or tweaked at some point.

So with that, let's go to public comment.

Madam Clerk.

Members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item number two, please come forward now.

See no speakers.

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Thank you.

So with that, I would like to make a motion that we adopt the amendments as I read them into the record, into the file, and then send it out as a positive recommendation to the full board.

On the motion to accept the amendment.

Did I close public comment, Madam Clerk?

I don't remember.

Public comment is now closed.

on the motion to amend and send this ordinance as amended with a positive recommendation

vice chair chen chen i member mahmoud mahmoud i chair melgar i melgar i there are three eyes

thank you that motion passes okay let's go to item number three madam clerk item number three

is an ordinance amending the planning code to first require property owners seeking to demolish

residential units to replace all units that are being demolished. Second, require relocation

assistance to affected occupants of those units with additional assistance and protections for

lower income tenants. Third, modify the conditional use criteria that apply to projects to demolish

residential units, amending the administrative code to require landlords to provide additional

relocation assistance to lower income tenants. Fifth, update the standards and procedures for

hearings related to tenant harassment. Sixth, require additional disclosures and buyout agreements.

Seventh, require an additional disclosure and notice of intent to withdraw units. And eighth,

making various non-substitutive changes and clarifications and making appropriate findings.

Thank you so much. The floor is yours. Supervisor Chen. Thank you, Chairman Agar. Colleagues,

I appreciate your collaboration as we introduce today the remaining set of amendments that will help to reach many of these goals of the Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance that we set out to achieve.

The first amendment would address the standards for demolition that trigger the additional tenant provisions under Section 317.2.

These amendments have been developed by planning staff in partnership with community stakeholders.

I shall read through the language changes proposed in Planning Code Section 317 .

In this legislation, we clarify that demolition is defined as residential demolitions

in Planning Code Section 317 ,

and is the standard that would trigger the protections under this ordinance.

In addition, the language would be further refined to combine section 317B2B and C.

It would say that a major alterations of residential building that proposes to removal of 50% or more of the sum of the front face and rear face,

and 50% or more of the horizontal elements of the existing building

as measured in square foot of actual surface area would trigger residential demolitions.

It would clarify that a residential merger shall mean the combining of two or more residential

or unauthorized units, including the creation of an open connection between units.

It would strike the provision that authorized planning to reduce the numerical elements of this criteria by up to 20%.

It would clarify that where an existing exterior opening is infilled,

this shall be considered demolished, and where a portion of an exterior wall is removed,

any remaining wall above and below that new opening with a height less than the building code requirement for legal headroom shall be considered demolished.

And in the case of where an existing building is elevated, regardless of height, this shall be considered removal of horizontal elements for the purpose of the section.

and lastly that there be a reporting requirement to generate data and analysis on how these changes affect projects

and report these findings to the planning commissions.

The second amendment is a minor change to the conditional use criteria to align it with the citywide standard around during unit mix.

It would clarify that a project of five units or more increases the number of two or more bedroom units on site.

The Third Amendment would help fill a tragic gap in our current system that pertains to demolitions as a result of a serious and imminent safety hazard such as fire.

When buildings are hit by devastating fire which displace residents, there has not always been a clear path for those displaced residents to return when those buildings are demolished and rebuilt.

If a building is demolished after a fire, this amendment would ensure that displaced persons are considered an existing occupant for the purpose of this ordinance

and would able to exercise a right of first refusal or right of return when a landlord demolishes the building and submits an application to rebuild within five years.

I have been informed by the city attorney that these amendments are substantive.

Thank you, Kali, for your consideration and support.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Supervisor Chen, for all the heavy lifting.

This is actually really exciting.

We might land this blank.

So with that, I also have an amendment related to LSAC disclosures

that don't contradict any of your amendments.

These changes appear highlighted on pages 4, 51, and 53,

which was previously shared.

The purpose of this is so that the city can be made aware

when an owner also intends to demolish the building

when filing an Ellis Act eviction.

This will be useful for city planning to understand

how demolition of units using SB 330 interacts with the Ellis Act.

So with that, colleagues, thank you.

If there's no questions or comments, let's go to public comment.

Members of the public who would like to provide public comment on item number three,

please come forward now.

Line up to your right along the curtains.

Each speaker will be allotted two minutes.

Will the first speaker come forward?

Dear Land Use and Transportation Committee members,

As the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District Director,

I respectfully ask that you help protect rent control units in San Francisco.

The Castro LGBTQ Cultural District supports amendments to the Mayor's upzoning plan

to protect rent control units from getting demolished from developers.

Protections should be strengthened to disallow demolition of any rent control buildings.

We also support removing all rent control units from the local bonus.

I'm sorry to stop.

I just want to make clear that we are taking comment on the tenant protection ordinance,

not the mayor's upzoning plan.

Okay.

They're two different pieces of legislation.

Sorry about that.

Okay, no, it's okay.

I think what I'll cut to is just thank you for your hard work in trying to protect rent control units.

I appreciate all of your labor. Thank you. Like my colleague too, I just want to say

thank you so much for prioritizing protecting rent-controlled units. I am

the executive co-chair of the Castro Cultural District Advisory Board and

that is just so paramount to keeping queer people in the city. Thank you. Thank

you for your comments. Next speaker. Good afternoon supervisors. I'm Anna

Christina Arana, a member of the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition. Rep SF and the SF

Anti-Displacement Coalition really appreciate Supervisor Chen and Chair Melgar and their staff

for all their hard work researching, coordinating, and drafting the TPO and for working in collaboration

with our coalitions. The further amendment that Chair Melgar is still working on to make compliance

with the city's buyout program mandatory is absolutely critical for the TPO.

Rep and ADC look forward to these further amendments.

On behalf of Rep, I also want to express our gratitude to Charlie Chiamas, Jennifer Fieber,

and Melina Leon-Ferrera for all their hard work to get the TPO every day closer to being

the strongest TPO possible within the limitations of the state law.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Chair Malgar, members of the committee.

My name is Gabriella Ruiz and I'm here today on behalf of communities in Chinatown the mission in Bayview

first

We'd like to thank supervisor Chen for championing this legislation into supervisor Melgar for

Advancing important amendments that strengthen tenant protection citywide

We are grateful for both of your ongoing leadership as you know priority equity

Geographies were established in the housing element because these neighborhoods face the highest risk of displacement

and our home to low-income residents with the least housing security to truly meet

that intent the TPO must do more to protect tenants and pegs specifically

one key improvement is to stronger demolition controls and pegs for

example for example requiring deeper affordability for replacement units when

rent-controlled homes are removed this would ensure redevelopment does not

accelerate displacement in the very communities this ordinance is meant to

protect we understand this may require addition additional Planning Commission

review which is why we strongly support duplicating the file today so these

amendments can be considered and incorporated as the legislation moves

forward thank you for your time and your continued partnership in making the TPO

a meaningful anti displacement tool for all communities thank you thank you for

your comments next speaker good afternoon supervisors Zach Weisenberger with young

community developers first I want to appreciate the work and constant

collaboration that has gone into strengthening the TPO however we remain

concerned that critical gaps remain gaps that if not fixed will undermine the

core tenant protections this legislation is meant to achieve the first issue is

the Ellis Act language which must prevent a property owner from clearing a

building before filing an application which effectively invites displacement

before oversight begins.

The language must clearly bar LS Act evictions

at any point prior to application

from being used to evade the city's protections.

Second, the buyout language must be strengthened.

As drafted, it leaves out key disclosure requirements

from the city's buyout ordinance,

allowing owners to quietly displace tenants

before projects reach planning or the board.

To prevent displacement, all buyout disclosures

must be included and enforceable.

At the same time, we want to reiterate

the need for stronger priority equity geography

or PEG-specific demolition safeguards.

PEGs have endured decades of redevelopment and continue to face the deepest housing instability.

Strengthening replacement unit requirements in these neighborhoods, for example,

requiring demolished protected units to be replaced at deeper levels of affordability,

is consistent with the housing element and essential for stabilizing long-term residents.

We understand that this amendment would be substantive and need to return to the Planning Commission.

However, heightened PEG protections deserve a viable path forward,

something that can be accomplished through a duplicated file.

We urge the Board to take the necessary steps to resolve these outstanding issues.

without closing the Ellis and buyout loopholes and with no viable path to

adopt priority equity geography specific standards we risk passing a bill that

preserves the appearance of protection while leaving our most vulnerable

tenants exposed thank you thank you for your comments next speaker good

afternoon supervisors Julie Fisher district 1 I've attended several of

these sessions and today I just want to say every piece of the puzzle that

removes a little bit more worry for caregivers, which I'm a group, a member of that group,

or for our consumers, and one of them is present today, is helpful.

I can't imagine that we're getting everything covered that needs to be covered, but I so

appreciate everyone's hard work stepping forward.

Any additional work you do is still going to be appreciated, but thank you for getting

us to this point.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Augusta Goldstein, 46-year rent-controlled tenant in the Richmond.

I thank you all for the work you're doing to protect people like me,

but I want to speak to the amendments that were tabled last meeting.

Is there an opportunity in the agenda?

I'm too sight-impaired to read the agenda.

So that is the next item.

Thank you.

Not this item.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar, members of the committee.

My name is Meg Heisler here on behalf of the San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition.

We want to share again our thanks to Supervisor Chen, Charlie Chalmas, Chair Melgar,

Jen Fieber, and Melina Leone-Ferrera for their doggedness in getting this legislation right.

We're heartened to hear that some essential amendments, particularly those regarding the definition of demolition and the Ellis Act, will be introduced today.

But at the same time, we'd also like to reiterate the need for the legislation to state simply and unequivocally that developers must comply with the buyout ordinance to be approved for a demolition permit.

Threats of eviction accompanied by under-the-table buyout offers are already a leading cause of displacement.

And it should be a no-brainer that we require compliance with existing law in the tenant protection ordinance. So thank you

I'll see you again next week

Thank you for your comments next speaker

Good afternoon supervisors, my name is Peter Boyle. I live in the inner Richmond and I just I may be off-topic here, but I

Just want to comment that some of the proposals being considered to increase

the density of housing along California Street Clement Street and I'm sorry

Gary Boulevard that's the next item not this item this item is about the tenant

protection ordinance supervisor Chen's ordinance it's not about the density or

the rezoning of Gary that's our next item okay you will have public comment

opportunity then thank you are there any other speakers who would like to provide

I public comment on item number three. Seeing none, Madam Chair. Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

Madam Vice Chair, there were several comments for folks asking for further amendments than the ones

that we are introducing. Obviously, those are not ready. They're approved at the last reform. What I was

going to suggest is that we approve the amendments that we have today. They are substantive, so they

have to wait until next week and then you know next week we will see where we

are in terms of our progress and what we can do at that point I want to be able

to you know pass what we can to go with a you know the timeline and at the same

time meet all of the things that we can meet with these ordinance as you have

intended okay so with that would you like to make a motion yes

Thank you, Chair Melgar.

I would like to make a motion to move my amendments and Supervisor Melgar's amendments forward.

Thank you.

On the motion to accept the amendments as proposed by Supervisors Chen and Melgar,

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen, aye.

Member Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

There are three ayes.

We'll continue to next week.

and I would like to continue this legislation to next week and then on the

motion to continue item number three as amended to the meeting of December 8th

vice-chair Chen Chen I member Mahmoud Mahmoud I chairman I Melgar I there are

three eyes that motion passes thank you and thank you Milena for all your hard

work with that let's go on to the next I the next few items madam clerk

I'm sorry, no, the next item.

Number four.

Thank you.

Item number four is an ordinance amending the planning code to expand the boundaries of the central neighborhood's large residence special use district

and to apply its controls to all lots within the SUD, with some exceptions,

to delete the Corona Heights large residence SUD and merge it into the central neighborhood's large residence SUD,

amending the zoning map to reflect the deletion and boundary expansion

and making appropriate findings.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

Forgive me to the members of the public that I said that the next item was going to be rezoning.

It is actually not.

We have one more item before we get to rezoning, though it is related.

And that is something that President Mendelman has introduced,

so I will turn it over to him.

Thank you, Chair Melgar.

Thank you, committee members.

We spoke about this item at your last land use committee meeting,

and this item has been with the land use committee for, I think, about a year now,

awaiting a moment such as this when it might be appropriate to forward it onto the full board for action.

I believe that this committee will forward the family zoning ordinance to the full board later in your meeting,

And so I would ask that you forward this item, item four, the expansion of the Central Neighborhood's Large Residence SUD to include Coal Valley for action by the full board tomorrow.

Okay.

Thank you.

I don't see any comments or questions from my colleagues.

And we did hear this last week.

I'm sorry, last time we met.

So with that, let's go to public comment on this item, please.

any member of the public who would like to provide public comment on item number

four please come forward now being no one madam chair okay public comment on

this item is now closed thank you president Mandelman I would I would like

to make a motion that we send this item out of committee with a to the full

board with a positive recommendation as a committee report on that motion to

send item number four to the full board with a positive recommendation as a

committee report vice-chair Chen Chen I member Mahmood Mahmood I chair Melgar I

Melgar I there are three eyes okay that I am passes thank you now madam clerk

please call items five through nine together yes item number five 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, the Western Shoreline Area Plan,

Downtown Area Plan and Land Use Index

to implement the Family Housing Zoning Program,

including the Housing Choice San Francisco Program.

by adjusting guidelines regarding building heights, density, design, and other matters,

amending the city's local coastal program to implement the Housing Choice San Francisco program

and other associated changes in the coastal zone and making appropriate findings.

Item number six, an ordinance amending the zoning map, height and bulk map,

and the local coastal program to implement the family zoning plan by reclassifying

and designating various certain properties,

directing the planning director to transmit the ordinance to the Coastal Commission,

and making appropriate findings.

Item number seven is the ordinance amending the planning code

to create the Housing Choice San Francisco program,

modify height and bulk limits,

require only buildings taller than 85 feet to reduce ground-level wind currents,

make conforming changes,

create the residential transit-oriented commercial district,

implement the MTC's transit-oriented communities policy,

revise off-street parking and curb-cut obligations,

create the non-contiguous San Francisco MTA Sites SUD,

permit businesses displaced by new construction to relocate without a CU authorization,

make technical amendments,

reduce usable open space and bicycle parking requirements for senior housing,

amending the business and tax regulations code,

amending the local coastal program to implement this program and others

associated changes and making appropriate findings item number eight is a

duplicated ordinance in item number seven that also means the planning code

the business and tax regulations code and the local coastal program and making

appropriate findings and finally item number nine is a resolution

transmitting 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

affirm the secret determination. Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. We are now joined by Supervisor

Mandelman. Thank you for being here. These items have been continued several

times and I just wanted to provide like a little

overview of what is going on today because I know that you guys are eager to

give public comment which we will take and I will also go to planning staff for their remarks as

well if any supervisors have amendments that they want to propose in addition to what is on the

table please do so before public comment since this is the fourth time we are hearing this item

at committee we are going to limit this to one minute please and no motions will take place

until after public comment so you may remember that at the very first of these hearings

president mandelman had a set of amendments that needed to be re-referred to the planning

commission because they had not been discussed during the multiple hearings that the planning

Commission had had on this item. So what we did is that we, you know, made two copies of the file

and on that one copy we put President Mandelman's amendments and send it back to planning.

And since then, the Planning Commission has heard, debated, made suggestions, which I understand

President Mandelman has agreed to, and that is what has come back today. Two weeks ago,

last time this committee met, we also took a bunch of amendments from my colleagues and put them into

the file, the original file that we had been working on, and tabled the second file that had

all the amendments that could not be moved because, you know, they were not compliant. So

we are going to try to move the amendments from that file that's coming back from planning into

the file that we have, the working file, and move that.

And hopefully we will have a robust discussion

about what President Minnellman is trying to achieve,

and then we will go to public comment.

Okay, so with that, I will turn it over to you,

President Minnellman.

Thank you again, Chair Milgar.

Thank you to the committee.

Thank you to all of your staffs for all of the work

you've been doing over certainly the last six weeks to two months, but even before that

in getting ready for these hearings.

And it appears that you are getting close to landing the plane, so I'm sure that's a,

I mean, that is an accomplishment you deserve a lot of recognition for.

So thank you for all of your work.

As you explained, Chair Melgar, at your first meeting on this, I think back on October 20th, I had two amendments to propose dealing with my concern around the potential demolition of historic resources and the ways in which potentially this upzoning could increase the likelihood that historic resources might be demolished on the way to new housing projects.

We proposed at the time two amendments.

One of them was to carve out already identified Article 10 landmarks and contributors in the area covered by the upzoning.

And that is an amendment that this committee has considered and added into the file, and I am grateful for that.

and so that provides an additional level of protection for several hundred particular properties

that have already been identified as local landmarks.

This amendment addresses the issue in a slightly different way.

We anticipate, and I think the plan anticipates,

that some of the housing production that may happen under the upzoning will happen

because lots get merged and larger buildings are built on those lots and

that is a potentially very good thing in terms of the additional housing it

could produce but it I think creates greater pressure on historic resources

that may be on those lots and so given that we do not and the planners who are

looking at those projects are likely not to have any discretion to shape those

projects or you know require inclusion of historic resources I and preservation

of historic resources I believe and that we should bake that into this into into

the family zoning and say that where there is a lot merger the project that

goes forward needs to preserve the historic resource that is on that lot

consistent with the objective design standards that the Planning Commission

has adopted and so that is what we intended to propose back in October as

you indicated I guess it was last week the Planning Commission considered this

amendment and also considered some recommended changes from the Planning

Department and those changes I think are reasonable I think there was concern

that potentially the definition of historic resources that we were using

would be overbroad and could include buildings that are not actually historic

resources but just happen to be in historic districts I also I think that

this is the importance of this protection it becomes less important

projects that are not housing projects because they're not the same pro there's

the same prohibition on or potential prohibition on any discretionary review of those projects so

and then i think there was also a desire to make sure that where there are design standards in the

housing choice sf program where there are potential where there are preservation standards there we

wanted those to to prevail if there were any inconsistency which we don't think there is likely

to be for the most part.

All those seemed like reasonable changes to me,

and so the Planning Commission did recommend inclusion

of this amendment, but with those changes,

and I'm happy to have those changes,

which is what I just circulated.

I think we circulated one version in error,

but we got the right one out to you before this hearing,

and so that's what I'm hoping the committee will add

to the file today.

Thank you for your patience and consideration of those amendments.

Okay, thank you so much.

Before I go to you, Supervisor, I'm going to have Lisa Chen come up and tell us what happened with planning,

and then we'll take comments.

Yes.

Welcome, Ms. Chen.

Thank you, Supervisors.

And before we kind of step through what President Mandelman described as the potential amendments,

We just also want to express our appreciation for all the collaboration.

Speaking of landing the plane, the president was calling us while he was traveling internationally

to help refine some of these ideas.

And so we do think that we landed at kind of that right kind of level of protections

and flexibility while meeting state law.

So if I could get the slides, please.

So, second, let me get that to a slideshow.

So I'll go through this quickly, but we did want to just kind of step through what the specific recommendations were from the Planning Commission on the November 20th hearing.

So as noted, the item that was before them was a duplicate ordinance, but they were specifically hearing this amendment related to the lot mergers, and they did adopt a resolution to recommend adoption with modifications.

So just to clarify what the original amendment was, so in addition to thinking about lot mergers in the rezoned areas, this actually is a citywide amendment.

So it would update Section 121.7 to prohibit lot mergers citywide that involve lots with the following historic resources, unless that project preserves the historic resource and complies with preservation design standards, which are objective design standards that apply to historic properties.

So I'm not going to read through everything in detail, but as you can see, it was a very broad definition that included not only our local Article in 10 landmarks.

It also included state and local registers, as well as our historic surveys and historic

context statements and various properties identified therein.

So the three recommendations that the commission recommended are here, and I'll go through

each of them.

So the first was basically to substitute that rather lengthy definition with the simpler

historic building definition that's already in Section 102.

This would ensure greater clarity and alignment.

There's already a variety of policies that refer to the historic building definition,

so it's clearer for sponsors, it's clearer for our own staff.

And then it also ensures that the policy does not add constraints on sites that do not have

known historic resources.

As President Enleman already noted, the idea was to make sure that we weren't including

properties that, say, are non-contributors in a district or Category B or Category C

properties that might be identified in a context statement.

The second recommendation is to clarify that in those cases

where the preservation design standards are inconsistent

with any of the modified standards,

which are essentially incentives in the Housing Choice SF program

or our local program, that we specify that the standards

in the local program shall prevail so long

as they don't result in demolition of the resource.

So again, this is another area where the department recommended that we provide clarity because we did see that there was a potential for some conflicts between the two, especially because both documents are going to continue to evolve.

The planning code will continue to evolve, as will the design standards.

So ensuring this clarity provides certainty for the public.

It also ensures that the incentives that we're creating through the local program will actually be meaningful and attract projects to use that program.

And I just want to state that we have looked at the design standards and the local program.

We could only find one very minor conflict.

It was literally a five-foot difference in one of the setback incentives.

So we do think that broadly they're very consistent with each other, but we just want to make sure that we're allowing for any of those minor inconsistencies.

The third recommendation is to clarify that the lot merger prohibition only applies to housing development projects as they're identified in state law.

So as was already noted, projects that are not housing development projects, so that could include commercial projects.

It could include single family housing projects.

It could be mixed-use projects where the primary use is not residential.

All of those will continue to have the ability to have a discretionary review process.

And so by clarifying that this is only applying to the housing development projects, it allows those processes to continue.

Sometimes through the CEQA process, the requirements that are applied to a project are different from what are in our preservation design standards.

They might even be stronger than what's required in our design standards, and so we want to allow that to continue to happen.

So those are the main recommendations.

We think that they're pretty minor clarifications for the most part.

We did also just want to touch on how this is consistent with state law.

So as we've noted at previous hearings, under the housing element as well as guidance, continued guidance from HCD,

The city is bound to try to either reduce or maintain development constraints, so not adding new development constraints, unless we offset them with parallel actions that actually support more housing development.

And so even though, as we noted at the commission, the lot merger prohibition could be a new constraint, we did want to share with the supervisors that there's various factors.

So one, we think that with the commission recommendations, it's really limited the scope of projects that are subject to this.

So it really is housing development projects that contain historic buildings.

So these are sites that have known historic resources.

Second, the eligibility for this to avoid the lot merger prohibition is quite simple.

You just need to meet our preservation design standards.

That's already required of projects.

And then further, if a project wanted to use state density bonus, they could still seek

waivers and incentives from those design standards.

And then finally, this proposal is also offset by development bonuses.

So as you recall, there was an amendment made to add an adaptive reuse incentive that was

added at the ordinance when it was substituted before the first land use hearing.

So under that incentive, you also have to meet your preservation design standards and

preserve the resource, and in exchange, you can get up to two additional stories on commercial

corridors.

So we believe that that offsets any potential constraints that are created by the legislation.

And just to close, we did want to provide some real-life examples of buildings that

have really, projects that have really breathed new life into historic resources.

These are all projects that involved a lot merger in some way.

And as you can see, they've really been able to blend old and new and really ensure the

ongoing stewardship and maintenance of these resources.

And we believe that with these amendments, it would achieve those goals of allowing for

lot mergers, which allow a project to build on top of next to around a resource while meeting

our standards.

And then I'm not going to go through these, but we also just wanted to reiterate that

there's a whole range of other historic preservation policies and programs in

the rezoning and citywide that will continue apply to these projects and as

has been already noted we did already remove from eligibility the landmark

buildings from the local program those landmark buildings also are not eligible

for a lot of the state ministerial streamlining programs and with that

that's the end of our presentation but we'll take any questions okay thank you

Can I just ask a question of clarification?

So first, I just want to say thank you so much.

I'm really happy where this landed.

I was a little worried at the beginning, especially when talking about mergers, because that is often a way to make adaptive reuse projects work.

Can you clarify as to why this applies to housing and not other non-residential projects?

Sure.

In lay people's terms.

Yes.

Yeah.

We'll do our best.

Thank you. So projects that are not a housing development project, quote unquote. So just to unpack that term, that is a term that is used in the Housing Accountability Act. Essentially, it allows for, you know, a review of a project using objective standards, right?

And so the idea is that if you are meeting those standards, your project can go through through a streamlined review, right?

And then you're also eligible for the ministerial programs as well, where you don't have a CEQA review, an environmental review process.

Often those environmental review processes will apply different mitigations and actions related to historic preservation.

and so by adding these preservation design standards,

we're basically creating a process

where if you're not going through CEQA,

you have to meet these design standards.

So for the projects that are housing development projects,

we're essentially creating that system.

For projects that aren't housing development projects,

they'll continue to go through CEQA

and as I noted, sometimes what we find

through the CEQA process might be different

from the design standards

and they might be stronger in some cases

and so we wanted to make sure that we still allow for that process

so that if you're building a new office building, for example,

if we say during our CEQA process that you have to meet certain mitigations

around preservation, that we can still apply those.

Because essentially what the amendment says right now is that

if you don't meet the preservation design standards,

you just can't get the law merger, period,

and it doesn't really have a process like a conditional use

or other process to get out of it.

So we just wanted to make that clear so that we could still apply those mitigations.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Chen. Supervisor Mahmood.

Thank you, President, for sharing this item and the Planning Department for the explanation of the legislative amendments as well.

You mentioned in the last slide that state law already has protections against demolitions on historic properties.

So I wanted to maybe better understand either from the president or from the planning department,

what does this legislation do specifically above and beyond those components of what's already in state law?

So hi, Madam Chair.

I don't know who's going to answer that question.

You or planning department maybe?

I'm happy to start and then planning can try to add.

So, and I would love to hear planning's answer to this question, but the protections that may exist in state law for historic resources are inconsistent across laws.

Some of them protect local designated landmarks. Some of them protect California registry landmarks. Some of them actually are broad and protect eligible landmarks.

Some of them refer to locally designated landmarks.

So there's like various different standards.

And my concern is that it is not clear that locally designated landmarks are protected.

And there is no protection, I think, except under a few of those laws for eligible landmarks.

that is the buildings that we will find,

that we are finding through the surveys

and that we will find through the surveys

that at some point a supervisor may get around

to landmarking or creating a district for,

but that those have not been,

to the extent that those have not already been created

when the project comes forward.

Right now I think there's pretty minimal,

or not pretty minimal, I think under some of these laws

there's no protections for those buildings.

And so this says that if you're merging, you know, you need to comply with the objective

preservation standards that we have.

Now, if we're being honest, there are also provisions in state law that may allow developers

to get around these protections as well.

So this does not mean that the resources that I'm interested in preserving are never going

to get demolished because they may, but it just adds another kind of level of potential protection

for those historic resources. That's my best attempt at an answer, but Lisa Chen may do better

than me. Thank you, Supervisor. That was an appropriately complex answer because it is very

complex. As the president noted, the laws do vary across the different state ministerial programs

and streamlining programs and housing development programs.

I think what this amendment does do, practically speaking,

is that it really reinforces the local program,

that if you're using the local program,

you have to preserve the resource if you want a lot merger.

I think that's the key item.

And as we have discussed at many hearings,

the local program really does offer a whole range of incentives.

So in addition to the adaptive reuse incentive,

there's the flexibility around inclusionary housing,

There's all of the incentives around commercial development and like the warm shell development and such.

And so I think this is basically kind of tightening the program so that if you're using the program,

it's really not also encouraging demolition of, in particular, the eligible resources.

Thank you.

Second was on the context you brought up that this could be traditionally viewed as a constraint,

but paired with some of the amendments

and the incentives that are included

as part of the family zoning plan

that this will on net potentially result in

cancel each other out.

Are there other examples or situations

where we have combined multiple changes

in our presentations to HCD,

one positive and a negative to make a point to HCD

that an item is not a constraint

and how have they responded in that context?

Lisa?

Supervisors, so we tend to bring the whole list of amendments with us into those conversations,

so they really are looking at them as a whole, and they're not necessarily even looking,

or they're not that concerned about which amendments are coming from which supervisors,

per se.

So, you know, I think that there are kind of natural matches, right?

So, for example, there was a unit mix amendment that was made at the last hearing, which was

which was reintroducing the unit mix requirements that are on the books today

and also changing it a little bit.

But there was also a unit mix amendment that was added at a previous,

or incentive that was added at a previous hearing that was somewhat offsetting that.

So, you know, I think we have kind of throughout, you know,

been trying to share with them which are the amendments that have, you know,

some impacts on capacity, perhaps removing capacity,

as well as, you know, areas where we're adding capacity.

And then similarly with constraints, we've pointed out for them

which ones have been adding constraints and which ones are loosening them, so to speak.

So in your opinion, this amendment should, on net, while being constrained,

paired with other amendments, net out to zero from the perspective of HCD, from a compliance perspective?

Correct.

Thank you.

I think based on that context and reassurance, while I have had concerns about constraints,

I do appreciate President Mandelman's work here and I will be voting in support of this amendment as well

Okay, thank you. So I don't see any more

We have been joined by Supervisor Sauter. Did you want to provide comments to this Supervisor Sauter? Okay

So before we go to public comment, I want to note

that the city attorney did submit some technical amendments to item number nine

file number 250985 the local coastal program amendment of the family zoning

plan which is a resolution transmitted to the California Coastal Commission for

review and certification these amendments add clauses to summarize the

procedural history such as the dates that the Planning Commission in this

committee has heard this item I plan to make a motion to adopt these technical

amendments after we do public comment, but they are technical in nature. So, okay,

Supervisor Sautter. Thank you, Chair Malvar. On second thought, I will speak to an amendment that

I'll ask for your support on today. Today I'm introducing a cleanup non-substantive amendment

to our commercial space replacement incentive, and you'll recall that this was adopted a few

weeks ago with the support of the mayor's office, with your support and the support

of the San Francisco Council of District Merchants. But our amendment today will clarify

the ability to split larger commercial spaces into multiple smaller ones while maintaining

the cumulative dimensions and characteristics of existing storefronts. This amendment simply

gives a little bit more flexibility and clarity to ensure that new commercial spaces honor the

existing character of our neighborhood commercial districts while still meeting the economic needs

of today's small businesses. These amendments were made in collaboration with merchants in

the planning department, and again, these are non-substantive. With that, I will quickly read

the amendments into record, which have also been distributed to each of you. The amendments are on

page 22, line 16, strike out for each commercial use and add cumulatively between spaces and

contains. Page 22, line 17, adding cumulatively between storefronts and occupies. Page 22, line 21,

striking out and. Page 22, lines 22 through 24, amend to read, quote, that if the existing commercial

uses involve food service, the project must provide at least one food service warm shell,

and the project does not reduce the number of existing commercial uses unless the project

provide space for a community benefit use pursuant to subsection E1.

And finally, on page 23, line 5, amend to read

and micro retail and community benefit use bonuses in subsections E1 and E2.

So thank you for your consideration of this quick non-substantive amendment,

and I'll hope that you'll adopt it. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Supervisor Schotter.

I know that we had hoped that you had introduced this two weeks ago, but I understand sometimes the city attorney has a lot of work and, you know, it takes a little while.

I know that we got lots of feedback from CDMA on that original amendment that you had introduced that we had adopted weeks ago and that this is just a clarification and technical clarification of terminology.

So thank you so much.

so with that I will go to public comment on this item and we will make

motions to adopt the amendments after public comment thank you madam clerk

members of the public wish to provide public comment on items 5 through 9 the

which comprise the family zoning plan please line up to speak first speaker

good afternoon Georgia Shudish I have a letter with an attachment for the

committee and the file about the rezoning. Back in June, there was a financial feasibility analysis

that said that really the most likely to happen... Oh, here you go. Thank you so much.

Most likely to be developed would be the smaller lots, the typical 25 by 100 lot, which is most of

the city. And that's concerning, I think, because speculation. People have a right to be very

nervous about that. So I think in order to mitigate that, and plus I mentioned last week

about the cashing out in the October 2021 feasibility analysis, people cash out, they

sell their homes, they leave, they're gone, particularly in the priority equity geography

neighborhoods. So to mitigate that, my suggestion is the following in the letter. Strongest possible

tenant protection in the TPO, protect housing in the PEGs, lobby Sacramento to remove the

PEGs from SB 423 and the state density bonus.

Thank you for your comments.

Apologies for cutting you off, but we are setting the timer for one minute today.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Tina Gary, and I'm with the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District.

Again, I appreciate the work here to try to protect rent control for tenants in San Francisco.

And the only thing that I'll add is that LGBTQ people who live in San Francisco

or maybe want to live in San Francisco really do benefit from rent control.

And during these times of challenges on the federal level,

there are many people who are coming to our city as a refuge.

So thank you for trying to protect rent control.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

Jean Barish, President Planning Association for the Richmond.

Amendments notwithstanding, PAR opposes this plan,

and PAR and hundreds of neighbors have signed a petition opposing this plan.

Instead, we support a community-based alternative.

We also agree with Supervisor Chan's protections against the demolition of homes,

protection of historic buildings, protection of the coastal zone of our environment.

Please consider an alternative plan that would meet the state's housing mandate

and also assure that the tenants and businesses will not be displaced.

And the development will not simply be buildings waiting for the next crypto billionaire

to buy new buildings that aren't homes.

They're assets on a spreadsheet.

They aren't neighbors.

They're strategies.

They're business plan for developers.

Please do not support the mayor's plan.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Augusta Goldstein, a long-time rent control tenant.

I echo Jean Barish's request.

And if you're hell-bent on passing this,

I'd like to at least have Connie Chan's amendments re-resurrected,

the one particularly to protect the small businesses with two units above them.

Three units does not protect enough businesses.

Two units, if you go with three instead of two,

you end up losing another 6,000 rent-controlled units,

and that would be divided by half, 3,000 small businesses that need to be protected

to protect the charm that has brought international visitors to the Richmond district for decades.

And you'll lose it if you don't protect the businesses.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hello.

My name is Jason Wright, and I live in District 8.

I'd like the committee to consider alternatives that protect two-unit rent-controlled buildings.

I've lived in my rent-controlled apartment for over 20 years on Church Street above Dolores Park.

It's listed as being in a transit corridor.

However, it's in the part of the street that is where the cut-through of the muni is, not directly in front of the transit.

So a developer bought my building a year ago, and I'm really scared for my stability in housing.

A prospective blanket plan, like the family zoning plan, jeopardizes the character of the city

and some 20,000 two-unit rent-controlled units,

which would mean affecting upwards of 40,000 to 60,000 people,

depending on the number of tenants in each unit.

Please protect all rent-controlled units.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

I'm Anna Christina, a member of the Race and Equity and All Planning Coalition.

The RepSF Coalition has been advocating for significant changes

to the family zoning plan for several months, including a real commitment to truly affordable

housing and moving forward the equity-related provisions of the housing element that have

been ignored and many of which are now past due.

Unfortunately, we are now forced to ask that the board reject the family zoning plan.

One of the main reasons for our objection relates to the tenant protection ordinance,

which the mayor's upzoning makes absolutely essential.

The TPO tries to establish a strong safety net for when tenants have to face displacement,

However, streamlining and upzoning from the state and streamlining zoning that have already been put in place in San Francisco creates pressures and impacts that exceed what the TPO can provide.

This family zoning plan will just put fuel on that fire.

It is imperative that, I apologize, Rep is demanding that the board reject this upzoning plan and we urge you for the future of San Francisco and for our most vulnerable communities to vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon, Zachary Frail, Somcan.

I got evicted just a few months ago, and when I was looking for new housing,

I applied on Dahlia to live with a new affordable housing development at 730 Stanyan,

right next to Golden Gate Park in the Haight.

Over 8,600 people apply for just 95 units.

Those numbers alone clearly illustrate the need to intentionally build more affordable housing in the city.

People want to live in projects like 730 Stanyan.

730 Standing is a project that upzoned the hate, but we were in support of it.

We would support upzoning in the west side if it were used for 100% affordable projects like this.

There is high demand and need for this type of housing.

The numbers don't lie, and after all, the family zoning plan needs to provide capacity for 20,000 units for low-income households.

730 Standing represents our vision of an inclusive, well-resourced neighborhood and an inclusive San Francisco.

This is what we support, and we don't think the current plan will get us there.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Land Use.

Jane Natoli, the San Francisco Organized Director

for UMB Action here to speak in support on behalf

of all our members who couldn't make it today.

We know there's still more work to do here.

We're done with this part, but there's more to do.

And I appreciate all of your diligent work on this.

But we would love for you to move this along

so we can get on to the rest of it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, supervisors. I'm Leanne Chang. I'm a resident of D1 currently organizing with Abundance San Francisco.

Thank you for all of your work on this necessary piece of the puzzle in order to make more housing possible in San Francisco.

I'm looking forward to the family zoning plan passing out of this community and by the full board. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

Hello again, supervisors. Thank you for continued effort.

Julie Fisher, a 40-year renter from District 1.

I just want to echo something.

I'll repeat myself.

Keep rent control, keep rent control, keep rent control.

Next, truly affordable housing needs to go back to the old equation of 25%, maybe 30%

of one's income, not market rate.

So anything in these pieces that you're working on that doesn't support that, please revisit it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon again.

I'm Peter Boyle.

I live in the Richmond District.

And I just want to say that several months ago, some organization said the Richmond District,

particularly I think the inner and central Richmond,

were one of the top 40 neighborhoods in the entire world.

The mix of manageable, smaller residential units

and small commercial units just made it an ideal place to live.

And I think that tearing down smaller buildings

and replacing with six- and eight- and ten-story apartments and commercial buildings on California,

Clement, and Geary will completely destroy that neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Land Use Committee Supervisors.

My name is Bob Ackes-Fandiari.

I'm the Executive Director of the San Francisco Democratic Party.

I'm here to reinforce what I said a few weeks ago, which is that the San Francisco Democratic Party adopted a resolution supporting the family zoning plan.

They encourage you to pass it.

They encourage you to strengthen it.

And I want to just say on a personal level that the reality is that this shortage has been compounding for years, years and years and years.

I actually was just at the swearing-in of your new colleague, District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong.

One of the remarks he made was about how he grew up in the sunset thanks to the ability for people to have ADUs and smaller homes and starter homes.

And the average home price in the sunset and the Richmond is pushing between $1.5, $1.6, $1.7 million.

The status quo is unaffordable, and if we don't build more homes, we're pushing more and more people out.

So please pass this today and send it to your colleagues at the full board.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

I oppose the family zoning plan as is.

The heights on Van Ness are too high.

There's already congestion with the traffic, car traffic, and bus traffic.

The buses are completely jammed.

Again, this morning it was like that.

Second, this recent fire in a high-rise in Hong Kong makes me wonder

what are the taxpayers going to have to pay for the type of fire equipment

that can reach up to 300 stories, I mean, sorry, 300 feet,

but maybe in my area, 14 stories.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Thank you, supervisors.

My name is Apollo.

I live and work in North Beach.

For as many times as we've been here and at the Planning Commission

over the last three months to contest the so-called family zoning plan,

the needle has moved very little in favor of the will of the people

who live here, work here, pay taxes, and vote here.

But the records show the majority of letters and public comments from your constituents,

and almost all commentary at town halls are consistently against this plan.

By voting for it without much more significant amendments,

you're undermining the will of those who voted for you.

The plan removes on-site affordability requirements,

incentivizes teardowns of rent-controlled housing,

and benefits speculative developers at the exact moment San Francisco's needs stability.

San Francisco deserves real leadership that puts community over luxury development.

There is zero reason to build housing by pushing people out who already live there.

You have a responsibility to us, and we expect you to act like it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Thank you. I'm Romulan Schmaltz, North Beach.

This plan is abject, naked, manifest destiny masquerading as housering reform that will eliminate from the San Francisco map

low-income residents, seniors, immigrants, artists, and other legacy San Franciscans who might be interesting and live for more than money, and actual families.

Far too many of your constituents see this plan as a racist and classist document

that rewards privilege and speculation over history, community, family, and small businesses.

And it sounds like supervisors on this committee are okay with amendments

that displace some 42,000 San Franciscans who live in rent-controlled homes.

And rent-controlled housing is our best affordable housing, and it's already built.

This gives away our assets that are not yours to give away on our behalf.

This includes our public land and our shared public treasure, the waterfront,

which Mayor Lurie is dangling in front of the Bela Lugosi of developers, Blackstone, as a perk of this plan.

We're talking about almost 17 blocks of mostly eight-story walls constructed along Fisherman's Worth with zero middle income or affordable housing.

Any supervisor who thinks this is okay?

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

Hi, supervisors. Annie Fryman here with SPUR, also a Westside renter.

We encourage the passage of this plan out of committee today and out of the board ideally

tomorrow.

I do want to voice, however, our disappointment and opposition to an amendment that was adopted

into this file during the last land use committee, particularly adding more rigid and strict

unit mix requirements to the small development projects that will make up the bulk of development

and capacity in this new plan.

we see that as a constraint and instead prefer the previous approach that had been proposed by

supervisors Cheryl, Souter, and Melgar related to providing incentives rather for family-friendly

amenities and family-sized units. We would love to see in the future an ordinance happen to revert

back to that approach. In the meantime, we do encourage passage today but wanted to get on

the record with our concern with that specific provision and amendment. Thank you. Thank you for

your comments. Next speaker. Kristen Evans speaking for Small Business Forward.

Small Business Forward stands in opposition to the family zoning plan in

its current form. While we are in support of adding new affordable housing, this

plan lacks any meaningful change in housing affordability. It's inexcusable

that this the marketing for this plan has tried to claim it will lower the cost

of housing. Ted Egan, chief economist, reported report, his report indicates his

his best estimate is that rents will fall merely by $75 to $125 per month.

Lowering apartment prices from $3,100 a month to $3,000 a month

does not address our affordable housing crisis,

nor is it an acceptable outcome that small business workers

will lose their livelihood when their small business is displaced.

Most small business workers make between $30,000 and $80,000 per year,

and housing that costs $36,000 per year is more than half a not considered affordable,

nor would many landlords even consider that they had adequate income to approve their application for a lease.

We ask that you oppose this plan. Thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar and supervisors.

My name is Asia Nicole Duncan.

I am with Build Affordable Faster California.

and I will say we need to fund all of these units in the family zoning plan and the city and state

needs to step up to provide financing for affordable housing. We all know that in the end

it's money that builds the housing and we need to invest in affordability. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hello, Honest Charlie Bodkin.

I spoke at the two previous hearings on this plan.

I was here to talk about how this plan, without any money for affordable housing, was doomed to fail because the market isn't building.

I spoke about it before the city's chief economist confirmed that the planning department's numbers were too rosy.

I came back to talk about it and remind you that there is money that the board has previously in 2020 unanimously voted on recommending that we expend on social housing.

It's Prop I money.

But that was just my voice.

Since speaking in front of you, San Franciscans for Social Housing, which I'm the co-founder of, has grown by leaps and bounds.

We've gathered hundreds of signatures in just a couple of weeks.

I'm not sure if I have enough time to present it right there, but I'll give you copies.

Now is the time you have to leverage over housing policy in the city.

Don't squander this opportunity.

Listen to the hundreds of San Franciscans for social housing

and pass a resolution or an amendment to this plan to call on the mayor

to expend Prop I funds for their intended purpose, social housing.

I present to you the names.

Thank you for your comments.

Leave it there on the, and I'll pick it up.

Thank you.

I'm a concerned citizen and a homeowner resident in D5.

I have worked my entire career in climate change

and know the importance of more housing, dense housing,

to that issue along with many other issues that I care about,

like homelessness, affordability, et cetera.

More housing has to be part of the solution,

and the zoning plan is one step in that,

so I'm here once again to just voice my support for this plan.

Please get it done. Thank you.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition.

We remain firm in our belief that it is essential to pass this plan today and bring it to the

full board, ideally tomorrow as well.

San Francisco cannot continue to delay its home bringing obligations during an ongoing

housing crisis.

We support amendments that strengthen the plan and that help bring homes to San Francisco,

and at the same time are concerned about amendments that discourage homes in the parts of the city where we need it the most,

particularly around the unit mix requirement.

We support iterations of the plan that embrace incentives like the Sheryl-Sauder amendment

and not rigid amendments that make projects infeasible.

Still, we are hopeful that we could pass this plan and concentrate on other solutions to the housing crisis,

such as stronger funding at every level of government and reducing construction costs.

So we hope to see this plan passed today and thank you all for your hard work.

If you have comments, next speaker.

Good afternoon, Mike Chen, I'm a renter in District 2.

I'm also here representing the, on the board of the United Democratic Club,

the largest Democratic Club in the city with over 300 dues paying members.

The United Democratic Club is in support.

Housing affordability and affordability in general is a huge issue in San Francisco

and we hope that the board passes a state compliant plan

that will provide housing affordability and solutions.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi.

I'm Carolyn Boyle, long-term resident of the Richmond District,

and I'm against this plan for so many reasons,

but we urge the city to change its approach to fill the state mandates

by building housing and support with community-created alternatives,

historic preservation, small business rent control,

diversity of families and not what this plan would create.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mark Hanlon, District 1 resident.

I'm here today because I believe the family zoning plan as proposed is a mistake that

fundamentally misunderstands the city.

It claims to help.

Adding numerous high-rise corridors to these areas won't create affordability.

it will erase the unique character and livability that draws people to them in the first place.

And anyone who lives in these neighborhoods knows our infrastructure already struggles to meet current demand.

Yet this plan adds high density with no affordability guarantees and primarily benefits developers.

I urge you to reject the family zoning plan in its current form and to pursue more thoughtful solutions

that don't amount to such a radical increase in density

and the impacts that we'll have.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Bridget Maley representing Neighborhoods United SF.

Today at 1245, you received a detailed letter

with detailed exhibits regarding the family zoning plan

provided by our legal counsel, Lazio Drury.

The letter requests that the Board of Supervisors defer any decision on the rezone until the City Planning Department prepares a supplemental environmental impact report, not simply an addendum to the 2002 Housing Element EIR.

A rezoning of this magnitude requires thorough environmental review under the California

Environmental Quality Act so that the city's residents and decision makers can be aware

of impacts, can consider all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives, and can have a

robust and open discussion prior to making irreversible changes to the city's urban

and historic landscape.

The rezone will have a myriad of significant new impacts that were not analyzed in the

2002 EIR and therefore the sequel review conducted to date is highly inadequate

These include new impacts of dramatically increased increased heights

Extensive new impacts to historic resources impacts of display. Thank you for your comments

Would any other members of the public would like provide public comment today seeing none madam chair

Thank you madam clerk public comment on this item is now closed

Supervisor Mahmood. I'm not going to make a motion until after. So go ahead.

Okay. So before we make motions I just wanted to provide some comments to what

we just heard. Thank you everyone from the public who came out to provide public

comment. I want to provide a couple of points of clarification. For those of you who talked about

the importance of rent control and demolition, I actually couldn't agree more. I do think there's

some confusion about what we're doing and what we're not doing. Nothing in the plan includes

demolition of rent-controlled housing. The family zoning plan does not touch the process on whether

you are given permission to demolish a unit or not. It is focused on setting allowable base heights

of the lots in different parts of the city. Earlier in this meeting, we discussed Supervisor

Chansand and Protection Ordinance. For those of you who haven't been able to get through the whole

ordinance and the amendments, which are a lot, I acknowledge, I encourage you to read it,

especially Section 317, which is the section of our code where we define how a unit qualifies for

demolition. This is a separate ordinance. I do want to thank my colleague for having spent so

much time and work on this because it does a lot of what we're trying to do, but we have been

focusing our energy to draft those protections for rent control and tenant protections as strong

as we possibly can under the state law, and I would urge the public to read that and to, you know,

sort of digress it because I think it is the most far-reaching rental protection ordinance that we

have in the state actually and I was telling my colleague earlier how I wish we had had those

same level of protections when we down zoned the west side and concentrated all of our development

on the east side of town because that would have actually saved us in a lot of communities

displacement and gentrification but we didn't have it at the time. You may still have objections to

the family zoning plan. I want to assure you that this is not a static process. The legislative

branch will continue working on these issues. I will support this plan. Does it solve our housing

crisis? Absolutely not. Do I think it's necessary in order to make progress on our housing crisis?

Absolutely. We need a bunch of stuff in addition to that. Number one, we need money for affordable

housing. To this day, San Francisco does not have a dedicated source of funding for housing.

We spend one-time money that gets produced from project development, and occasionally we get money

from bonds, we get money from the state, but we don't put any of our own money from the general

fund into this. Some folks have, you know, pointed out that we pass Prop I for social housing and

have yet to spend that money on actual social housing. We do need not one, but 10 different

funding sources to meet the different affordable housing needs that run the whole spectrum from,

you know, deeply affordable housing for formerly homeless families all the way to co-ops and,

you know, homeownership assistance for, you know, families wanting to settle down in the city. So

the whole thing. I don't think any of that has to do with the zoning plan. That has to do with

our budget and the way we decide how to spend our money is not a zoning issue. We also need

protections for businesses. We have to concentrate on businesses that don't have access to capital,

which is uneven for women, for people of color, for immigrants. That is also not part of the

planning code. That is the way that we draft our policy through the workforce development and also

the capital that we make available for businesses. So there's a whole bunch of things that go into

how the fabric of the neighborhood gets developed. One thing that I do know as a supervisor for one

of the west side districts is that our infrastructure has lacked behind because of the

lack of density. And we're never going to meet our climate change goals, nor meet the needs of

younger generations without adding density to the west side and the resulting infrastructure

that we need in terms of transportation, sewer, water, and all of the climate adaptations that we

must evolve in our city in order to make life happen and thrive. The third thing that I will

say is that we continue to have a bifurcated policy in terms of building housing and doing

economic development. So for decades, we have added jobs in San Francisco without adding the

housing units that we need. And the housing that we have added has been concentrated on the east

side of town, along with the benefits of infrastructure that that provides, including

affordable housing. The west side has built very little affordable housing, nor built the

infrastructure that it needs to support the economic growth at the pace that we have had.

Many folks during public comment over the last few weeks have talked about how San Francisco's

in decline, how we're losing population. I do not want to live in a city that is losing population.

None of that is good.

That brings budget cuts.

It means a reduction of services.

And it also means lack of hope for the next generation entering the workforce.

And that is not where this supervisor is going to be.

I'm going to be supporting the thriving of our city, adding jobs, adding opportunities

for the next generation, and more than anything, adapting to the very real climate change crisis

that we're going through as a planet that necessitates that we build transit-oriented

communities around public transit, become less car-dependent, and have denser housing,

hopefully that is rent-controlled, and across the entire spectrum of affordability where we need it.

So with that, I will recognize Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chairman.

To begin with, I also want to thank all the public commenters who come not just one time

but multiple times to share your voice in this process.

And to my colleagues, I also have engaged very actively in this legislation since introductions,

and I do not take this vote lightly.

So in my opinion, this journal legislation is an example of government doing things to

our communities, not with our communities. It is also an example of government working hard to

comply with top-down mandates. We have to make our state mandate, we all know, but at the odds

with the goal of working to make the lives of our constituents better. I believe it also creates

conditions that we can cause harm by putting existing tenants, their homes, and our small

business in the path of displacement. Despite the fact that planning has been at this for the

better part of two years, the primary task has been on how can this plan solve a map problems.

It applies a top-down framework that has little to do with the housing affordability,

insecurity, and also the great demand of workforce housing in San Francisco.

What also saddens me most is that myself and other colleagues on the board of supervisors

have worked overtime in good faith to amend this zoning plan to pencil without incentivizing

displacement. We have drafted common sense amendments, and that poor housing and also

affordability, pro-tenant, and also pro-working families, and pro-small business. So as a mother,

as a daughter, as an elected representative, it pains me to see that the majority of this

critical equity amendments that I have put forward and other colleagues have put forward

to be vote down or table. Let me be very clear. I am pro-development,

But the planning department and our mayor have not done the hard work of finding a path forward to maximize thoughtful infield development without displacement.

This should be our North Star.

San Franciscan, San Francisco has always been committed to meeting the state's housing mandate.

Our city does have the ability to meet goals while maintaining local control and developing housing that people can afford, and also without displacing residents and small businesses.

But this is not what the plan is presenting us today.

We are at the last line of defense for working families.

This is why I cannot support this legislation in its current form.

For that being said, I know that we have colleagues who have expressed interest

in having a conversation about some amendments at tomorrow's board meeting.

For that reason, I would like to make a motion to refer this item out of committee

without recommendation and to give us the opportunity to discuss this very important issue

as a complete body.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Supervisor, can you clarify your motion?

Which item would you like to send out without recommendation?

I know we have amendments that we would like to make.

If possible, I would like everything in the package to vote without recommendations as a foodborne.

I mean, without recommendation, so then we can have an opportunity to discuss as a foodborne.

okay I will go to a supervisor Mahmoud first because he's got the amendments and

so go ahead supervisor Mahmoud why don't you read your amendments first and I'll

read mine second okay so my amendments only one and that is a motion to adopt

the amendment to the coastal plan which I've circulated with you and that is

item number nine on the motion to amend item number nine vice chair Chen Chen

no member Mahmood I a mood I chairman all Gar I

Belgar I there are two eyes and one no with super

supervisor Chen voting no okay

that motion passes thank you

I'm if we could rescind that last vote please

alright us on the motion to rescind the vote

on the amendment to item number nine vice chair Chen

Chen, aye. Member Mahmood? Aye. Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are three

ayes. Sorry, there was just a confusion about what we were doing. So this is just a technical

amendment that was proposed by the city attorney to the coastal zone item number nine that is not

going as a committee report. So it's just a resolution that tells the Coastal Commission

on what we're doing and when we're doing it.

It's not a controversial thing.

So that's all we're voting on right now

is adopting those technical clarification amendments

to that resolution.

Okay.

On the motion to amend item number nine

as proposed by Chairman Melgar, Vice Chair Chen.

Can I have clarification?

What are we voting?

So I'm sorry.

This is number nine.

It's the entire legislation.

So we're just adopting the amendments

Amendments into item number nine, which is the coastal commission resolution. We're not voting on item nine

Itself only on adopting the amendments I

Remember Mahmoud I

Melgar I there three ice okay that motion passes. Thank you

So now supervisor Mahmoud I'd like to read a couple motions into the record. I think firstly I

I have really appreciated this has been a multi-year process for the planning department, multiple years of work.

As Supervisor Melgar said, there is nothing in here about displacement.

There is significant rent control protections that are done as part of the tenant protection ordinance that we just passed earlier today.

And this is a significant moment in our city's history, and we should be supporting it in that context as well.

but first I will be introducing a motion to move the cleanup amendments that were read into the

record by Supervisor Sauter for commercial spaces introduced to file number 250701

in item seven on the agenda and then I'd also like to make three more motions one is a motion

to send items five six and seven files numbers 250966 250700 and 250701 to the full board with

a positive recommendation as a committee report. I would like to then move item number nine

that we just amended, file number 250985, to the full board with a positive recommendation.

And I would like to finally move to table item number eight, file number 251072.

That's four separate motions.

Okay. Let's take them each in turn, please. So let's take the first motion that Supervisor

Mahmood made which to clarify is only to amend the files to include supervisor

Mandelman's amendment and supervisor Sauter's amendments so we're just

introducing you know taking those amendments. On the motion to amend item

number seven with the amendments proposed by President Mandelman and

supervisor solder vice-chair Chen Chen I remember Mahmoud Mahmoud I chair

Melgar I Melgar either three eyes okay thank you now before we take the motions

I believe that the supervisor Chen's motion to send the items without

recommendation supersedes because she made it first so we have to vote on that

motion first right yes okay so the first she did formally make the motion and I

did ask for a clarification. Can you clarify which items you want to send

without recommendation to the full board? Five to nine with amendments. Motion to

make it without recommendation. So it would be five six seven and nine not eight

because we're that supervisor that's a duplicated file. Yeah okay. And this

referral without recommendation is this as a committee report or not as a

committee report not less a committee report not as a committee report okay

referred without recommendation for items five six seven and nine only vice

chair Chen Chen I member Mahmoud Mahmoud no chair Milgar no Milgar no

there are one there's one I and two no's with supervisors Mahmoud and Milgar

voting no okay so that motion fails and so now we take supervisor Mahmoud's

motions three motions can you read so yeah let's go ahead and take the motion

to table item eight first okay yes okay on the motion to table item number eight

vice chair Chen Chen no member Mahmoud Mahmoud I chair Milgar I

Melgar, aye. There are two ayes and one no, with Vice Chair Chen voting no.

Now on the next motion, it will be to, as Member Mahmood proposed, she sends items 5, 6, 7 as amended, and 9 as amended, as committee reports with a positive recommendation.

I'm sorry, I think that that was a mistake. Yes.

I said 5, 6, and 7 as committee reports.

Yeah.

As a regular.

Yes.

All positive recommendations.

Five, six, seven as committee reports, nine as a regular item.

All recommended as a positive recommendation.

Vice Chair Chen?

Chen, no.

Member Mahmood?

Mahmood, aye.

Chair Melgar?

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

There are two ayes and one no, with Vice Chair Chen voting no.

Okay, that motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Madam Clerk, do we have any other items on our agenda?

That concludes our business for today.

Okay. Thank you.

We are adjourned.

Madam Chair.

We are adjourned.