Good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, September 11th, 2025.

When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right.

Each speaker will be allowed two minutes today.

And when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up.

When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person cue to speak.

There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down.

Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you care to state your name for the record.

I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings.

And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind.

This will be strictly enforced today.

We ask for your patience and respect for the process.

At this time, I would like to take roll.

Commission President So.

Present.

Commission Vice President Moore.

Here.

Commissioner Campbell.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Williams.

Here.

Commissioner Braun.

Here.

And Commissioner Imperial.

Here.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Rusty, after a long break, I failed to open an agenda.

First on your agenda, Commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance.

Item one, case number 2025, hyphen 005009, CUA at 1511 Hate Street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance of September 18th, 2025.

Item 2, case number 2015, hyphen zero one two four nine one ENV for the San Francisco Gateway Project at 749 Tolen Street and 2000 McKinnon Avenue certification certification of a final environmental impact report is proposed for continuance of September 25th, 2025, as are items 3A through E for 2015, hyphen zero one two four nine one ENV, PCA, MAP, DVA, CWP, and C UA for the SF Gateway project are also proposed for continuance this September 25th, 2025.

I have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should take public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar.

Only on the matter of continuance.

In fact, to be before you in two weeks in full community and labor support of that project.

So respectfully request support of the continuance of the SF Gateway.

Thank you for your time.

Good afternoon.

My name is Boxenet King.

I'm from SEIU.

I'm a part of the SEIU workers' home for better houses and better report.

I take care of my brother, and he's mentally disturbed, so in the house, and I've been in his house now for 20 years paying when I moved in here, I was only paying 1800.

Still section eight.

Now I paid 3800.

My brother only get 1230 a month.

And then in anything my light bill is 500 hours a month.

So I'm begging and pleading understanding.

Can you please maintain a better home for working us out here?

Because it's too hard to have two jobs and take care of someone.

So I'm standing in honor of SEIU and all the hard workers of San Francisco in this one dream in this one body that I know we can do because I got my section eight in 1994.

And really, thank you.

Well, okay, I just didn't hear anything associated with the continuance calendar.

Last call for items proposed to be continued only on the matter of continuance.

You need to come forward.

Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your continuance calendar is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Vice President Moore.

Uh move to continue as noted.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to continue items as proposed.

Commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commission President Seo.

Aye.

So move, Commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously seven to zero.

Placing us on your consent calendar.

All matters listed here under constitute your consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote.

There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests.

In which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

Item four, case number 2025, hyphen 002907 C UA.

At 2064, Union Street conditional use authorization.

Item five, case number 2025, hyphen 005678, PCA development impact fees for residential development projects, planning code and building code amendments.

Item six, case number 2025, hyphen 006257 PCA accessory dwelling unit fee deferral planning and building code amendments.

Item seven, case number twenty nineteen, hyphen zero one seven zero two two C UA hyphen zero two twenty-eight thirty nine twenty-fourth street conditional use authorization.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these items on consent be taken off and heard under the regular calendar today or a future date.

Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your consent calendar is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Braun.

Move to approve items on consent calendar.

Second.

There's a motion that has been seconded to approve items on consent.

Commissioner Campbell.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Williams.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President.

So aye.

So move Commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously seven to zero.

Placing us under commission matters item eight, the land acknowledgement.

I'll be reading the land acknowledgement.

The commission acknowledges that we are on the ceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatushalone, who are the regional inhabitants of their San Francisco Peninsula.

As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatushaloni have never ceded lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in your traditional territory.

As guests, we recognize that we benefit from delivering and working on your traditional homeland.

We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Rama to Shalani community and be affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

Thank you.

Item nine, consideration of adoption draft minutes for July 17th, 2025 joint hearing with Wreckon Park.

Draft minutes for July 17th regular hearing and July 24th, 2025 regular hearing.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes.

Again, you need to come forward.

Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your minutes are now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Brown.

Move to adopt the minutes.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner Campbell.

Hi.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President So.

Aye.

So move Commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0.

Item 10, Commission comments and questions.

So good afternoon, everyone.

While today is many ways just another planning commission on just another Thursday.

Today is September 11.

I'd like to start our meeting in remembrance of September 11, as well as the recent gun violences of the lives taken too soon, the first responders and civilians who shown extraordinary courage, and the heroes whose sacrifices will never be forgotten.

We honor them with gratitude and we carry forward the resilience and unity that define us as Americans and as San Franciscans.

It is now my honor to invite our San Francisco Chief Fire Marshal Chat Lau to lead us in a moment of silence as we memorialize those we lost and reaffirmed our shared commitment to unity and patriotism.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I just gonna there you go.

All right, thank you.

Um I'm third generation San Francisco native, uh 27 plus years in the San Francisco Fire Department.

Uh we face many challenges uh every day.

Um this day, I will talk about in 2001.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, two planes crashed in the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City.

A third plane struck the Pentagon just outside Washington, D.C., and a fourth plane crashed into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Nearly 3,000 people lost their lives during the 9-11 terrorist attack.

On the 21st 24th anniversary of these tragic events, we remember and honor all those who died and all those left behind.

Among the many heroes on that tragic day were the brave men and women of the New York City Fire Department FDNY, who played a vital role in emergency efforts.

As soon as the planes hit the twin towers at the World Trade Centers, firefighters across the city rushed to the scene, risking their lives to save others.

Tragically, 343 firefighters lost their lives that day.

Seventy-one law enforcement personnel, eight paramedics, and fifty-five military personnel.

Although the event was across the country, members of the San Francisco Fire Department immediately sprang into action.

Our own fire chief Dean Crispin jumped on the first flight to New York City with other members of the fire department to assist in rescue operations and recovery without hesitation.

I share this to highlight the incredible spirit of San Francisco Fire Department, our first responders, and the identity and spirit of our city.

Just as we came together as a nation back then, I encourage all of us to continue to work together with the spirit of unity, kindness, and service.

I would like to take this moment to honor those who died in the line of duty and those who continue to protect and serve every day as first responders.

I now ask that we all observe a moment of silence in honor of those who lost their lives.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'd like to now like to uh have our vice president more to make another statement in memory of someone very special to San Francisco.

I'd like to ask the commission and the public to close today's meeting in memory of Senator Burton.

This is a very, very sad day.

And on top of that, we lost a giant who stood for everything San Francisco believes in.

Including those matters which are somewhat being touched on today.

I asked that we remember him as we close today's meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners.

If there's no further comments under commission matters, I'm going to ask the gentleman in the corner.

Sir.

If you can't find a seat, you can't be in the chambers.

Oh, okay.

That's right.

Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioners, that'll place us under department matters item 11 director's announcements.

Yes, please.

Good morning.

Afternoon.

It's been a long morning.

Thank you all.

We have uh what I presume will be a relatively long day in front of us, so I'll keep it brief, but there were two things I wanted to highlight just under my director's announcements.

Number one, uh related to our item number three on our calendar today.

Um this week, the San Francisco Planning Department received a letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development letting us know that they have given us preliminary approval on the family zoning plan package of legislation that you will hear today.

Um we'll talk more about that at the item, but it I did want to note for the public that we receive that item.

It is posted on the planning department's website as of now.

Um we will have copies for all of you.

It is not final approval, it is just letting us know that when you hear that item that that HCD feels good about what is before you and wants to make sure that what is carried through the legislative process is relatively consistent with what you are hearing today.

Um my other item that I just wanted to share was really just an acknowledgement and appreciation of our democratic process of which you commissioners hear, and this this forum that you're providing for a public comment is an enormous piece.

Um I think the commissioners here today and our staff here today have provided forums over the years and recent months on many topics, including the family zoning plan that you'll hear today.

I'm really proud to be joining this body to be working for this commission and the planning department in the processes that we've brought forward that have allowed voices to be heard and allowed us to continue to work and shape public policy according to those voices.

So I just want to note, and this is this is a uh a request for our all of the members of the public who are here today, for us to uphold it's important for us to uphold that democratic process that we have the forum to speak at the microphone, and that we respect that forum for all others.

It is a cornerstone of our democracy, which I know we all care about very deeply, and I'm looking forward to seeing that respected today.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners, if there are no questions of Director Phillips, we should move on to item 12, review of past events of the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission.

I don't see staff members related to any of those items, so I believe there are no reports and updates.

So we can move on to general public comment.

At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items with respect to agenda items.

Your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting.

When the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

Again, you need to come forward.

Hi, my name's Mike Nor.

I don't know if this is appropriate, but I think it's uh in line with what you're talking about.

One of my questions would be we know why most of the people are here, but it's the last item.

Most of us have jobs and stuff.

It's very hard for us to take time off to come to these meetings.

It would be appreciated if the items that people are coming here for were put to the front of the meeting.

Thanks.

Thank you.

But you'll have my testimony.

My name is Mark Bruno.

I'm here to report on.

Why don't I wait till you give it to them?

Because it's hard to follow.

Sorry.

Well, I would like to start over if you don't mind.

You're passing something out, but it's not there.

But not only your price right, right here.

Um I'm here to report on our group's complaint to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force because the planning department never produced the documents we requested on July 6th.

We merely asked how many rental units are likely to be affected by upzoning.

They still have not answered that question in response to Sunshine Task Force last week unanimously agreed that the department not did not respond in a timely manner.

And one task force member said, quote, it seems like the question before us is Mr.

Bruno's question, what is the number of rental units affected by the family zoning plan?

Yes, that is our question.

I don't understand, said the task force member, how there is a zoning plan to create more units based on a shortage of units, and to have what that number is, to know that there is a shortage, and then to say that number doesn't exist to the public.

End quote.

And we in preparation for that meeting, a friend of mine and I went to the planning department desk at the permit center.

You know where that is, and we were told by Trent Grenin, a senior architect and designer with the department.

When we asked if we give you these parcel tables, can you tell uh us the answer to the question how many rental units are likely to be affected?

And Mr.

Granin said that document is not enough.

You also need to have the property information map.

Well, as much as the planning department would like to deny it, the property information map, which we all have used, PIM, which Mr.

Grannon referenced, is part of the planning department.

It's on their site, as is the parcels table.

So those two documents together answered our question.

But the department never responded.

They still haven't.

And with that in mind, I'm asking that nobody should should uh be considering legislation on upzoning until the city is forthcoming with this information.

Thank you.

So every time you use democracy, you're lying to the public.

I have been living in San Francisco for almost 40 years.

I came here to your department many, many times.

For example, I oppose the planning department that approves so many cannabis stores.

May I can may I run a stores and look at the city?

A lot of people dying on the street, a lot of people drug dealing supported by you, the representative, the fake people here.

I don't think that I don't mean that you are fake.

I'm talking about your fake government in here.

San Francisco has running by a group of dictatorship in here.

There's only one party in San Francisco.

It's called Democrat.

No other party but Democrat, and the word democracy is stealing from that party.

The Democrat Party is nothing but a bunch of liars, murders, and destructors for the city.

Any zoning that you approve or not approve, it's according to the people behind the scene under the table.

Many people have reported in the community.

If you have money, you get permit earlier, faster.

If you don't have money, yes, yes and yes to get something done.

I am here to oppose your fake commissioning department in here that you have not done a good job, nothing but destroy our city.

If you do not if you continue to support Agenda 2030, which is a 15 minute city with high rising buildings, and within 15 minutes, people can be killed, and you have nothing to eat if you don't agree with them.

Anyone who do not agree with your department and the people in City Hall get targeted in San Francisco.

So wake up, people.

Thank you.

Um good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Paul Wormer.

I hadn't planned to talk on this topic, but uh the director raised it in the issue of outreach, and I wanted to say that back 2006, there was the Japan Town Better Neighborhoods Plan.

And planning came down and talked to the community in a charrette, and they said, where do you want the big buildings?

And the community said, We don't want the big buildings.

Where do you want the big buildings?

We don't want the building, big buildings.

This was the community-wide.

Well, if you had to have them, where would you place them?

And so we said, well, if they absolutely had to be, and we identified a couple of opportunity lots which were uh closer to the towers from the Filmo development.

When this came to the planning commission, and I believe Ron Miguel was president then, that plan was soundly rejected because the community said this is not what we said.

And what would happen after that was actually quite wonderful, and I I think the commission at that time did a wonderful job.

Uh we ended up getting the Japan Town Organizing Committee, and we had excellent support from people like Steve Wortheim and Paul Lord from the planning commission, first one, and when he left for another task, then the other.

Okay, last call for general public comment.

Items not on today's agenda.

Seeing none, general public comment is closed.

We can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners for items 13 A, B, and C for case numbers 2019, hyphen 017622 DNX, C Way, and VAR, for the property at 570 Market Street, downtown project authorization, conditional use authorization and variance.

Um please note that on May 1st, 2025, after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this to July 10th, 2025 by a vote of five to two.

Commissioners Campbell and McGarry were against, and then on July 10th, without hearing continued to today's date by a vote of seven to zero.

We'll hear from staff, and then we'll get an update from the project sponsor for five minutes and then public comment for one.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Jonathan Venmer Department staff.

The applications before you as stated are requests for downtown project authorization, with certain exceptions pursuant to planning code section 309, conditional use authorization for hotel use for the property commonly known as 570 Market Street, a through lot that as confirmed by the zoning administrator, principally fronts along Market Street, with additional frontage at the lot's rear along Sutter Street.

It is located within the C3O zoning district and 300S height in bulk district.

The zoning administrator will separately consider whether to allow an elevator penthouse extending more than 16 feet above the height limit.

As a reminder, you previously considered the project on May 1st of this year, denying a sequel appeal of the preliminary mitigated negative declaration and continuing the project entitlements with the direction for the project sponsor to generally speaking, for the sake of brevity, explore potential design changes around the proposed building's massing, elevator core, light well slash setback from the neighboring chancery building, and the location of the POPOs.

At this juncture, CEQA determinations have been completed.

Further consideration of related matters may occur should the project be approved and subsequent CEQA appeal is made to the Board of Supervisors.

To reiterate for the record, the sites currently occupied by two-story, non-historic commercial structure that is proposed for demolition and redevelopment with a 300-foot-tall, 29-story building with approximately 211 guest rooms, occupying approximately 126,000 gross square feet with roughly 3,000 square feet of lower level retail and a popos terrace on the 15th floor with ground level access covering a total of approximately 4,200 square feet.

After a thorough consideration and exploration, the project sponsored team has determined that barring strictly aesthetic considerations is not feasible to make any substantial changes to the design, both from a constructability and programmatic perspectives.

Their analysis is well detailed in documentation, including your packets, and they are in attendance today to speak to these studies.

The building has little to no effect on the skyline, as it is largely tucked within the contours of a variety of higher, immediately or nearby neighboring structures.

New renderings and studies demonstrating this have been provided.

As previously detailed, the real estate services firm CBRE published a detailed report and subsequent addendum projecting that this type of high-end view-oriented hotel would open into a strong and viable market, particularly in light of the fact that it could not realistically be delivered for several years, alongside some signs of downtown recovery having already appeared.

These factors are further reflected in recent approvals and applications for other high rises in the financial district and near South of Market.

The same representatives from the Chancery Building and 44 Montgomery that spoke in the May hearing remain in opposition and have submitted updated letters, one of which was including your packet, and the other having been emailed directly.

Chancery representatives also submitted another brief letter pertaining to CEQA mitigation measures and structural concerns that was received this morning and has been distributed.

NorCow Carpenter's local 22, the downtown SF Partnership, and Unite Here Local 2 remain in support, with Unite here having also recently submitted an updated letter.

This concludes my presentation.

As mentioned, the project sponsor is here with her own.

We're both happy to answer any questions you may have and dive into the weeds however deep you may desire.

Thank you.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Hello, Commissioner, how are you?

My name is Danny Forster.

I'm the architect of the 570 Market Street Tower.

We have a presentation to be pulled up for you, which will come up momentarily.

But generally speaking, we're going to address the comment of the massing of the building and its impact on the kind of urban fabric where it's located.

We'll address the issue as it relates to uh the encroachment on the uh light well of the adjacent building, and then fundamentally talk about the access to the POPOS and how does that work for the public?

Can you mention this in the presentation?

The presentation is coming up shortly, but in the meantime, perhaps you can refer to the PDF we've provided you with.

Uh first and foremost, you'll see if you refer to we're coming up, great.

Let's just kind of click ahead if you don't mind, Jason.

So there's the building in context with a series of massing moves, but fundamentally what I want to show you is where does the building live within the fabric beyond just Market Street.

So if we zoom out for a minute, looking down from uh here, next next slide to the ferry view.

Next slide.

Yeah.

So here's the building within its broad context, as you can see, relatively diminutive in scale, even at 300 feet tall.

But from a view corridor standpoint, because of the setbacks we're doing, it's actually not that visible from adjacent streets.

So if you can see here the view from the ferry building, it's hard to see the project itself.

Next slide, the view from the embarkadero Bart station.

You do see the side of the building, but we're happy to say that in addition to windows on the Sutter Street and Market Street side, the facade turns the corner.

So it's actually going to be a nice part of the facade express from the street.

Next slide.

Again, also from the Powell Street station, hard to see the building.

So there's a lot of small individual massing moves and facade detailing happening that relates to its direct context, but as a building overall, it has a fairly modest impact on the skyline.

Next slide.

The question that was proposed to us is can we encroach less on the light well you can see just to the plan south of the building on the Chancery building?

We looked at it three ways from a space space planning, structurally, and in terms of the elevator and the performance of the building.

If we go to the next slide, you'll see.

If you look at Sutter Street to the right and kind of bring your eye to the left, the question is could we compress the right side of the building to encroach less?

So if you go to the next slide, you'll see on the guest rooms from a hotel standpoint from an ADA from a turning radius from clearance to the bed to the requirements for the hallway.

That's not a discretionary distance we have there.

That's the requirement to make a hotel room work.

If you look at the next slide, you'll see from the fire service access requirements, the eight foot stretcher dimensions of the elevator, and the width of the stair, that too is not a discretionary width.

So from Sutter to the edge of the elevator core, we're kind of as small as we can be.

That being said, you asked us to look at it further.

So we said to ourselves, let's remove an elevator.

And in doing so, you can see minimize the encroachment.

Unfortunately, our consultants, VDA or elevator consultants, ran the analysis, and the weight times the speed and the performance of the building would not function for a hotel.

And you can see uh franchises would accept good as an elevator study goes, we fall below that threshold.

From a structural standpoint, we flipped the core and said, okay, what if we took the elevators to the right, took the stair outside of the core to again minimize the core in that side of the building?

I'm sorry to say it generated a 70%, a catastrophic loss of structural uh uh capabilities in the lateral system, uh, and giving us three inches of creep on the tower.

Remember, it's a 30-foot wide site, 300 foot tall building.

So that elevator core is doing a lot of work for the lateral system.

Uh so we don't have a lot of flexibility in that's in that in that department.

I hope that clarifies that.

Lastly, let me just jump over to the POPOS.

My understanding was there was a question about the visibility, the ease with which someone might find their way to the POPOS.

We hope we've clearly identified a vibrant opportunity for two-story retail, but a very separate, slender, clear, independently dedicated Popost entrance.

From that entrance, you have one way to go down the hallway to an elevator, there's no other right turns or left turns, and then from there, as you arise up on the 15th floor, that vegetative wall that greeted you at grade now happens yet again on the 15th floor.

You egress out from the elevator directly to the Popo space, and then hopefully to a really dynamic, interesting outdoor space that is partially covered, partially open, hardscape, soft scape, wood uh, and seating throughout.

If we go to the next slide, you can see there's an ADA ramp, there's some steps, there's some vegetation, there's a cool viewing platform at the point where you can look down the street as well as look down the screen wall.

I also would make mention next slide.

There was a comment that I'd read that the concern was having that small kind of food and beverage coffee station might make it feel like it's a commercially focused space.

I hope it's clear that we've tucked the food and beverage area under the overhang, primarily this is about being outdoors, beautiful vegetation, and dynamic seating opportunities.

Um yeah, so with that, um I'll just say if we go to the next slide as well.

Uh here you can see again the POPOS with a number of different ways to occupy the space.

Um so I hope we've addressed the issue of the building in the urban fabric, our capacity to encroach less on the light well of the adjacent building, and hopefully the public feels that they can readily access the POPOS and have a dedicated public space.

Happy to answer any questions the commission has.

Thank you.

That concludes uh project sponsors' presentation.

I will suggest that if any members of the public in the North Light Court wish to make public comment to make their way to the chambers and notify the sheriffs that you're here to make public comment on the current item.

Otherwise, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item.

Please come forward, light up on the screen side of the room, or to your right.

You'll each have one minute.

One minute.

One minute.

I'm Anna Shimko, representing the chancery next door.

Um, we believe it's important for the city and the commission to respect the historic building and keep the historic building operating.

This project will not do that because of the light well in particular.

We ask that the developer invest some additional creativity and time into figuring out a solution to that, such as how really structurally to swap the stairs and the elevator.

In addition, there are numerous findings, including the priority policies with respect to historic buildings and conditional use that cannot be made as to the general welfare of people in the vicinity and not being injurious to property or improvements.

You have the opportunity to deny or condition the project to make these issues go away.

For instance, finding a way not to block the light well, to add green walls, diffuse lighting, etc.

And our noise consultant will explain why the neck deck needs to be opened up.

Thank you.

No, no, it's gonna be aligned.

Good afternoon.

My name is Brian Flynn.

I'm an attorney with the law firm Lozar Jury here representing 44 Montgomery in opposition to the project.

When you considered this project, thank you.

When you considered this project back in May, your main concerns were clear.

Mismatch light wells, the hotel room window distance to uh neighboring offices, the location uh functionality of the POPOs.

Now we're back here four months later, and the same exact project for May is being put back in front of you.

The POPOs are the same, the light wells are still mismatched, it's still practically abuts the neighboring offices.

And the only difference is the applicants claiming that any changes are infeasible.

But in other words, that just means that this project as proposed doesn't work.

Uh and there's no reason to shoehorn this project into the site.

The requested conditional use permit requires a finding that it's desirable as proposed.

Nothing has changed since May, and as a result, the commission's decision should be the same.

Either continue it and give them another chance to redesign, or if it can't be redesigned as the applicant claims, the commission should just go ahead this afternoon and deny it.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners and staff.

Again, Rudy Gonzalez with the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

I represent approximately 7400 blue-collar workers in the city, of which about 700 across our crafts are out of work, and that includes city build graduates, that includes pre-apprenticeship graduates across our trades who have been out of work due to the hollowing out of the downtown core.

This project represents an opportunity to kick start our economic development, but it also uh provides an opportunity to bring about economic recovery for the actual blue-collar workers in the city.

I have limited time, but I just want to urge you not to uh try to treat this developer uh in a way that discourages them from bringing this project forward.

It is a really good and well-designed and well thought out project.

It won't appease everybody's interest, but in terms of the conditional use authorization and the variants, uh, this is the right place for this project.

It is zoned appropriately, uh, and the project will be delivered in the coming years.

So please uh support the project.

Good afternoon, commissioners and staff.

Uh I'm Ty Hudson, uh with Unite Here Local Two, uh, here to speak in support of the project.

Um, as a union representing hotel workers, we are always concerned with whether new jobs created in this industry will serve to lift up the community but by providing good wages and working conditions for the hardworking people uh who work in our city's hotels.

Hotel developers have historically supported the creation of good quality jobs by agreeing to remain neutral and present no encumbrances to efforts by their employees to form a union.

Um, these agreements ensure that jobs created are good quality jobs, and as such they set a standard that we believe should be followed by all hotel developers.

Um, this project is such a project, and we support it for its guarantees of good quality jobs in this critical industry for San Francisco, and we we uh we urge you to grant all the necessary approvals.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Mauricio Chavez, and I'm an organizer for Carpenter's Local 22 here in San Francisco.

We represent approximately 4,000 carpenters across this county.

The proposed development at 570 Market has the potential to create severely needed union construction jobs that pay area standard wages and benefits as well as providing opportunities to local apprentices to include women and minorities to begin or continue their career in the construction industry.

As we continue to emerge from the global pandemic and significant downturn in the economy construction is the second largest industry in the world behind health care.

It is important that we support projects like 570 Market Street because they exist as examples of how development can support labor during construction and operation North Carpenter's local 22 is excited and honored to take part in San Francisco's economic recovery and we strongly encourage you to advance this proposal.

Thank you.

Good afternoon commissioners my name is Laysa Nals I work for Wilson Eric we're acoustics noise and vibration consultants I am here on behalf of the chancellor building the negative declaration um for from the CQR report um we feel is an error and we have done some analysis to show that there would be an impact during construction on the louder into the there would be an impact to the the occupants of the chancellor building during construction from a noise basis it would provide an environment that would not be conducive or healthy for a from a noise standpoint for the occupants of the chancellor building during construction at practices unless there are noise mitigation measures implemented during the construction process.

Okay last call for public comment again if you're in the North Light Court please come to the chambers as soon as possible we'll be closing public comment final last call public comment is closed this matter is now before you commissioners Commissioner Vice President Moore.

I was gonna jump right in I expressed my interest in the building I think it is a fun building and I think it would not be uh inappropriate to see it in its location however there's a however I went to visit the Chancellor building on Tuesday just to do justice for me to see the other side the Chancellor building is an extremely well maintained historic building with lovely lovely office space I'd love to have an office in there.

It's occupied by uh architects by a small interior design firms I assume graphic designers people in tech it's a young building a historically old building but a young building and it's fun to be in there the office spaces I saw on different floors are innovative and people are having a good time although they don't have the greatest views they're looking against the facades and light both of older buildings that have sufficient light to have a good workspace.

And in reality when we see that this new building as fun as it is starting to really take that away I appreciate what the architect has examined and to try to do but I personally do expect a little extra tweaking on maintaining some resemblance of the light well in order to not completely make the office spaces that are fully occupied in downtown and have been throughout COVID become less valuable.

So I feel sitting between two chairs and two responsibilities we are to maintain uh downtown office occupied buildings that is our primary responsibility for an active downtown.

And I'm not going to say I can feed Peter and steal from Paul.

So I leave it up to other commissioners to comment on it.

If we could do a little bit more work around the uh opening up uh the light well as you are showing in one of your drawings, we're dealing with the five foot two overlap of uh elevator core and light.

Well, uh I would appreciate that extra work and you have my support, but I need to see a little bit more.

And I do believe, as we are in quoting, no matter what, uh, that a green wall would greatly help to bring some more positive energy into the working environment in the channel we building, which will definitely be changed.

Those are my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner McGarry.

So I believe the developer has made a commitment that they're going to build this union.

My employers, the NorthCal Carpenters Union, while my day-to-day work is wages benefits, working conditions for uh blue collar workers throughout the city and county of San Francisco.

I do not select a general contractor, and the fact that this developer has made a commitment to build this union is a testament to the f to the project itself.

Plus in San Francisco, something of this size and magnitude can only be built by a union general contractor.

I don't believe I have a conflict of interest in this uh decision today, but the fact that it was put out there that's there is uh there is uh uh basically support from my employer.

Uh I'd like to mention that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Williams.

Thank you.

Um, can could someone from planning uh remind me um what the mitigations were for the chancellery building?

It's been a while, and I'd like to kind of go over um and refresh uh refresh myself with the with the mitigations and in uh and the impacts.

Is can you is there's anyone to give a summary of that?

This is the one.

I think the project sponsor might be the best on that.

I did not work on the environmental review on the current planner, and SQL is just not up for consideration today.

Um and so that it wasn't staffed by environmental review, um staff.

Um, but Melinda may have a little bit of a cursor.

Yeah, we don't have the MMRP in front of us because the appeal was already denied.

Yeah, so I yeah.

No, I'd like I'd like for you if you could could if you could speak to it a little bit.

Um the only reason I mentioned is because I remember last in the during the last hearing there were some concerns about the air quality and and things of that nature, and I so I just want to kind of uh see if you could refresh uh refresh the commission uh Yeah, absolutely.

I brought a copy of the MMRP from the negative deck with me, so if you'd like it, I can submit it uh to look at.

But we have mitigation measures for archaeological testing, uh tribal cultural resources during excavation, fixed mechanical equipment noise, so construction equipment noise to minimize the extent you can during construction, um, protection and vibration monitors for existing building, which were sort of heightened standards for this site because we are next to an historic building, and also um clean off-road construction equipment to reduce air quality emissions that could impact adjacent properties.

Okay.

Um, can I have somebody from the trans uh transferry building come up here and um I'd like to hear from their point of view if if the uh the air mitigations uh to to the building uh during construction if is that still an issue and speak speaker?

It is an issue.

Um as to air emissions and dust, we believe that there needs to be at minimum more frequent monitoring and reporting in order to have real-time monitoring so that you can have real-time response as opposed to the MMRP that requires say monthly reports, because that's simply not going to assist our tenants.

And and so, what what time frame would you would think be appropriate for for uh for report backs and uh it is possible to have real-time monitors for dust, for noise, and to make sure that somebody similar to archaeology.

If you're concerned about that, you have a monitor there at all times.

You can have active monitoring going on such that if certain levels are reached, actions are taken then and there.

So continuous is what we would request.

So continuous air monitoring.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner LeBron.

Uh following on Commissioner Williams' questions and the responses.

I have a question to the uh project sponsor team about I understand the reporting is monthly, but uh how frequent is the air monitoring that was just being referenced is is that process continued?

I imagine you wouldn't just monitor the air once, and that's the monthly report, but I don't know what's the yeah, for I believe um, and again I have to review the condition because this was a sequa um item question.

I didn't uh look at it in detail before the hearing today.

Um but usually there is some sort of routine interim monitoring that goes on for vibration in air quality and then reporting.

I don't know what the duration is of those, but um the project is also required to use the least emitting forms of construction equipment and prevent vehicles from idling and things along those lines.

Uh that's at all helpful.

Okay, thank you for that.

And and we did uh take action on the environmental report um previously.

Um so I'm not trying to reopen and kind of uh do that all over again.

Um my other question here is about the compatibility of the light well with the project, and so I I appreciate all the work that went into this detailed description of the challenges in shifting the core, the elevator core a little bit to make that work.

Um I guess my I have a sort of a design question about the building in terms of we're gonna have the chancery buildings windows facing the this light well, and then you're gonna have your hotel buildings windows facing them.

And uh what's what's the current sort of plan as far as the amount of uh windows that are looking kind of directly at each other?

Um, I asked this partly because you know that could affect the amount of light that ultimately is getting to the light well of the chancery building as well.

Yeah, can we pull up the rendering if it's okay just to refer to it?

That's fine.

Uh sure.

SFGov, can we go to the computer, please?

Yeah, I mean, first and foremost, the the distances are the code mandated distances, right?

So everything that you're seeing is as of right as per code.

So the standard light and air requirements is what's being provided.

So uh can we go to that where we zoom into that rendering perhaps?

But so uh yeah, we've got a better view, I think.

Yeah, that's good.

Uh if we can zoom in, great.

If not, so the the I'm gonna I'm gonna walk away and just point for a second if that's all right.

Sir, so the oh I'm sorry, actually, if you're not speaking of the microphone, folks watching can't hear you.

Yeah.

So the area question you're asking about is probably the hotel rooms.

That's okay.

It's this it's a space adjacent to the light well.

I understood.

So yeah, so the so the hotel rooms that you see with the sort of zigzag facade are the ones that are looking directly into the chancery building.

The distance there is the same requirements as you would if you're looking out on market street or Sutter Street to an adjacent building, in other words.

So you have your lot required distances.

I think it's 30 feet.

Well, no, that's six feet.

Can you speak to the microphone when you speak just for the things?

Right now there's a six-foot uh more than six-foot distance from that facade to the adjacent chancery building.

The chancery windows are incremental.

There's only X number per um that portion.

I think that there's um two that would be looking out towards the um uh shortest distance to the windows of the hotel, and then the hotel room uh facade actually is angled with the windows also being angled in that manner.

So it's not that you're gonna have a window directly across from you that you'd be looking directly into, but instead always looking at an angle in regards to any adjacency there.

And in terms of the actual locations, I'm pretty sure we'd have to study this in detail, but right now there's not like a window directly across that would be.

Yeah, if you look at the actually, if we jump to the elevation page, what we've also done, you'll notice is that the windows are kind of hopscotching and they're staggered.

So the idea is that they're avoiding that sort of condition of the uh Hitchcock rear window situation.

Okay.

Um, so if you look kind of at the central elevation there, the kind of darkened lines there are the ones that are, you know, that's perfect if you state the elevation page.

Um yeah, here.

Uh so that so that the the sort of the ones that are doing this, this sort of folding zigzagging is what Jason's referring to.

The idea being that at a minimum, number one, you don't have this condition, right?

You don't have perpendicular glass looking at, it's an angled glass.

Now that doesn't change everything, but it's a gesture, right, to stop that rear window condition.

And then to Jason's point, it's further exacerbated, or I should say it's further helped by the fact that we hopscotch the window, so you don't have a window-to-window condition.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

I appreciate that.

I you know, and looking at this, um, I think after seeing the analysis, I can support the project.

Uh, except I would want to include a requirement that the facade of the building that faces the light well be painted in a I don't usually like getting into paint in these level of design details, but in order to provide more light for the that light well, I would request that that be um painted a light color, white or light color.

Um, yeah, I'll leave it at that for now.

I know there's another commissioner commenter questions.

I don't want to make a motion just yet, but that's that would be my my one change or requirement on this.

That's accommodatable.

All right.

Um thank you, Commissioner Campbell.

One quick question before I go to my comments, is um a question around item 13A, where uh in our brief it says um uh there's a requirement for interior lot setbacks under section one three two one um for off-street freight loading spaces under section one five two point one and one six one and for off-street tour bus loading spaces under section one six two.

Could you just walk us through those?

I'm sorry, could you I couldn't hear you?

I know it's so loud in here.

It's very loud, yeah.

Um in our briefing um it it reads request for downtown large project authorization pursuant to planning code sections.

Oh my god.

Um 309, with exception from requirements for interior lot setbacks under section one three two one, for off-street freight loading spaces under section one five two one and one six one, and for off-street tour bus loading spaces under section one six two to allow the construction of a 29 story approximately above the.

Could you walk us through those?

Certainly, at least at least a little bit.

So, yeah, so the I think the most notable here is the tower um setback interior ally.

So basically section 132.1 stipulates that once you get above a certain height, there is a mandatory, like under the base code, mandatory setback from your interior property lines with adjoining sites.

Um section 309, understanding the specifics of downtown lots and their variability, especially one like this where it is exceptionally narrow for a downtown site.

Section 309 says you can get an exception that from that provision, provided you meet certain findings.

132.1 is saying you can get out of the hard limitations of that setback if it's found that overall, so on balance, kind of access to light and air is not impaired, and that the granting of that exception will not result in a group of buildings, the total street frontage of which is greater than 125 feet without a separation between buildings that meets the requirements of chart A.

This block has various setbacks that meet the requirements of chart A.

Um, so on balance, we think that there's enough relief between the new tower and the adjacent buildings that it does meet that exception.

The other ones are just simply they're um you have to have certain, you know, curb colors for loading spaces.

There's a tourist bus one, and there's another one, but to meet those, again, given the nature of the law and that they can't go subterranean because it's above the BART tunnel, um, it would pinch in, they would have to create a space within their already narrow um site to accommodate that, and suddenly the whole program doesn't work.

Um, they simply can't accommodate it.

And those are like those are just there's no specific findings around those.

They're just saying through 309, you can get exceptions from those loading requirements.

That's helpful.

Thank you so much.

Um, okay.

So I'm in full support of this project.

Um, this is in the heart of downtown.

This is our primary commercial corridor.

Um, this is where we welcome tourists, um, visitors, this is how we can accommodate conferences.

If there's a business model here that's gonna make this hotel survive, then I think it's irresponsible to turn down this project if it's got economic livelihood.

Um it's completely code compliant project.

Um it creates harmony with the context.

I know there's sensitivity around the adjacent buildings, construction's messy, um, there's some some structural concerns, um, that is up to DBI in my opinion when it goes on to go we go get our our building permits.

I don't feel like that's our purview, really.

Um so I appreciate.

I know I remember when you were here in May.

Um, I appreciate all of the hard work you put into demonstrating the constraints.

This is a tricky site, and you're trying to pack in a lot here.

Um, so thank you for doing those studies.

I think the Popost is a very nice gift to the city, and I would make a motion to approve with conditions on I think the two items we can, because the third is a variance, and that's that's you right, Corey.

Okay, so on the two.

Thank you, Commissioner Campbell.

Um I do wanted to say that um thank you for coming back and thank you for spending the time to actually investigate all the different scenarios.

Uh really appreciate your responsiveness on looking really, try to flip the core around, really try to enable minimizing blocking the light veil.

Um what it is actually looking at your really tall building 300 feet, um, swinging it like that, it is causing a quite a bit of structural uh re-what do you call it like a seismic up, not even upgrade, like really a huge add to the burden of the team and design.

So, but I do however understand appreciate your investigation.

Um so I do want to ask you a question when Commissioner Braun mentioned about these fenestrations that you are proposing to do.

Finestrations like window openings, um, specifically to the light well area.

When you mentioned when you're a hop scotching, what does that really mean?

Yeah, I just meant that if you if you look at the elevation, contrary to conventional hotels where every window is the same on every floor.

So it's like a series of pancakes stacked in our building, the windows switch every single floor.

So that's the hop scotching I was referring to.

I apologize.

But that is partially to produce some texture and some aesthetic dynamism, but it's also to quite literally avoid that condition of looking into windows adjacent.

And um so in other projects where um there is really close light well to the neighboring building, some designer actually show like an overlapping images of these openings of the window from the neighbor, superimpose it to your proposal.

I'm not asking you to do that again.

I'm sure you have done it already.

So you're it's safe to say that um you hopscotching the pattern, so these windows are not actually directly seeing your neighbor's existing window.

Yeah, yes, I would say to the extent that we can do so without like customizing every hotel because the hotel rooms are still the same hotel room stacked up on every single floor, but within the confines of the demising walls of hotel room to hotel room, we've tried to be sensitive to locate the windows to avoid the condition that was described.

That's correct.

So try the best you can.

That's correct.

And also notice as in just I'm looking at just your renderings, right?

Um, your rendering is actually showing that the window is actually not flat with the exterior wall, your windows at an angle, so meaning that your view from the gas room aren't actually like right in front of somebody's desk.

That's exactly right.

And I would say like anyone can say, like if I take a piece of glass and angle it, you can still look out straight.

Obviously, it's glass, but the point is from reflectivity from orientation, kind of the idea is it minimizes the relationship in that proximity to the extent that we can.

That's correct.

Good.

Thank you.

I just want to make sure that we are on the record with this and appreciate your effort.

I appreciate the question.

Thank you.

And um I will bring it back to Commissioner Braun.

Yes, uh, I actually have a question for department staff.

Um, and so I am wondering, you know, I I do I would like to try to include this this requirement that the at least the portion of the building that is um at or below the level of the chancery building, um, you know, facing it uh has a light-colored um facade at minimum.

I would encourage them to do a living wall, but that's very expensive, so I don't know if I want to go there, but I don't I don't want to preclude the opportunity to do a living wall.

So you know, I'd I'd like to find a way to still make that a possibility even without requiring it.

Either way, I'm wondering if am I getting on over my skis here, or is there you know latitude to I'd make this a condition of our approval?

I but Jonathan or department staff, um, I believe it's perfectly fine.

I don't think you're riskies at all.

Um I think at least when it comes to the paint color, that's pretty straightforward.

I think crafting language around investigating feasibility of living living walls a little more complicated, but not impossible.

Um I think for the paint color, if you wanted to specify light traditional color, even going into something like buff or or stark white, it I think specifying that is perfectly fine.

I don't believe that the paint color and that light well is a huge issue.

It's kind of not visible from street.

Um, if you are truly interested in a condition around a living wall, I think it could be something around investigate feasibility from a financial and programmatic perspective, um, and defer to department staff.

I'm I don't that this is a little more boutique of a custom condition.

So I'm curious for Leah's or the sponsor to speak on that one, maybe.

Yes, please go ahead.

I mean, I don't want to I'm not I I'm not just in mandating that.

I just I don't want to preclude the opportunity by saying it has to be a light colored wall.

That's all.

Can I respond to that comment if you don't mind?

I think absolutely the idea of having a brighter material in that space can be accommodated and work within the aesthetic logic of the building, no questions asked.

Um I do want to say the living wall issue is one where you're going to have the living wall not living because of the actual sunlight in there.

And the scaffolding, the manpower, the replacement, the maintenance will make it a horrendous condition.

So I just want to say I don't think it serves the purpose the commission is trying to support.

And therefore I think bringing light in through a color change is a really effective d uh pathway, and we'd love to support that.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh I know that Commissioner Campbell, you made a motion, and I don't think it was seconded, but I'd be happy to second it if you include the um requirement around the portion of the building facing the chancery building being painted in a light traditional color.

Paint or whatever the person.

As long as it's a light color.

Yes, I'll add that to my motion.

Second.

Okay, and um great.

And then we have Commissioner Williams and then Vice President Moore and Commissioner Campbell, you want to speak again?

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

Yes, I'd like to make a a friendly amendment uh just to add the um continuous air quality for the chance chancellory building as uh as you know, con construction during construction.

Um, just want to.

Um and Jonathan, you might want to.

On that, I do I think I hopefully have a helpful note.

I'm getting some um messages from our EP staff.

And so they are saying um.

Sorry, it's all happening live.

Um, any additional air monitoring can be added to the conditions of approval since we didn't find an impact in the MND.

And we can't reopen the CEQA document for review as it's already gone through the appeal, but you can add additional air monitoring as a condition of approval.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And uh Commissioner Vice President Moore.

I'd like to take another tack.

Uh, materiality and color of the light well.

Uh for those who in the room who were present when we were having the fight between the W hotel and the expansion of the modern Museum of Modern Art with Snyder being the architect, there was a long discussion about exactly what we're having here.

And they actually had a wonderful creative, they had a wonderful creative discussion by also talking about texture and potentially light effect on that wall, which added indeed something which made the light fell light well become an architectural element, which really understood the impact on neighboring hotel or whatever it is.

And if you would expand that discussion or thought about it into that level of evaluation, I would greatly appreciate that.

Perhaps even listen to the then discussion way back when that discussion was had in this room.

May I respond to that now?

Or are you asking for a study?

Uh do you can respond just to whatever?

I maybe we could bring the rendering back up.

Um I I think if we're talking about the experience of someone looking across from an office building to a light well, I would say the least compelling condition would be a flat wall with a window looking directly into your space with a metal panel or a cheaply painted or a stucco facade, right?

That would absorb the light.

Prior to any discussion about the light well condition, the design of the building took into account that condition and generated a series of architectural moves.

The first of which I talked about, which was the zigzagged wall.

The idea being you're not looking at a flat wall, you're looking at an angled wall, which will, over the course of the day as the sun moves, generate reflective lights in a more dynamic way than would a flat wall, number one.

Number two, as Jason pointed out, the windows are also angled.

Thereby you don't have that rear window condition.

Uh and lastly, I would say, although I I hear the note about a brighter finish color, I would say the cementitious panels that are proposed are reflective and glazed and and will produce because they are at angle and they are not pancaked up, i.e., continuous floor to floor, you're gonna have that kind of checkerboarding hopscotch condition where you'll have dynamism of reflected light that will be different throughout the day throughout the seasons and so forth.

So I would just say intrinsic to the logic of the building where every facade was considered relative to its context.

I would say baked into the design as you have it right now, there is a dynamic, thoughtful, uh neighborly relationship to those across from the light well within reason, understanding that there's still repetitive hotel rooms that have a certain kind of uh homogeneity to them.

Um, I think you have a sensitivity.

Have you been in the adjoining building doing working hours and see who's in the building and what the spaces are like?

You're an architect who probably loves the space.

I suggest you go in there and just have another creative look and see if what you're saying to me, which I think is a great explanation of how to do things, indeed resonates with you when you are in that space.

That's what I'm saying.

I'm happy we've been, we've been that great at the site in the building.

Have not been in the in the chancery building.

So I would suggest that you do go into your colleague architect's office just to see what it's like and imagine what if you would be sitting there working.

That's all I'm asking for.

Be thrilled to do that, absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well um, San Francisco, welcome another hotel.

Uh bring in more businesses and economic resiliency and generate more tourists.

So uh I think we're ready to vote, right?

Okay.

There is a motion that has been seconded.

Uh to approve with conditions as amended uh to include that the portion facing the chancellor building.

Um, material be of a light color.

On that motion, Commissioner Campbell.

Commissioner McGarry, Commissioner Williams.

Sorry, uh sorry, Jonas, but did what what about the is so is the the uh the amendment that I is that already included?

It is not included.

I did not hear the maker of the motion accept the amendment or the secondary.

Okay, I just I wanted clarity.

So you you didn't accept the amendment.

Okay.

Okay, on that motion, Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye, Commissioner Imperial.

I Commissioner Moore, and Commissioner President.

So I.

So move commissioners that motion passes unanimously seven to zero.

Zoning administrator would say you.

I will close the public hearing for the height modification and grant with the standard conditions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, members, excuse me.

Okay.

Planning commissioners, we are now on uh our main event, items 14A, B, and C.

For case numbers 2021, hyphen zero zero five eight seven eight GPA, MAP, and PCA.

I'm gonna give the folks that were here.

For 570 market an opportunity to leave, members of the public to line up.

I know, yeah.

Members of the public, we're still in the middle of the hearing.

If you could be so kind as to refrain from speaking.

Members of the public, if you could refrain from speaking, we're still in the middle of a hearing.

I'm gonna fail.

Well, you're not just a little bit more.

Oh my god, we got a lot of time.

People can't see the screen, but so whatever.

Members of the public, as soon as you calm down and stop talking, we will proceed.

Okay.

And just FYI.

Staff has a very long presentation.

You might be standing for about a half an hour.

Okay.

Items 14 A, B, and C Commissioners for case numbers 2019, excuse me, 2021, hyphen 005878, GPA, MAP, and PCA for the family zoning plan, general plan amendments, zoning map amendments, and planning code amendments.

Excellent.

Good afternoon.

Thank you all for being here.

Um thank you so much.

We're really excited, uh, commissioners to bring before you the family zoning plan for your consideration.

You know, over the last two and a half years we've had many hearings.

Uh some in this chamber, um, some with other commissions, but in total, 17 public hearings that have been informational to inform us and to help us get guidance and your feedback and others' feedback and input on the plan.

We're very, very excited to present it for you today.

We're gonna start out with a little bit of procedural insight from Austin Yang, who's also been along with Audrey Pearson, one of our chief uh uh city attorneys working with us, so we're really glad to have him here today.

We're then actually gonna have supervisors Melgar and Chan to present some additional um thoughts and amendments and uh suggestions that they have.

Uh, we also are joined by aides from uh President Raphael Mandelin's office and Supervisor Stephen Sherrill's office.

So we'll have all that, and then we'll turn it over to Lisa Chen, our principal planner and project manager for the Family Zoning Plan to give the staff presentation.

We know there's a lot of information that will be has been exchanged and will continue to be exchanged today.

So we're excited um for your wisdom and guidance and and uh eventually your decision uh today, and then also grateful for the members of the public who are gonna be here as well.

We do want to remind members of the public that everybody is here to give their input.

We want to be able to hear from everyone, so just people please be mindful and respectful of everyone who's here, and then also we have a lot of folks who need to come into the room in order to give their comment, and we're grateful for the sheriff who's gonna help make sure we can monitor that in a safe manner.

With that, I'll turn it over to um uh deputy city attorney Austin Yang and then over to the supervisors.

Okay, thank you, Rachel.

So uh commissioners, um Deputy City Attorney Austin Yang.

I've been asked to provide a little bit of guidance about the legal context of the proposals before you today.

Uh as you all know, under state law, the city has to rezone to accommodate additional capacity required under the housing element.

Uh that rezoning effort has to be done by January 31st, 2026.

And the rezoning is comprised of three actions today.

You have planning code amendments, zoning map amendments, and an amendment to the general plan.

Under the charter, the commission must consider all amendments to the planning code.

And the planning code requires the commission to act or to make a recommendation on each proposal within 90 days.

If the commission fails to make a recommendation, either because the 90 day deadline expires or because there is not agreement, the proposal is deemed disapproved.

And under the charter, the board can still adopt a disapproved amendment by a majority vote.

Also, under the charter, only the commission can initiate a general plan amendment, which it did on July 17th.

Following the discussion today, the department will forward the commission's recommendations to the board.

And lastly, I wanted to provide some context based on the scope of the actions before you.

Because the proposed changes will affect so many parcels throughout the city and make a significant and will impact a significant segment of residents and property owners.

California's ethics laws allow all commissioners and city staff to participate in the legislative process, no matter where they rent or own property.

As always, our office is available to help explain the legal framework for these decisions.

I'm here to answer questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, City Attorney Yang.

And then we have again both Supervisor Melgar and Tian here.

We're so grateful for your presence today.

Um I don't know if Supervisor Chan, you want to go first, and then uh Supervisor Melgar, and we know they have to leave uh quickly after, so they may not hear all of your comments, but I know they will be listening.

Thank you.

Uh Commission President So and uh Commissioners, uh, thank you so much for having me here today.

I think uh I we have submitted a letter to you earlier of this week, um, and to just be considerate of everyone that's here to make public comments.

I want to be sure that I am precise and therefore I'm gonna read parts of the letters and um just in case you have any questions, I'm also here to answer.

But I want to make sure that I'm reading this and that you can also follow as well.

Um, commissioners, I think we can all agree that we need more new housing to accommodate San Franciscans now and into our future, specifically housing that is affordable to our workers, families, artists, seniors, and students.

We know we can build housing while simultaneously stabilizing existing communities and protecting our small business.

This is why the board of supervisors, which I was part of in voting and continuously, uh unanimously adopted a state-approved housing element with over 350 implementation actions developed primarily through this very planning commission with a focus on affordability, tenant stabilizations, and equity.

Now, I do want to say, you know, um, we've been having conversations.

I've been having conversation during the summer.

Many have asked me what I've been doing this summer.

Uh I've been studying and learning quite a bit just from the legislation itself that is before you today, as well as just talking to many different stakeholders.

Um, and so the letter before you today is not quite just from me and my team, but really from something that I have learned over the summer, as well as from many stakeholders and their feedback.

Um, today though, I am asking you to look at this letter.

Uh, I really hope that um by a by you opining all elements within this letter will open the opportunity for us uh myself and my colleagues and with the mayor and his team that we can have conversation about these topics specifically.

I am not here to say you must be opining specific uh uh of what we're proposing.

You are not I am not asking for you to say you're agreeing or disagreeing, so of course you're welcome to, but I do hope that you will pick all these topics and opine on them specifically that will then allow us to be abiding by the timeline that we can actually have these conversations and specific potential um uh amendments, should we be able to come into agreements without coming back to you again and potentially delaying the approval process.

Um, if I may, I just want to make sure that full of stake for the sake of the public too, in case they do not have the copy of the letter in front of them.

I'm just gonna quickly go over the topic just for the public record.

And of course, the first one is to talk about affordable housing affordable family housing, and this is really about uh potentially pretend percentage of two to three bedrooms uh for all these units that um that we can be in discussion, uh particularly about our housing choice program and what that could look like.

Of course, a meaningful tenants' protection.

I know that my colleagues, Supervisor Shine-Chen um has legislation that will also come before you about uh tenants protection.

But what I really would love for you to address uh and to really opine on during this discussion is also about the prohibition of the demolition for rent control units and potentially further restricting the demolition of residential flats that is also before you uh in discussion.

Uh, that is the residential flats demolition policy, of course, involving conditional use authorization uh with or without.

Um really important this this is a part where priority equity geography geographies that was really before you and of course the board supervisor has adopted.

What we have noticed though, with the commitment that we say that there is a particular set standard that we will want to see when it comes to development for the priority equity geographies.

Um it seems to us though, in as we are learning about this proposed plan, that there seem to be overlapping with the well-resourced areas and the priority equity geographies is now included into that very plan.

What we ask you is to carve them out, and that lets that discussion to stand alone as approved for the priority equity geographies and of course small business support.

Uh and this is a wide range, and but it's again legacy business, neighborhood anchoring business.

Those are actually small businesses that are 30 to 15 years been around for a while.

But I also ask that you consider small business of all any years, especially the new ones, that they actually have invested in our city during the pandemic, and they're here, and I really hope that you will consider uh protection for them, not just about relocation, which this plan kind of address, but I want to flag for you that is currently in this plan that even for legacy relocation, there is no impact fee required as proposing here.

So I hope that you can consider that.

And of course, historic preservation, I'm gonna combine that with the utilized San Francisco survey.

I want to say that I'm so glad to see the letter coming from before you uh, you know, from the Historic Preservation Commission.

Please do note page three of that letter that actually indicating all the recommendations that they have.

They're asking very similarly what we're proposing here, the completion of the San Francisco survey, and you know, potentially really figure out how do we protect the existing historic buildings, and of course, you know, having this uh continuing conversation about the adapt and reuse.

How do we incentive incentivize adapt and reuse program and that we can make this work, uh, both protecting the characteristic of and the history of our city and neighborhoods, but also we can continue to build housing.

And this is a part that I think after conversation with uh city attorney, we want to really make sure that we be uh clear about this piece of affordable housing uh special use district.

You can see that here we're actually talking about both public land and private land that providing uh a different kinds of local density bonus and incentive.

Uh, if they are building uh affordable housing uh on public land uh or land that is 8,000 square feet or larger, and that's also inclusive of anyone's that and that is a merger lot.

Um, I am not here to speak on behalf of labor and including trades, but I am here to speak in support of them.

And this is a part where I do hope that there is a consideration of prevailing wage and labor standards, which currently is not clear, particularly in the local density bonus program.

There may be some standard that is coming with the state density uh bonus, but it's prevailing wage.

I think we can do better on the local program, and I certainly urge you to do so.

Uh and of course, there is the Nixus study and the infrastructure capacity.

This is truly the one that I really urge you to consider, and um I think you know better than I do that why we need it.

Uh West Side has never really been quote unquote developed.

Uh it is time for us to learn more about what that impact is, and I say I say West Sides, but technically, will be the well-resourced areas, and how do we do this in a way that is thoughtful, both understanding the infrastructure that we actually need, and I am not saying that this is just about impact fees.

I'm saying that for the consideration of what does the city have to do, meeting its financial reality, like be it for bond dollars, be it for certificate and participation, and potentially utilizing our debt tools that can be provided by the office of public finance under the controller's office.

What else we could must do to build these infrastructure to accommodate future growth.

Of course, uh the protections for our coast, because it is part of this plan that talks about a local coastal program.

I just ask for you to just again evaluate, opine, um, what we must do uh while you know protecting our environment facing our coast uh and coastal problems, what has to be done.

Last but not least, in fact, in my opinion, very critical piece of this entire plan that I ask you to most definitely spend your time to opine upon because I do believe in conversation with my different colleagues that uh this is one of a common concern.

I am not saying that we're in agreement about how we address it, but I can tell you it's a common concern, not only that I hear from my colleagues on the board of supervisors, but also outside in the community, which is really the form-based density and base height increase.

It's not just about one, just about height increase, it's a combination of the form-based density.

Now I must say I am not an expert, clearly not, uh, of density and definition of it.

But as I have learned, you know, in this proposal, the file of 250701 on your page 165, that clearly has really redefined density and by uh be it by form-based, which means as I learned, uh, there is no limit of size of the units, and of course, the density numeric also again redefining a number of units that can be built.

Um I think that really changed uh the dynamics of what we're talking about today, what we typically understand, how many units per lot, uh, you know, per understanding with the base height, no longer is, it's no longer clear to me and to many.

Help us understand.

Help us understand why this is being proposed and what that actually means for the residential transit oriented zones, particularly the residential transit oriented zones, RTOC.

Why RTOC is very critical, at least for me, representing the West Side, representing the Richmond is really impactful for us, and you can see that from the zoning map.

Uh, what that means for our neighborhood commercial corridors, um, Gary, Clemente and Baboa.

And so with that, thank you so much uh for your consideration today.

Uh please uh address opine uh these topics.

I look forward to learning more.

I'm not gonna take more of your time.

Uh, I know my colleagues, I wanna say uh Supervisor Malgar, who's a former commissioner here, uh, as well as our land use chair and the chair of our county transportation uh authority certainly uh has way more expertise uh in this in these matters.

Therefore, I want to say, you know, um today I'm really speak on, I'm speaking on behalf of the constituents and stakeholders that I have have conversation with uh over the summer uh and also previous time, and that these are the things that I have learned from them, and that I'm coming back to you and hope that you will consider for uh potential amendments and recommendations.

But I also want to acknowledge the mayor's uh and his team uh and Ali Bondi here, you know, that I want to say that I also look forward to working with Mayor Lurie and to find ways and common grounds that we can make this plan better for every San Franciscan.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um, we want to call supervisor.

Please.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Um, I am here before you today in my capacity as one of three Westside Supervisors.

Thank you, as Supervisor Chan representing District 1.

I'm representing District 7, as you know.

Uh, also former president of this commission and currently chair the land use and transportation committee of the board where this item is headed.

Um I am here to ask you to pass this item with recommendations for modifications today.

Paying special attention to the preservation of rent-controlled housing, which has been one of the most effective stabilizing tools in our toolbox and one we are losing and not replacing every day.

I am not a co-sponsor to this item, but it is fair to say that I am the supervisor who has spent the most time and energy and most staff time uh on this effort as the supervisor uh and throughout my career.

So I am looking forward to successful adoption of a rezoning plan that adds more housing, more rental housing, more affordable housing, and more access and opportunities on the west side of San Francisco, specifically and more broadly to well-resourced areas to the city.

We must add more housing on the west side.

In District 7, 75% of our housing units are in single family homeowner-occupied structures.

My family has lived in one of these for 15 years.

Our house has appreciated threefold in value since we bought it.

And my daughters, who all grew up in that house and went to school in district seven, could not afford to live in the West Side today, were it not for this house.

Housing choices and opportunity for young people are very limited on one hand.

And seniors who want to downsize, whose kids have left and have no longer a need for three, four bedrooms in those single family homes, have nowhere to go if they want to stay in the neighborhoods where they have community, friends, people they love.

Additionally, proposition 13, as we all know, gives a great economic incentive to stay put.

I will not talk about the historical wrongs that would be corrected by rezoning.

The staff will do that.

But I want to talk about our tomorrow.

I'm not gonna dwell on how in uh January of 1990 we began a process at the rezoned the eastern side of the city under the premise uh that we no longer used uh needed to use uh manufacturing space.

But that decision led San Francisco to concentrate all of its development, density, height, disruption to the eastern neighborhoods while making a deal with western and northern neighborhoods to preserve their status quo.

But what I am gonna concentrate on is the repercussions that will come 15, 20 years from now, stemming from the decisions that you make today, because you're the Planning commission.

If we rezone the highly resourced areas in the future, we can expect more housing, and that the population of the West Side and Northern neighborhoods will increase and include younger folks, more diversity, more politically progressive, more urbanist, and more car dependent, and less car dependent.

It will also provide opportunities for people to have better access to our factually better schools, more parks, better health outcomes.

If we do not, our economy and our workforce will continue to grow while concentrating all population growth on the eastern neighborhoods.

Chinatown, Mission, Bayview, SOMA, or worse, miles and miles away from people's jobs.

That would be the outcome.

And I want you to think who does this benefit and who does this harm.

That being said, I have not yet signed on as a co-sponsor to this legislation because as a planner, I see the immediately the immediate challenges it poses.

Number one, the potential demolition of rent-controlled units.

Number two, the potential displacement of small businesses through evictions and disruption because of construction.

And number three, the obvious lack of dedicated funding for affordable housing development, which is one of the goals of the housing element that has quantifiable numbers that we have agreed to.

We must meet with any attached funding.

Most of the things in this little short list are not under your purview.

And they're not even in the jurisdiction of your department.

My colleague, District 11 Supervisor Cheyenne Chen and I have both introduced legislation tackling different aspects of this list.

They're not under your jurisdiction, and we remain committed to addressing these challenges.

The one thing that I do ask of you that is under your jurisdiction, is that is that you add modifications to this plan, that any demolition applications or new projects must meet a finding that is consistent with the housing element as approved, that the project does not result in the loss of rent-controlled housing.

This is something that we all agree on, and that is because SB 330 provides the replacement of units, but it does not guarantee that they be rental units.

They could be other units and not accessible to the people who are in those units today.

So, in conclusion, I ask for your approval of this legislation with modification, and that you allow us and expect us as supervisors to legislate as we have been elected to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And uh Commissioners, we're also joined by Melanie Mathewson from President Raphael Mandelman's office, and she'll share a few words, and then we have Lorenzo Roses from uh Supervisor Cheryl's office.

Thank you.

Good morning, planning commissioners.

I haven't met many of you before.

My name is Melanie Matthewson, and I'm here on behalf of President Raphael Mandelman.

I want to thank you for your service on this body and particularly for your work on the family zoning plan.

Since taking office, President Mandelman has been an advocate for building more housing, especially near transit.

He has authored legislation to curb the growth of monster homes in favor of more units and greater density and allow the development of fourplexes and simplexes in every neighborhood in San Francisco.

He has supported reducing or eliminating impact fees and advancing other incentives to encourage office to residential conversions and broader housing development.

Looking forward, we need a real path toward meeting our state mandate of 82,000 housing units.

But at the same time, President Mandelman has emphasized that while we clear a path for more housing, we must take steps to protect the historic resources that could be threatened in the process.

In that regard, President Mandelman is grateful to planning director Sarah Dennis Phillips and her staff, in particular Rachel Tanner, Rich Sucre, and Melanie Bishop for their partnership over the last few months in considering ways to address this concern.

He supports the proposed amendment to Section 206, which would provide a square footage bonus and greater code flexibility for projects, preserve historic resources and ply and comply with preservation design standards.

He also believes that there's more work to be done before and after adoption of the family zoning plan to protect our historic resources.

Although supportive of eliminating density controls, President Mandelman also has concerns about opening our neighborhood commercial districts to state density bonus projects.

These projects could result in the ministerial demolition of historic resources and their replacement with buildings that are out of scale, not just with the existing neighborhood commercial districts, but with the denser and taller development allowed by the family zoning plan.

Although some merger of lots may be necessary and even desirable to produce the housing units we are hoping to get from this plan, it may make sense to consider reasonable limits on the aggregation of parcels in these districts to avoid large blocky buildings taking over entire blocks or significant portions of them.

This is a pattern that is common downtown, but not appropriate for our neighborhood commercial districts.

Finally, President Mandelman believes we should be using every available tool to encourage developers to take advantage of the local plan in the families in the family zoning plan.

Yesterday, the board's budget and finance committee forwarded to the full board a proposal to waive impact fees in the market Octavia plan area for pipeline projects.

Supervisor Mandelman is a co-sponsor of that legislation.

He also supports allowing such waivers for future projects in the market Octavia plan area as well, but only for projects that comply with the local plan under the family zoning plan.

Supervisor Mandelman is considering including such a fee waiver proposal in this family zoning legislation when it comes before the board.

Our office looks forward to continue working with planning staff, this commission, Mayor Lurie, and President Mandelman's colleagues on the board to pass a historic upzoning that meets San Francisco's legal obligations, encourages production of new housing the city desperately needs, and protects our historic city and cultural resources.

Thank you.

And if Mr.

Russis wants to share a few words on behalf of Supervisor Cheryl, I think that will round out our presence of supervisors, which for this historic day is historic, I think.

We thank you all for being here.

Good morning, Commissioners, President Sow, Director Phillips, Dennis Phillips, and Director Tanner.

My name is Lorenzo Rosas.

I'm here on behalf of Supervisor Cheryl.

First and foremost, I want to echo many of the topics and concerns that Supervisor Melgar and Mandelman brought up, and that their modifications are part of the conversation you have at today's hearing.

Equally as importantly, the supervisor and I appreciate Director Tanner, Lisa Chen, and the planning department staff and team for the months and months almost amount amounting to years of back and forth with the supervisor, the district two constituents, and me especially.

These conversations have been instrumental to answering our questions, clarifying components of this program, and ensuring that the family zoning program is the best San Franciscan housing plan we can put forward that will also meet our state obligations.

And to be clear, these conversations are ongoing.

The supervisor and I look forward to more work to come and to that end, I'm here to speak in support of a few key amendments recommended to be added to the plan by the planning department listed in today's briefing.

In particular, Supervisor Sherrill wants to be clear that he is in support of recommendations six, seven, eight, twelve, and sixteen, in addition to some other recommendations, but we wanted to be here to offer a full throated support of six and seven.

Touch on the bedroom mix incentives to make sure that our family zoning plan is indeed a family zoning plan creating bedroom unit mixes that will house our families for generations to come.

Child care incentive.

As a young father, Supervisor Cheryl understands how important it is to have more child care opportunities in the western side of the neighborhoods, uh, western neighborhoods, excuse me.

Supervisor Mandelman through Mel just touched on the amendments uh recommended in recommendation 12, which will help preserve our historic resources, and Supervisor Cheryl and I also want to extend that we look forward to the ongoing work following this plan to look at district two landmarks in particular and our historic resources to make sure that we're supporting the SF survey as best as we can.

Excuse me, um, is the uh early notification for commercial tenants.

And I want to say that having a conversation with Director Tanner a couple weeks ago with many different small businesses on the Union Street Corridor, that was an extremely important provision for the district two merchants, and we want to say that we're very grateful that that is an amendment recommended by the planning department.

Lastly, we are grateful for the work that Supervisor Chen is spearheading alongside Mayor Lurie and Supervisor Melgar, too, to codify local tenant protections as part of this plan's adoption, too.

So thank you again for the opportunity to speak and offer our support for these key recommendations that will further the work to making a local program that will truly benefit our city for years to come.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um we're so happy everyone's here.

And now through the president, I think we'll have uh Ms.

Ali Bondy to say a few words on behalf of the mayor, followed by Lisa Chen, who will give us our long-awaited staff presentation.

Thank you.

Afternoon, planning commissioners, Chair So, I'm Ali Bondi, I'm the deputy chief of staff for the mayor's office.

Um thank you all and to everyone who came here today to uh discuss this important topic.

I'm just here to listen and be supportive as the process continues.

So thank you all very much.

Thank you.

Lisa.

No idea.

30 minutes.

Good afternoon.

President So, Vice President Moore and Planning Commissioners.

Sorry, there's I know there's a lot of a lot of noise in the background, but uh I'm Lisa Chen, manager of the family zoning plan.

Uh, many members of our team are here today.

Please wave your hands.

Thank you.

Uh, and we're thrilled to be here as you consider adoption of the family zoning plan and associated legislation.

We could get the slides.

Today's presentation will start with background on the family zoning plan and why we must adopt a rezoning plan that is compliant with state law.

We'll then provide an overview of the draft legislation, followed by department recommendations and policy considerations.

Finally, we'll close with some informational resources and acknowledgments.

The action before you today is to consider adoption of a package of legislation to enact Mayor Daniel Lurry's family zoning plan in accordance with our housing element and state law.

This includes adoption of general plan amendments, a map ordinance, and a planning business and tax regulations code ordinance.

Collectively, the family zoning plan and our past six plus years of work on the housing element and rezoning have been about confronting change head on and taking decisive steps to address our housing affordability crisis.

I was reminded of this at a recent meeting I attended with small business owners and neighborhood leaders in one of the commercial districts proposed for rezoning.

It ended up being an incredibly heated and contentious debate, which went on for nearly two hours.

It was maybe the hardest meeting I've had on this project, which is saying a lot.

Afterwards, one of the attendees came up to me to thank me for being there and shared that amidst all the polarized dialogues, he finds himself in the middle.

He said that he loves his neighborhood and doesn't want to see it change, but that he recognized that sometimes that you can love something to death.

He then went on to talk about his family raising two kids in a home that's bursting at the seams, and about how nearly every other family he speaks to is in the same boat, dreaming of that elusive second or third bedroom, and wondering if they'll be able to stay in San Francisco.

His story is like so many others that we've heard over the past six years from thousands of residents across all walks of life who tell us that our housing system is broken and that we need to start doing something differently.

These stories also reflect the fact that our housing crisis has gotten steadily worse over the past 25 years.

I won't read out the facts on this slide, but we've shared many of them in past hearings, such as high rents, low vacancies, extreme demand for affordable units, and a persistent crisis of unsheltered individuals and people living with housing insecurity.

Right now there is a national housing shortage, but California and San Francisco have been especially hard hit, with the state estimating that we need roughly 2.5 million housing units across California to meet our needs and make housing more affordable.

San Francisco's fair share of that is 82,000 units shown here in blue.

This is our regional housing needs allocation arena, which specifies the amount of housing the city is required to plan for.

The green bars on the right show how we will get there.

We can count a significant portion of our current pipeline, around 60,000 units in various stages of planning and construction.

This leaves us with a gap of over 36,000 units that we need to plan for at all levels of affordability.

While we will continue to see housing built throughout San Francisco, the family zoning plan is required to focus on the housing opportunity area shown in blue, which represent over half our city land.

In these areas, restrictive and exclusionary zoning rules that are 50 years old make it too hard to build apartment buildings, four and sixplexes, and other housing types that can provide more affordable options to live in.

Instead, we've concentrated 90% of new housing outside of these communities.

It's clear that we have a moral obligation to plan for more housing in San Francisco, but we also have a legal obligation, one with dire consequences if we fail to take action.

If we fail to adopt a rezoning plan that meets state requirements, we could lose control over local permitting, and the builder's remedy would kick in.

This means the state would force us to approve all housing projects, no matter the height, as long as they meet basic safety standards.

Just like this 440-foot builders' remedy project proposed in Menlo Park that's under review right now, and it's six times taller than the zoned height limit.

We would also become ineligible for hundreds of millions in state funding for transportation and affordable housing and could be subject to lawsuits, fines, and other penalties.

These are real and credible threats.

Cities like Palo Alto, Beverly Hills, Davis, Sonoma, and others are grappling with builders' remedy projects in their communities right now.

This slide shows the ripple effects of losing our housing element certification.

We've made a conservative estimate that San Francisco receives over 110 million dollars per year in state grants for affordable housing, transportation, and other vital infrastructure, including the funding sources listed here.

One example is the $30 million grant that the Kelsey affordable housing project received on BANES, just a few blocks away, which provides an inclusive community for people with disabilities.

To avoid these consequences and keep our local control, we must adopt a rezoning that meets state law.

This means three things.

First, we must zone to create realistic capacity to meet our deficit of 36,000 units.

Second, we need to focus the rezoning in the housing opportunity areas.

And third, we need to identify sites that are good candidates for low-income housing and make them eligible for ministerial approval.

With that scope in mind, we spent the last three years meeting with as many people as we can to discuss their hopes and concerns about adding new housing.

Some of these meetings have been as small as a few neighbors gathered around somebody's living room.

Others have been meetings hosted by neighborhood groups and merchants' associations, and still others have been larger town halls and open houses hosted by the planning department, members of the board of supervisors, and others.

We've also had 18, it's actually 18 public hearings, at various city commissions and the Board of Supervisors.

The map before you today reflects three years of iterative work, discussion and compromise, working with the Commission, Board of Supervisors, Mayor's Office, and members of the public.

Although it has changed over time, it adheres to some common sense principles.

First, our main priority is to meet state laws and avoid the biller's remedy.

We are extremely relieved by the recent letter from HCD, which affirms that this proposal, if adopted in its current form, would satisfy state requirements.

Second, the proposal maintains local control and accounts for the state density bonus by setting our base heights lower and creating the optional local program with incentives for projects to meet our height limits and design standards.

It means projects will get more flexibility while we will get predictable development.

Next, it puts taller buildings near transit and services, primarily mid-rise buildings of six and eight stories, but with some areas with taller heights.

And finally, it allows for small apartment buildings everywhere, allowing property owners to easily build more units within their existing 40-foot height limit.

This map shows the base height limits to underscore and provide clarity on how we are accounting for the state density bonus.

On the corridors, projects have choices.

They can either use the base height shown here, and I know we sorry, we just lost the slide.

So they can either use the base height shown here and add the state density bonus, or they can just use the taller local program heights.

In the residential districts off of the corridors, projects may not use the state density bonus.

They can either build what's allowable under today's zoning, whether it's RH1 or RH2 or RM3, or they can use our local program to remove density limits and get form-based zoning, meaning they can simply build more units within their allowable building envelope.

These diagrams show the specific geographies of the plan.

Most properties, nearly 80% of sites are in these gentle density areas, meaning that they will not get height increases but can build more units in their 40-foot height limit under the local program.

Again, state density bonus is not available for these projects.

The commercial transition areas are very similar, but they get an additional one story or 10 feet through the local program.

The next most common zoning change is the mid-rise corridors, which will allow six and eight stories.

These are modest but meaningful changes.

About 8% of properties in the plan will just get one or two stories above today's zoning, and another 8% get three or four stories.

For the mid-rise corridors, projects can either choose our local program or state programs, though we do hope they will choose the local program.

Finally, just 7% of properties are planned for high rise development and will get five or more stories of additional height.

These projects also get to choose either the local program or state programs.

The next slide step through the package of ordinances that are before you today, as well as the department's recommended amendments.

Again, today you are considering the following actions in this order.

Adoption of the general plan amendments, adoption of a map ordinance, and adoption of a planning, business, and tax regulations ordinance.

The first action is to adopt the general plan amendments that this commission initiated at the July 17th hearing.

As noted at that hearing, the main purpose of these amendments is to modernize various general plan elements and area plans by removing outdated maps and updating language so that it supports more housing.

In response to commissioner comments at that and other hearings, the department developed an analysis of the proposed changes in each area plan, which is included as exhibit 5C in your packet.

The zoning map ordinance establishes the overall structure for the family zoning plan.

It amends our zoning map and our height and bulk map to do the following.

First, it reclassifies some parcels to various other districts to allow more housing, including mixed-use NC and a new RTOC zoning district.

It also renames the existing RTO districts to RTO1, though this changes mostly for the sake of clarity, and most zoning provisions in that district will remain unchanged.

The ordinance also creates height limits or changes height limits on about 20% of parcels, as I noted previously.

It also creates a new R4 height and bulk district.

Parcels in this district will become eligible for the new local program, which is called the housing choice SF program, and they will receive both a base height and a local program height.

The ordinance also adds various SFMTA parcels to a non-contiguous special use district, which will allow for future housing to be planned on SFMTA properties.

Finally, it makes conforming amendments to the small number of properties in the local coastal program and directs the planning department to refer these changes to the California Coastal Commission for review after the rezoning is adopted.

The third ordinance before you would amend the planning, business, and tax regulations code and would establish the main planning controls and processes that will shape new development.

It sets rules for the new residential transit-oriented commercial district or RTOC, which is a form-based district that allows but does not require commercial uses on the ground floor.

The ordinance also establishes the review process and incentives under the local program.

It also includes various policies to ensure efficient land uses near transit, including minimum densities for housing and office uses, updated parking standards, and rules for curb cuts.

It also sets code standards applicable to the SFMTA special use district, as I mentioned.

And just to note, the ordinance is changing the rules on those MTA parcels to allow for more housing in the future, but any proposals on those actual sites would still have to go through a public process.

The ordinance also includes policies to make it as easy as possible for legacy businesses to relocate by waiving conditional use hearings and impact fee requirements.

It also establishes a housing sustainability district or HSD, which provides another pathway for qualifying projects to get ministerial review.

It modifies height and bulk limits to be consistent with citywide design standards, and it revises wind review standards to be more consistent across different zoning districts.

Finally, it makes other code cleanup changes as well as changes to the local coastal program as described earlier.

Over the past year, we've paid special attention to our local program to make sure we're really getting it right.

Again, this program is optional, but in our many conversations with architects and housing developers, both market rate and affordable.

We do think we've struck a great balance of providing flexibility but with guardrails.

Projects in our local program will adhere to height limits and to our design and code standards, and in exchange, they get this menu of code flexibility on a variety of topics.

Many of these items mirror what we see in actual state density bonus projects in order to be competitive with those state programs.

But the menu also includes some items that go beyond the state density bonus, like our inclusionary housing options, the 15% catch-all flexibility, and the additional height bonus for 100% affordable projects.

As we near adoption, the department is recommending additional amendments to refine several policies in the family zoning plan.

I won't go over every single detail, but I've tried to group them together by general topic.

The first set of amendments relate to senior housing and include some simple fixes that can make it easier to build homes for seniors.

These include making usable open space requirements more flexible, reducing bike parking requirements, and changing the definition of senior housing to remove minimum density requirements.

The next set of recommendations relate to support for small businesses, and all of them respond to recommendations from the small business commission as well as many conversations we've had with the small business community.

These include extending the conditional use and impact fee waivers from just legacy businesses to all displaced businesses.

It also includes adding an incentive for the local program for projects to provide tenant improvements, also known as a warm shell, which can make it much more affordable for restaurant or other similar use to occupy a new commercial space.

Finally, we also recommend codifying the early notification requirement so that whenever the planning department receives an application for new housing, we would promptly notify any commercial active commercial tenants and the Office of Small Business.

We're especially pleased to recommend a slew of amendments to the local program to require and incentivize family-friendly features in new housing.

The first amendments would modify the unit mix requirements in the local program.

If you recall, we originally proposed to relax the unit mix requirements slightly as an incentive to use the program.

This amendment would reestablish a requirement that somewhere between what's in the draft ordinance and what the rules are today under existing zoning.

But in addition, in addition, it would offer incentives for projects to go further.

This incentive would be a square footage bonus for providing three-bedroom and four-bedroom or larger units.

In residential districts, the extra square footage can be accommodated horizontally, as in you can't increase or exceed the height limits, but you can build into the rear yard and setbacks.

In other districts, it would be accommodated either horizontally or vertically, not to exceed one additional story.

Finally, we are recommending a small similar square footage bonus for providing family amenities in the residential districts.

This could include community rooms, shared kitchens, storage for larger objects, and in-home child care.

The recommendations on this slide all relate to the local program and provide even greater flexibility to ensure it can truly compete with the state density bonus.

This includes waiving the ground floor requirement for projects ground floor height, excuse me, requirement for projects proposing nine stories in an 85-foot height district.

This would help us maximize housing production within the mid-rise height limits.

We also recommend removing the usable open space requirement in the local program, project massing will still be controlled by rear yard requirements, setbacks, and step downs, so this simply removes the requirement for private or shared open space.

Similarly, we are recommending removing planning code requirements for unit exposure in the local program.

Projects would still need to meet the minimum exposure requirements of our California building code.

Finally, we are also recommending that the local program allow projects that are at least two-thirds residential to replace existing tourist or motel uses, up to 75 rooms without needing a conditional use authorization.

This is the final set of staff recommendations.

The first is a proposed incentive in the local program that's really designed to encourage adaptive reuse of existing historic resources.

This recognizes that we shouldn't have to choose between historic preservation or housing development.

We know we need both.

This incentive will provide a square footage bonus for any projects that are not in the R and RTOC districts that preserve historic resources.

This can include A-rated properties, designated Article 10 and 11 landmarks, and state or nationally listed resources.

The bonus square footage could be added either horizontally or vertically.

This idea is a direct response to the recommendations from the historic preservation commission, and we re previewed this proposal with the commission president earlier this week.

Finally, I won't read the remaining recommendations out loud, but we also have a handful of other clarifying and cleanup recommendations to address inconsistencies as well as ensure compliance with state laws.

In considering the proposed ordinance as well as staff recommendations, we wanted to highlight several policy considerations.

I'm not going to review all of the topics, but they are discussed in your packet.

In particular, exhibit 2A describes other possible legislative amendments that the department did not ultimately recommend, but that present other ideas that we've heard over the course of our outreach that could be considered as either part of this rezoning or as future legislation.

I also wanted to highlight exhibit six, which includes letters from other city commissions and a summary of public comments and letters we received.

We've had eight public hearings at the Historic Preservation Commission, the Youth Commission, and the Small Business Commission, all of which have issued various recommendations for your review.

The packet includes the recommendations from the youth commission and small business commission, and just yesterday we received a letter from the president of the Historic Preservation Commission, which we circulated at the start of the hearing and are now submitting as part of the public record.

We have also considered we have considered the recommendations of all these commissions and have adopted the majority of them, where the department felt they were feasible and in line with the goals of the project and state law.

We've also continued to receive many letters from organizations and individuals since the case packet was released on Friday.

For your convenience, we did send an email that packaged all of the letters from organizations.

In the past week, we've received 12 letters from various organizations and 219 letters from individuals, both in support and in opposite in opposition to the plan.

Next, I wanted to briefly highlight our racial and social equity analysis, which is exhibit 2C of your packet, and just recognize the incredible work of our team who developed it over the past year and a half.

From our staff, this includes Sarah Richardson, David Garcia, and Milana Leon Ferreira.

We also worked with groundwork consulting, particularly Miriam Zook, who brings a wealth of expertise and was also one of the lead researchers on the UC Berkeley displacement project.

It's an incredibly robust analysis, so unfortunately, we only have three space for three slides to highlight their work.

But suffice it to say, the RRC analysis has impacted every aspect of the plan.

We've been conducting it iteratively along with the rezoning, and much of the research and data from this analysis has informed our proposal.

A couple highlights from this report, including part two, which is an analysis of existing conditions and historical context.

In the housing opportunity areas, that analysis found that the rezoned areas have low housing production and limited and expensive housing choices.

Two-thirds of residential parcels in the planned area are single family homes, and housing costs in these areas are about 30% higher than other other areas of the city.

It also found that the rezoned areas are more affluent, less racially diverse, and have more homeowners than other areas.

These findings were associated with better better educational and health outcomes, including longer life expectancy in the rezoned areas.

Part three of the RRC analysis provides detailed research on four key topics that people have raised concerns about, including housing affordability, residential displacement, small business impacts, and infrastructure and community services.

For each of these topics, the team provided an extensive literature review to identify the potential benefits and potential burdens or unintended consequences of the rezoning.

They also discussed a range of policy ideas that can maximize benefits for equity communities and mitigate potential negative outcomes.

And many of these measures have been incorporated in the plan.

Notably, the literature review did find that changing zoning and allowing more housing of all income levels can lead to greater affordability and help reduce market pressures, especially in competitive housing markets.

Studies find that this is especially true when rezoning efforts cover broader geographies, such as the metropolitan or regional scale, which is what they found in the Boston metro area, actually.

This is encouraging given that the state laws require cities across the region and state to plan for housing.

However, the studies did also caveat that some of these affordability benefits will take time to materialize.

Our current housing shortage has been decades in the making, so it's intuitive that it may take quite a while before we really see the full benefits of new housing.

And in the interest of time, I'm not gonna cover the other topics in the report, but really encourage you to take a look at it and we're happy to answer any questions about it.

Before we close, I also wanted to highlight some public resources that we've recently put on our website, including new fact sheets and some visualizations that are meant to provide an idea of how our neighborhoods will look and feel as we welcome new neighbors.

We have copies of some of these new fact sheets here today and in your packet.

Some of these resources are meant to address deliberate misinformation that our team has witnessed at various outreach events, and I'll describe some of these topics briefly.

First, we have a new fact sheet about tenant protections that I've passed on to the commissioners.

We have seen claims that the rezoning will loosen tenant protections and result in mass demolitions of rent controlled housing, and that is flatly untrue.

We already have strong protections in place that require a conditional use hearing for any proposals to demolish rent controlled housing, and this commission will retain the discretion to approve or deny proposed demolitions.

These rules will be strengthened further under the proposed tenant protections ordinance that Supervisor Shyen Chen introduced at the board on Tuesday, and that will be at the commission for review in the coming weeks.

The good news is that our rules do work, and residential demolitions are extraordinarily rare.

Over the past 13 years, we've seen about 18 units a year lost to demolition.

Most of them are single-family homes.

This amounts to.00004% of our housing stock and has stayed fairly consistent even during construction boom periods.

Second, we've seen exaggerated claims about the impacts of new development on small businesses and historic resources, and so we have a new fact sheet specifically on small business strategies that includes data on what's happened after other areas in other areas where we've rezoned.

Looking at Marcus Street and Ocean Avenue, where we added 2,800 new homes since 2007, we found that most new housing developments are built on vacant and underutilized sites, not on sites with thriving storefront businesses.

Similarly, we found that a very small proportion of these projects resulted in the removal of an eligible historic resource.

These findings generally confirm what we know from reviewing real projects and talking to developers, which is that housing development will typically happen on larger sites that have fewer risks associated with them.

If a developer can, they will tend to avoid sites with businesses and other uses that can make them more complicated to develop.

Finally, it's not on our website yet, but we are putting together a fact sheet on how the family zoning plan will address affordable housing.

And you heard from several of the supervisors today about the other efforts that go beyond the plan that are really going to be bolstering this effort.

As I already noted from our RSC analysis, the research affirms that rezoning will support greater housing affordability in the longer term, but it will also create a greater diversity of housing types, which is so critical, especially given that two-thirds of the properties in the plan are single-family homes today.

The plan will generate additional resources for affordable housing, whether on-site BMR units or through affordable housing fees.

It will also enable more sites where we can build affordable developments, and it'll help us maximize the number of affordable units on those sites.

And by creating a diversity of housing types, it'll also create more naturally affordable units.

We know that condos are as much as 30 to 40% cheaper than single-family homes, and by building more of these units at scale, we will gradually start to see more units that are attainable for teachers, nonprofit workers, nurses, and others who make too much to qualify for affordable housing.

We've talked at other hearings about some of the benefits of the new housing.

We try to really share these when we're out in community too.

Um, but I so I won't repeat them here.

But our hope is that people will start to see and understand how new housing can really strengthen our San Francisco neighborhoods.

We've also added a series of visualizations on our website to give us a sense of how new new neighborhoods will look and feel as we welcome new homes and new neighborhoods.

Of course, none of these are real proposals, but they are meant to provide a sense of scale and show how new homes will be integrated in existing communities.

This graphic, which you've seen before, shows Geary Boulevard at 3rd Avenue showing 14-story buildings.

This shows Noriega at 25th Avenue showing an eight-story building.

This shows Lombard at Buchanan Street again showing eight-story buildings.

This one shows Lombard with six-story buildings further west, where Richardson Street comes out of the presidio.

This one shows Ocean Avenue near City College with new eight-story buildings close to recently built four and five-story buildings.

This one shows the northern part of Divisadero Street at Bush with a 14-story building.

This one is not actually a real location.

We took some creative liberties here.

Um it's actually a composite, a composite image that reflects typical conditions in residential areas across the plan.

Uh, the image shows what a four-story gentle density building could look like surrounded by existing three-story homes.

As we've described at previous hearings, we've taken particular care to consider the natural hills and the beauty of our city, particularly from signature parks and public spaces.

In numerous cases, we've even sculpted and lowered the heights around some of these places in response to feedback.

Here are the Lion Street steps showing the view across the marina.

Here are a couple views from Francisco Park.

This is an area where we brought the height nearby heights down from 65 to 40 feet to minimize impact on views.

The images show this image shows the Larkin Street steps adjacent to the park.

And this one shows the view from the lawn itself.

Finally, this one shows the view from Coit Tower looking over Fisherman's Wharf, primarily showing 85 foot development.

As we close, I just want to take a moment to thank our incredible team of staff who have made this work possible, often working nights and weekends to make the family zoning plan as strong as it possibly can possibly be.

This includes staff across the planning department, our partners at the city attorney's office, the mayor's office, MOCD, SFMTA, Office of Small Business, and others.

These are amazing professionals with deep experience.

Planners, lawyers, architects, data analysts, affordable housing experts, people with backgrounds in education and community organizing.

I feel like I've stood on the shoulders of shoulders of giants during this time.

But I also want to say for us, this work is personal.

We are part of the same housing market as everyone else.

We've seen our friends, co-workers, family members struggle to find and keep housing in San Francisco and the Bay Area.

We've wondered whether we can afford to stay here, whether our kids will be able to live here when they grow up, and where our parents will live as they get older.

I don't think a single person on our team would say that we're doing this just because the state is forcing us to.

Thank you, Lisa.

Commissioners, with that, we're gonna be excuse me, Ms.

Shooters.

I know.

We're gonna have general public questions.

Excuse me, Ms.

Shooters.

Commissioners, with that, we should open up public comment.

We received a request for translation services, and so we've made that accommodation for Cantonese and Mandarin.

They have limited time here.

I was told there are only about 10 people that need this accommodation.

So we're gonna um allow them to speak first.

Um if you could translate uh to request that those in need of translation services uh come into the chambers, especially those on the first floor to make their way up to room 400, please.

Uh come a kung chong, uh, they high sauce in that, uh, gong, uh Chungman.

Uh, could I show you find Yan Silla uh, I jol like, they hai so you high uh find the uh little kung chung fain uh fong to la hai uh tong, they have sin fai in single.

Thank you.

I just wanted to confirm we made that announcement already for those in line in the hall.

We have one person so far.

Great, thank you.

Also do that in Mandarin?

Yes, please.

Thank you.

Uh, uh, one, like, uh, uh, okay, so again, if you're needing translation services for public comment, please come forward.

I thought there was a gentleman in the room that needed translation.

I think they're getting him from outside.

That's maybe what uh they're doing.

Oh here, could you ask them to come to the microphone?

Yeah, come on up.

Come on up.

Come on up, please.

Um, my low.

My name is Jin Li.

Because of shorthand short of housing, uh, I would want the uh no tall building, please.

Do not build top building, please.

Thank you.

Hello, go ahead.

You could come.

Uh I think uh the housing shortage is come from unfair rent control.

Uh many landlords uh don't dare to rent out their places uh because the rule are too uh one-sided.

Uh if ranch control were uh fair, more rooms would be available.

Uh and the shortage would ease.

On top of that, uh traffic and parking are already a big problem in the city, and more high rise will only make uh the situation worse.

And where will the money uh come from?

Uh if it means higher taxes or higher property uh taxes.

That's just uh adding pressure on the small uh property owners, and that's not fair for the small uh property owners.

So uh uh please uh I uh against uh the uh family resonant plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, look at the find the sea, don't you go long hate to come go?

Come on, the younger hai.

Come on, don't go to home, come on, cut so good, so changing to be long, so you find some fancy.

Uh I'm a uh small um property uh owner, and um I oppose uh the mayor proposal for rezoning uh uh the the building in our uh city and because um if uh uh uh if there's no uh limit uh on the height of the uh building and then we'll make the city uh more uh crowded and also uh a lot of uh air pollu pollution and this is uh no good uh for our health um and also uh make the city uh more uh dirty and also not um uh not secure.

Uh so uh I want the city uh can keep the Songling uh in San Francisco.

Thanks.

My name is Grace.

Um I am here to oppose the um project.

Um I really love San Francisco.

I immigrated here about 30 years ago.

I really love the beauty of the city.

I live in Park Side, and I really love these special single families over there.

It's really beautiful, and I do not want the city to lose the building, and I hope that you can keep um the existing uh zoning plan and uh I really would think this would be beneficial to especially San Francisco residents.

I'm pretty sure um you all of you here are uh also resident residents of San Francisco, and I don't want it to be like Hong Kong, uh really crowded.

Um I really don't want to see the city lose the beauty, and um hopefully there won't be so many multi uh units, but more single family homes.

Thank you.

Maintain our single family home characteristic and their beauty.

Thank you.

Okay, last call for those in need of translation services.

I'm gonna ask if our translators could hang out as long as they possibly can.

But yeah, if you could make the announcement to those on the first floor.

Okay, thank you to both of you.

I know you need to leave shortly, but if you could hang out as long as you possibly can, thank you.

Okay.

Members of the public uh public comment.

Sorry to jump the gun before.

Yes, I am.

Alright, folks.

Look, this it I'm just gonna lay it out right now.

Okay, it's gonna be a long day.

It's gonna be a long hearing.

I'm gonna request that we all respect each other's uh time here, okay.

Um we're not gonna tolerate any disruption or outbursts.

If you want to clap, do it silently with your happy fingers, wiggle your fingers, your toes, your ears, whatever you want, okay?

But do it silently, please.

Thank you.

And it is two minutes, not one minute.

Two minutes.

Oh, thank you so much for that generous time.

Uh, I'm Georgia Shootish.

Uh, I sent you a lot of letters.

Um, I think that the commission needs to use their legislative authority that you have to adjust the demo calcs as I've talked about, and also to clear up the confusion between the DBI and the planning definition of demolition.

I think that's a big problem.

But um, you have other legislative authority you could use, and the mayor and staff have made clear as they did today, that tenant-occupied housing will not be demolished.

They say it's rare and it's continued to be rare.

And I think that in order to make sure that that is so, please eliminate section 317 C12 from the proposed ordinance.

It's a very large loophole.

You need to have the C UA hearings.

That's how the commission can actually uh use your legislative authority.

Also, any demolition, merger, conversion of residential flats should have a conditional use of hearing, even if the unit of housing is added.

Additionally, to prevent any potential mergers or renovictions, there should be a strict numerical limit or an objective standard on the amount of interior demolition allowed in any alteration permit for residential flats.

And if it exceeds that, then you have a conditional use.

And I'll just say again the planning commission needs to maintain their legislative authority and to have oversight of residential flats.

And I guess I would expand that to say have your resident your legislative authority on as many things as you can have, because you represent the people of San Francisco.

Here is my 150 words for the minutes.

Here's my handout, what I just said, and I hope you read my other emails with other things about rear yards and uh pre-approved uh uh prototypes.

Thank you very much.

Have a great evening and take good care.

Okay, next speaker.

Thank you.

How long would they give you a minute?

I just need no, I'm okay.

All right, okay, thank you.

No, I'm uh I'm okay.

Um good afternoon.

Uh my name's George Wooding.

Uh one say I had the President Sell and the planning commissioners.

On behalf of the West of Twin Peak Central Council, representing 18 neighborhood associations and thousands of residents since 1936.

We want to express our opposition to the proposed upzoning plan.

The plan promotes large-scale demolition and speculative development in established neighborhoods without addressing the root causes of San Francisco's housing challenges.

Demolishing livable homes and replacing them with expensive small units does not create affordability, it accelerates displacement, erodes community fabric, and weakens multi-generational stability.

We respectfully urge the commission to amend the plan to reflect the following principles.

Remove density decontrol, protect neighborhood patterns, eliminate the sixty-five-foot interior lot provisions, preserve existing housing stock, especially older and historic homes.

Require family-friendly housing.

Safeguard small businesses in village corridors and advance adaptive reuse of vacant office and institutional buildings as better alternatives to tearing down viable homes.

Thank you very much.

Without some real controls on Balkan density, in my view, there's nothing to preclude high-rise buildings of small units.

Demolition of homes and demolition of affordable flats and rent control buildings and displacement of ground floor local businesses.

You've heard this already, but I didn't hear anything that, but I'm maybe maybe there's been some amendments that are gonna protect.

But it appears to me that the purpose of Lurie's density decontrol is simply remove and replace.

Replacement is what it looks like.

Each of you is gonna have to judge today.

Who gets replaced, who doesn't?

I think the density decontrol is a real estate plan, basically, that ultimately will remove working and middle class folks, which is where I live.

I think back to the redevelopment, and I look at this and I say, wait a minute, my kids, none of my kids can live here.

They can't afford it.

They haven't afforded it for decades.

I see when I was running local four at the Chronicle and Examiner, when I first joined it in the nineteen eighties, there were some members there still lived here with their families in the city by the time I retired in 2001.

There were only six people in the union still living in San Francisco.

So I think all this stuff about affordability is is a lie because the real estate industry is not interested in affordability.

That's not what they're about.

They're about profit making, period.

Is that the end of the two minutes?

It is indeed.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

Good afternoon again.

My name is Paul Wormer, and this time I'm speaking in my capacity as president of the Pacific Heights Residents Association.

And highlighted, but we would really like to work with planning to develop appropriate changes to the zoning in our area.

We know there are opportunity sites.

We know we need more housing.

We know we need more density to get that.

That's not the issue.

The issue is this is stochastic planning.

How many lots have you upzoned?

How many potential units are there?

How many do we need?

We know with certainty that someone will build something somewhere that somebody with some income could afford.

That doesn't provide the affordable housing the city needs.

And if you look at the RTOC zoning, it's very nice language I heard.

It is permitted but not required on the ground floor.

But when you look at the zoning control table, it doesn't show commercial use is restricted to the ground to the ground floor.

And indeed it permits uses that make no sense if they are just permitted to the ground floor.

So the RTOC zoning has a lot of problems.

Potentially pulling desirable housing sites into commercial uses.

High-end small boutique, boutique hotels would be permitted.

There are problems with that.

More to the point, simple math based on the residential nexus studies.

Market rate housing creates a demand for about 30 to 40% of below market rate housing.

Do the math.

What happens if it's 20% off site that the conclusionary is?

That's at 250 dollars a square foot.

How many units is that actually provide for?

And how much further behind are we in the need for affordable housing?

Thank you.

You can just put it on the projector, yeah.

SF God, can we go to the overhead?

All right.

Um thanks for your time.

Thanks everyone for being here.

I just wanted to contribute something that I feel is a little bit remiss from most of these conversations, at least from my purview.

Um I want to take you back to November of 2020.

Uh like eight out of nine people in this room statistically for San Francisco.

Um I was watching the swing states and hoping that uh Biden would prevail.

So you can see the, you know, just looking at this, not knowing much other than that.

It looks like it's mostly red, and Biden lost Michigan.

And there was also looking at uh Pennsylvania, and it looks like Biden lost Pennsylvania too.

I was looking at Atlanta, looks like Biden lost there.

But we know, I think we all kind of know in the back of our minds that you know the cities are where we get the Democrat votes from.

So cities, in a way, kind of manufacture their like factory is to manufacture votes for the Democratic Party.

We need uh more, you know, each person gets one vote.

More people in the city is more votes for Democrats.

Um why do like why is that I was wondering?

Um is it that people choose to be around others with similar viewpoints?

Or is it that um people are largely products of their environment?

I think it's oh, thank you very much.

Uh yeah, there's the spectrum there.

So yeah, I think that it's somewhere in between that spectrum.

It's not entirely one thing or the other.

Um and who else knows this is uh the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation behind Project 2025, who says that we need to protect the single family zoning at all costs because they know that that's where the votes come from.

Um, and we need to increase housing stock in the rural areas.

It's the San Francisco Chronicle is like a little bit behind this too, but I don't think that this has much as much of our view as it should be.

Thank you.

My grandpa's home is where I spend my summers.

It feels like my second home.

He takes care of us there, and I love being with them.

He's we had if we'd had to move, we wouldn't have the same time with him.

Um we would lose the place where we feel connect safe and connected to our family.

And we don't want to lose the city we love visiting.

Please help our grandpa keep his home for him and for us.

Okay.

Um, and now about my future.

Um, I'm planning to go to college in San Francisco, and I can't do that if you demolish my grandfather's home.

Hello.

Hello.

I'm uh grateful and humbled to be here on this September 11th, exercising our increasingly fragile democracy.

Uh, thank you for your time.

Uh my father does live here.

I grew up here.

I was sworn in to be an attorney in this room.

I interned in this building, and I represented families in the dependency system across the street.

And while I can't afford to raise my family here, um I have called this home base because of my father's rent control apartment.

And what I'm asking you to keep in your mind as you figure out whether this is gonna happen and how it's gonna happen is the peace of mind of elders.

Um, my daughter in eight years will be 18, and in eight years my father will be in his 80s.

And our family plan has always been for either my children or myself to be his caretaker to keep them in his home as long as possible.

Um, and so I'm asking you just to consider um that there be some guarantee, some protection for those long-term um residents, those employees that that keep your tourist industry working.

Um that they are not sitting here waiting for a hearing wondering that they can make the same plans that a homeowner can make about their future and that their families can make plans about their long-term care and the services that the city has provided for my father as a senior citizen that I can't afford to provide have been remarkable, and a lot of seniors are thriving here because of that, and they need homes to thrive in.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Thank you for your time.

I brought my family here to put a face on what you are the gatekeepers of deciding.

And I hope you will all step up and protect every resident that's in any apartment.

Most of us will never be able to afford a condo, ever.

You know, most of us will never be able to replace the communities we lose ever.

I've lived in my apartment for half my life, 38 years.

I had a small theater in North Beach for 20 years.

Those base, the basement theater I have won't exist in these condos or whatever buildings they're gonna build.

The idea with real estate is for real estate people develop them to make money.

And you don't make money off of low income people.

So you folks, you know, you're you're the you're the gatekeepers.

And we're all asking you to step up for us.

The developers are speculators.

They got plenty of people to speak for them.

Plenty of them, and deep pockets to speak out of.

I appreciate your time.

I appreciate your consideration.

Thanks for listening to my family, and I hope you'll listen to all these other folks.

Have a nice evening.

You're gonna have a long day.

Hello.

I represent the Leather and LG TBQ Cultural District.

I'm Paul Dowley, Chair of the Land Use Committee.

I'm here to speak about the Eagle Bar south of Market at 398 12th Street.

Block and lot 352 slash zero one four.

The district government governance and myself would like the eagle to be removed from the family zoning plan because of the following.

The city city's housing element legislation determined that upzoning was not appropriate for equity priority areas in order to protect areas that already had experienced displacement.

And Soma has experienced massive displacement for decades, starting with Muscone Center, which displaced over 7,000 individuals.

This displacement will only increase with the passage of state laws removing any local control on many new developments.

Upzoning the Eagle will endanger legal property for takeover by developers.

The Eagle is a legacy business that needs to be preserved to maintain the fabric of San Francisco's character and the leather and queer culture in the city and south of market.

Eagle is a landmarked location.

Landmark location and the upzoning would result in the loss of a building that this that the city, the supervisors, the people, both local and many visitors, have determined is an important part of life here.

The Eagle is a central hub for the leather and queer community, and losing this location would be a dramatic blow to an already marginalized community that is under pressure for many forces, especially development south of market.

Thank you.

There's no chairs out there.

No offense, but we all knew because it was in the paper, this was a big deal.

A lot of people were gonna come.

Why is it that the people who are in the overflow room are way down on the first floor?

No offense, but you all are not required to vote on this until the 18th.

That's what I've been told by the uh the uh senior planner here.

If I'm wrong, I'm sure Ms.

Chan will correct me.

You're required to vote on this by the 18th of this month, not today.

Please delay this, please continue this so that people who have left.

So I did a count, just curious.

153 people were there originally when I first sat down.

Now there's a hundred and ten, and somewhere people did get to speak, but many of those people just left.

In fact, when Ms.

Mr.

Ionan asked for another speaker who uh was monolingual, that person had left, as you can check with your own sheriffs.

He had left because it was just too much to wait for this long, long hearing, and I think it's fair to ask for a continuance.

Um, our group went before the Board of Supervisors on July 1st during public comment to make the following amendment regarding um uh uh rent control.

No permit should be issued as a result of ordinances two five oh seven hundred or two five oh seven oh one, which shall diminish the habitability, remove from the marketplace, or demolish any rent controlled building or rent controlled unit in the city and county of San Francisco.

That's not what's being offered now by this plan.

They're saying we're gonna replace those units somewhere else.

It's a form of redevelopment.

We're against that.

We want rent-controlled units protected.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name's Terry McHugh from Dust District 7.

Again, along with him, I was wondering why are we're voting today.

There seems to be a lot of different questions, is what's going on.

It seems the supervisors had amendments.

Everybody's had amendments, people have asked for different information from different groups, and they haven't gotten it.

There's 70,000 units in the system already to be built, and they're just sitting there for various reasons.

And what I think it is is it doesn't pencil out for the developers.

And what you're doing today is gonna give a carte blanche to the developers to do whatever they want to do and build whatever they want to build.

That's gonna be the end of this thing.

That whatever you guys vote on, you know, if you vote to upsize that that can't be changed in the future.

And that's through the state, not through the city.

But if that's true, then what you're doing on, you really better know what you're doing on, and you have again 70,000 units that are sitting there to be built, and the number of affordable keeps changing.

I'll tell you, I've seen three different times that that number has changed.

So I don't think you're prepared to be able to vote on something that's uh this important and it affects the city in so long.

You know, we're we're going through with uh, you know, you got Wiener doing his thing in the state, which has nothing to do with the, you know, he's got voted down in the city when he tried it as a supervisor.

So what we're seeing with in the national level is you know Trump and the Republicans taking over and trying to do whatever damn thing they feel like doing, and I feel that's what's happening here.

It's just the Democrats that are doing it here.

Thank you very much.

Afternoon, all appreciate you guys being here.

Um I want to take this a little bit different direction.

I want to talk a little bit about corruption.

How do we know who's developing these proper properties?

How do we know that corrupt money is not distorting the market?

I can look at two properties right now in San Francisco under development.

From the son of a Russian oligarch, right?

Um corruption happens in other ways.

People build condos, illegal gotten gains offshore.

It's a smart move for those folks to just buy condo.

Who cares about market rate?

Who cares who lives there?

Who cares if there's a family?

We should, you should.

We all love this city.

You're opening up corruption, international corruption, both in the sale and the development.

I see no controls.

I see nobody even talking about this.

So I think that is something that we really need to look at.

Um let's talk a little bit about winners and losers.

Who's gonna win from this?

Developers, the one-tenth of one percent.

Who's gonna lose from this?

As many have said.

Well, I got news for you guys.

Condo prices aren't going down, they're going up.

And I think we can pay lip service that more supply is gonna equal lower prices.

But look, come on, folks.

We're gonna sell to rich people, and that's what's going to happen.

And this beautiful diverse city will change.

Shame on the city for doing this.

Hello, commissioners.

My name is Teresa Dolala SwitzomCan.

And I live in Salma Pilipinas District 6.

You know, um, over 2818,000 residents, nearly one in three live below 200% of the federal poverty line, even though state thresholds already consider incomes under 104,000 as low income.

And you really think that a person who earns about $18.75 would be able to afford this affordable housing.

So, you know, time and time again, you know, city leaders sitting there, you know, at City Hall, allow, you know, um developers and speculators to dictate our housing market.

What happens to tenants, homeowners, and small businesses who will be displaced?

Where are they going?

Do you think or believe that we can afford the so-called affordable units?

We want to see these figures printed.

Upzoning does not solve these problems.

It risks displace displacing rent control tenants, pushing out small businesses, and repeating the mistakes of Manila Town, where our Filipino community lost homes and identity in the name of redevelopment, which is now called upzoning and revitalization.

Please are asked vote no under upzoning or delay it.

Vacant units and existing housing stock are fully utilized and addressed.

Infrastructure improvements come first, improve and invest in what's already there, make affordable mean truly affordable.

Our communities cannot afford more broken promises.

We've experienced it many times.

Good afternoon, and uh thank you for letting me address the commission.

It's appreciated.

We can and we should build new housing.

As far as what we build, there are aspects of the new proposed zoning plan that I think makes sense, but there are others that are unfortunate and I believe will create permanent scars in our city.

In particular, I'm concerned by the newly proposed wall on the waterfront along the northeast corner of the city, along the embarcadero at Bay, North Point Beach, and Jefferson Streets.

Erecting towers on the embarcadero takes a waterfront from citizens and visitors and sells it to the very few who can afford to take that view for themselves.

Why put it there?

Why build a wall to greet our number one industry, tourism?

Erecting towers takes it away from those visitors as well as the citizens.

Is it really about tall buildings blocking the views of the rest of the city?

Is that really the face that we want to project to the rest of the world?

The previous proposed zoning map left these blocks on the waterfront at four stories as a long-standing smart tiering of Telegraph Hill towards the bay.

The Northeast Waterfront should be open to those who view it, not blocked and boxed off from it.

This wall, by the way, was not discussed with residents or local businesses, and was only revealed when the new zoning map was released.

If you approve those towers in that location, everyone except a fortunate few will lose that access to the waterfront.

Looking towards our city, a good portion of the historic northeast waterfront will be hidden and boxed away behind these buildings.

Additionally, three blocks of towers are also proposed to extend up to another seven blocks westward and are going to make for some wicked wind tunnels in an already windy part of the city.

Those are the buildings proposed along Bay, North Point, and Beach Streets.

But let's do this right and build housing while enhancing and protecting San Francisco's waterfront.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Emily Faxen.

I had some remarks written, and I have to say that Ms.

Chen's uh presentation did influence my thinking, as well as the remarks of some other people.

Um, I live in District 4.

Um, I it's conspicuously uh hasn't been mentioned that our supervisor is facing a recall election in a couple of days, and I believe the subtext of that re um of that recall election is uh the conflicting views of what the future of the outer sunset will be.

Um, I agree we need affordable housing, but I also agree that we should avoid at all costs the builders' um remedy uh that the state will impose if we don't do something about the need for housing.

I am concerned about affordability, about evictions, all of the things that have been mentioned, and I really think the gentleman who spoke about Japan town or from that neighborhood uh was asking the question: uh, is this plan to is it overkill?

Or can we can we modify this in such a way that it addresses the need for housing and and uh affordability?

Um just speaking as a 30-year outer sunset resident.

Um the idea that five east-west streets are now going to be upzoned to five to eight stories when most everything is two to three stories, three is a rarity actually, is uh that's gonna be quite a visual change, and um all of the uh policy that's expressed in the planning department's residential design literature talks about visual design, and so I wanted to mention that.

Thanks.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name is Christian and live in the marina, raising a young family and a real estate developer professionally.

Uh much of the marina area was formerly part of the bay and named uh Marina Cove and was uh filled in completely by 1912.

Bedrock is largely about 150 feet to 300 feet below ground in the marina and located within the liquefaction zone.

Uh to avoid what happened with Millennium Project from happening in the marina, we need to require the following amendments.

Um require developers to have foundations go down to bedrock given the combined increased density that is being proposed within liquefication zones.

Require developers to conduct adjacent geotechnical studies on any adjacent properties and the block and not just subject site within the liquefication zone.

That's a huge I want to underscore that.

Um it's site-specific right now.

We should be looking at entire block or adjacent properties when you're doing in the liquefication zone.

So uh reduce the proposed height on Lombard Street from 85 to 65 to minimize the combined effect of taller and heavier buildings proposed on the liquefication zone.

Require developers to include three, four, and five bedroom units so families can stay in the NSF.

Um you're not gonna have families if you got two and three-bedroom uh units, so we really need to make that clear.

Finally, uh add that in order to obtain the increased zoning for the safeway located at 15 marina way.

The developer needs to include a minimum of a small format grocery store of 15,000 square feet.

If this amendment is unachievable, then remove the proposed increase.

The existing base zone of 40 is more than sufficient in this location by upzoning this parcel with prime views.

We likely lose a grocery store and would be grossly out of place.

Last thing include historic overlay that developers are required to preserve historical front facades deemed historic on these iconic streets with any redevelopment to not lose the architectural gems every San Francisco loves.

Appreciate it.

Hi, I'm Catherine Tomlinson, and thank you for being here.

I'd like to start by saying I think we need to look back in history in the 1960s.

The planning and zoning department in San Francisco approved Fontana Towers, which are located right down on the shoreline.

This is where this hall has come from.

The 40-foot, everyone was in an uproar, the 40-foot zoning came in, and it stayed that way ever since.

If you look at the plan you have now, the concern I have, it's a huge swath with a lot of flexibility in the zoning and building department, which can be tough to manage.

I decided to go and look, so I'm in North Beach, and I looked down and I was able to get the owner of properties and the zoning, and I found there are 12 hotels in the higher zoning now by Fishman's War.

There are four apartments, huge apartments that are actually with one company, and the rest is city property.

Then I thought, well, let me go look further.

So I went and looked on Lombard and the Van Es corridor.

There are another 50 hotels that are along that have stayed that way because of the 40 feet, and that's where 50 years ago I would go and stay because you couldn't afford to go anywhere else.

Those were the hotels that were there.

Those will all be different now.

I think that when you look at low-income housing, let's be realistic.

If you're on the waterfront and you're downtown, and you're you say, okay, 15% is all they're required for the affordable housing.

But they can pay to change that and not have to do the affordable housing, the developers.

So I think right now you need to take that 70,000 that you say is in the bank somewhere, you need to put it online, be out in the sunshine.

Who owns it, where is it gonna be, and let people see the 70,000 units you already have available to you, and also the ones that you may have downtown that that have been abandoned.

So I think at this point, I would ask you to rethink this and and slow down the process.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Um I'm here on behalf of the Bel Air HOA down in Russian Hill.

Um we all know that the city needs more affordable housing, but uh putting up high rises on the slope of Russian Hill facing the bay, though probably highly profitable to developers, will not alleviate the housing problem.

Uh first the city needs to simplify the permitting process even with present bounds.

As we see that there's a whole block on the south side of Washington Square that has been an eyesore for years awaiting development.

Uh, we also see the block on the visit arrow where the car wash used to be, still in permitting process uh procedures after years sitting vacant.

Um, there's a huge expanse in the sunset uh where two-story family homes would not lose its character if it was punctuated, especially at block ends with five or six-story apartment buildings.

Uh their buildings could be subsidized by the city to help make it affordable.

Uh, and it's just to defend our rights that we must protest.

We must protest because the projection of North Russian Hill will do nothing to alleviate the city's housing problems for ordinary middle class residents.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners and directors.

My name is Stephen Huang, and my partner and I chose to raise our kids in District 4 because we love the neighborhood character and the quality of life.

We love having a diversity of neighbors, including other families, young workers, and seniors.

But what we've been seeing around us is that many families are moving away because they cannot afford San Francisco.

And many empty nesters can cannot afford to make their home safe for aging in place.

Some of my neighbors have found their answers by creating space in their home so that their adult children can stay in the city.

Our neighborhood character is already changing and fast.

We have to be proactive to maintain it.

We don't want unrestricted growth from builders' remedy.

Especially please, no development on the flood zones along Ocean Beach.

Please also be mindful to not add new requirements that will further slow down permitting.

Please approve family zoning precisely because the best way to maintain the quality of life and community character.

I've been to several meetings on family zoning, and uh, and your staff did a fantastic job in presenting and honestly eliciting very heated debates.

But I have heard neighbors begging for more housing and more foot traffic for business.

But there are working people and they cannot be here to speak.

So I echo their desire to have this plan be approved.

I'll end by asking this.

Right outside, couples are getting married today.

I hope they will have a chance to afford to have their happily ever after here in San Francisco.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Becky Lee.

I I actually came from Hong Kong, but I lived in San Francisco for 50 years.

I'm senior now.

Well, I can I actually oppose from my personal point of view, I oppose the upzoning to the high-rise building in the residential area.

The only thing I I I was thinking about it to compare.

Hong Kong have a high rise, but you know, most of them they don't have cars.

The convenient, the bus is so convenient in front of you.

But if I want to take a bus, I have to take on walk almost two and a half, two and a half long block.

And I have a problem with my knee.

So I oppose the high-rise building in our residential area.

So I love San Francisco.

I love the way it is.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Winnie.

I have been living in San Francisco for 51 years.

And um 1995, when I'm looking for a house in sunset, I love sunset.

So I I found a couple houses sinking down the foundation.

Finally, I bought on 19th Avenue because it's rock and hill.

I feel like most as secure.

And then my friend, I uh bought on 40 between R and S, the house sinking.

It sunset is uh sand, it's not rock, not soil, that area.

And I um, and also now uh a lot of housing uh units are available because the control rent control is so bad.

Uh many of my friends they took their unit back and they didn't want to rent it because they lost money, like 100,000, this and that.

We are really scared.

And then um, so um that's why the rent control is curing San Francisco, the um the housing.

And also uh we also there are some uh affordable housing and then still available.

Why still build more?

And I feel like the city wants you have more money from the state, and also um if the rent control change be fair, probably more unit will come out, wouldn't be that bad.

And also the street black, um the street uh closing.

Uh some of my friends, the son cannot drive, no parking space, and they could not find a job in the city, they couldn't go out of the city.

They are they are our job.

A friend of mine told me this morning, my son still cannot find a job because cannot drive outside.

He doesn't have a car.

So if more building, more people, more crowded, more, you know, how the city afford more job to the residents.

I feel like it's not right.

And um please consider I um oppose um no rezoning.

Please keep the city building, keep the city slow down.

Okay, don't rush.

Thank you.

Planning commission, my name is Mike Noor.

In 1950, San Francisco had 775,000 people and about 200,000 housing units.

Today, over 75 years later, we have about 400,000 housing units.

We've doubled the population's only gone up by about 4%.

We don't have a housing issue.

We have an affordability issue.

They're two completely different things.

And just building a whole bunch of new units doesn't mean the price is gonna go down.

We've proved that as our own city.

We've doubled housing.

Number of people living here has not gone up.

The price has gone up.

And it's the same.

It's for New York, it's for Tokyo, it's for any any major city that's desirable, this is gonna happen.

So just building million-dollar condos isn't gonna fix our problem.

Um the uh RHNA goal of 82,000 units for San Francisco.

We're gonna expect to have more housing units put into our city, seven miles by seven, than the entire peninsula.

And they're well richer than we are.

They have many more resources, many more universities, many more hospitals.

Everything.

They're well-resourced.

Whoever made this decision to shove 82,000 on our city, do you guys realize that's like the city of Sioux Falls South Dakota, dumping 200 and some thousand people on top of our city in a few in a few years?

It's impossible for us one to build it.

Basically, the city is doing this to cut parts of you off so you guys won't have any authority in the future.

They want your jobs, basically.

Weiner set it up this way.

Um, and just down the street.

There's hundreds of millions of dollars of affordable housing that we built in the uh north of the Hayes Valley in 2000.

It's not even 25 years old, and we're already tearing it down because it never got managed properly.

So before we give you more money to build more housing, you guys need to look at what how are you managing it?

Because those housing units shouldn't be torn out.

That is your time.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Jean Barish, President Planning Association.

I just lost my my oh Jesus.

I'm sorry.

Can you turn the clock off while I get readjusted, please?

I hate cell phones.

Give me a sec.

Planning association for the Richmond representing, I don't have it yet.

Timeout.

Well, I have a really good script that I want you to read.

Okay, I'm coming back.

Planning Association for the Richmond District representing thousands of Richmond district residents, all of whom oppose the mayor's family zoning plan.

This misguided plan will have a destructive impact on the Richmond district while providing few new affordable housing units that are so desperately needed.

It will result in the displacement of tenants and small businesses, create problems with traffic, create problems with parking, air quality, other environmental concerns, infrastructure, and small business strains.

There will be endless construction and it will lead to a myriad of other neighborhood impacts.

We urge the city to change its approach to fulfilling the state's mandated goal of 36,200 new housing units, and we instead support community-created alternatives that protect rent control tenants, existing affordable housing, small businesses, multi-generational single-family homes and historic structures.

While it's encouraging to see today's changes, this plan must be withdrawn because impacted and impacted communities must partner with City Hall and the planning department to create more housing, which at the same time will not destroy the qualities of life that makes San Francisco one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

The state has only mandated an eight-year plan for 36,200 units.

Yet you are considering approving a 50-year plan that could result in 800,000 units.

What's the rush?

Density decontrolling half of San Francisco and shoehorning tens of thousands of people into small one and two bedroom market rate apartments is not good planning.

We need carefully planned affordable housing that will improve, not destroy our neighborhoods.

This plan is merely an opportunity for developers to demolish our homes and businesses and replace them with cookie cutter cracker boxes.

Please don't approve this plan.

Thank you.

Hello, planning commissioners.

My name is Glenn Rogers.

I'm a landscape architect.

And first, I wanted to uh suggest that I think it would be a very wonderful idea if you were if there is a loophole regarding the demolition of rent control housing in small businesses that you you know that you um remove the loophole because it takes uh four years for uh these people to uh have these uh buildings uh re-established and uh that's a little too long to wait.

So although affordable housing and low middle income housing is uh needed, developers often prefer in loo fees.

Now, this is the serious problem with uh this housing uh development because they only make money on market rate housing, they don't want to make money on affordable housing and low-income housing, and so they pay these fees and they never get built.

You check into it, see how much of that money is ever spent on affordable or low-income housing.

And uh the other thing, someone mentioned the the vacant businesses here in San Francisco should be the first place that we want to uh build housing for the truly uh affordable and for low-income people.

This would be ideal uh for for them.

Uh market rate housing obviously can't be built, you know, in a business.

And just in passing, I wanted to say if you have forty-seven percent of businesses uh vacant in San Francisco, if you have 50 percent of the storefronts of uh uh vacant in San Francisco, if you have sales force now, 5,000 employees where they used to have 10,000, this means housing is not necessarily necessary.

Thank you for the extra time.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Karen DeGiorgio, I live in Russian Hill, District 3.

And um listening to all of these people, seems to me that the people who have already made an investment into San Francisco for generations are being penalized.

You're not taking into consideration what the impact of all of these changes are gonna have on these existing families.

My husband and I worked really, really hard to be able to buy in Russian Hill.

That was our dream.

So we did.

But what's to stop the people who live next door to me from adding two more stories, saying they're adding affordable housing onto that unit?

Who knows whether or not they're gonna be putting it in there?

Who knows what's going to be happening to their foundation that's going to affect my foundation?

It seems to me there's no checks and balances that are going on that the city is providing to understand the impact on the existing residents.

It feels to me like this whole plan is just too big of a plan.

It needs to be phased.

And the first part of this needs to be that you all go out and examine every single block in every single neighborhood and look at what's vacant, what's existing, what's not being used properly, and how you can put affordable housing into some of those existing spaces.

And maybe incent some of the developers who want to come in to take over those existing spaces, for instance, the ones at Hayes Valley.

From being from why aren't they being used?

Why are they vacant?

Why are all of these vacancies in buildings that were overbuilt for the tech for the tech industry who came in and everything went up and all of these towers went up and then they're half empty?

Because everybody's working at home and work styles have changed.

You need to be considering what's going on in the neighborhoods, who's being impacted, and don't impact negatively the people who have made the investment into San Francisco.

And I would say keep the height limits where they are.

Good afternoon again, Commissioners.

Um I'm Ty Hudson with Unite Here Local Two.

I'm not gonna speak right now about our bigger picture concerns with the plan.

I think you'll hear uh later on from the San Francisco Labor Council, and we share a lot of of what you'll hear from them.

Um, but I'm gonna I'm speaking right now to object to a detail that is kind of buried in the departments among the department's recommended modifications that you heard today from staff.

Um item number 13 on that list of recommended modifications uh is a proposal that would create an exception to planning code section 303G, which is the uh which is the requirement for conditional youth off youth conditional use authorization for hotels throughout the city for three decades.

This policy has allowed the city to ensure responsible hotel development and a hospitality industry whose prosperity lifts up communities, residents, and workers rather than leaving leaving them behind.

While the currently proposed exception may be limited in scope, we see it as a threat to the crucial and long-standing policy uh that requires, as I mentioned, conditional use authorization for hotel development throughout the city.

We urge the planning commission not to adopt that recommendation.

And just to underscore this, if the family planning zone, the family zoning plan is about creating housing, there isn't any need to include a provision that streamlines hotel development, not housing development.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is John Joanen.

I am representing the people who own the Park Merced Shopping Center.

It's underzoned, and we'd like to see it upzoned, which we could provide over 600 to 650 new units.

I hope you uh take that into consideration that 650 units you don't have in San Francisco, which we could provide.

So uh again, we're all for the upzoning, and uh we'd like to uh go forward with eventually building that.

Thank you so much.

Hello.

My name is Nellie King Solomon.

I'm here as a fifth generation San Franciscan, three generations in North Beach.

My mother recently passed um in the house where my daughter is an artist, she's a singer-songwriter, and I'm raising her there, age 17.

I'm an artist, working artist, have been all my life, born and raised in that house in North Beach.

And my father uh is an urban planner and low-income architect, low-income developer, um, Daniel Solomon.

And my father would go on about the vernacular of the city and respecting it and how to develop a city that lives and is a magnet for good.

The area between Bay Street and Pier 39 and Fisherman's Wharf.

I mean, I agree with Daniel Lurry.

It needs some love, but planning towers there is also physically unviable.

It's Phil from the 1906 earthquake, and we'll create wild wind tunnels that everybody's talking about, but it's also just not a part of the fabric of the city.

This is a destruction and a rush.

My father can't be here.

He's struggling with health.

My mother's now dead.

So I'm speaking on all of their behalfs.

Um, generations of people who have committed to this specific neighborhood.

Um, it's also not really necessary.

I went on Zillow.

There's 40 empty two-unit apartments right near me.

It's hard to rent an apartment.

There's tremendous vacancy in both the offices and residential.

What these will create is very tall, buildings that require rafts to be built on because it's fill.

So it's not a stable foundation of bedrock for building tall buildings there anyway.

And then once you do it, you can't put low-income housing on top of that.

Thank you.

Hello, commissioners.

We're all hanging in there.

My name is Judy Irving.

I'm a freelance documentary filmmaker, wild parents of Telegraph Hill.

And I've lived in San Francisco for 48 years, starting in Noe Valley, but then I was attracted to North Beach and Telegraph Hill.

There's a reason why North Beach and Telegraph Hill are the heart of the city, and why thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousands of tourists come there.

For one thing, there are no chain stores.

For another, it's human scale.

There's a 40-foot height limit.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the historic resources, too.

Over the last several months, about 700 new parcels were added to this plan that are in North Beach without any consideration of talking to the neighbors or informing anyone.

These maps keep changing, keep keep changing.

And how do we know that these historic resources will be protected?

Because they're currently stonewalling the North Beach Historic District at the same time.

To me, it feels like a vendetta on the part of Scott Weiner, our own representative.

I'm sorry to say that, but that's what it feels like.

So please do not please look carefully at protecting historic resources.

Please read the entire plan.

I heard through the Grapevine that several people on this commission are not going to read the plan.

And please continue this until viable and reasonable amendments can be added so that it can work for this beautiful city.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Quentin Mecky with the Council of Community Housing Organizations.

We made it.

Oh my God, we made it to this hearing after all these months.

I see Rachel and Lisa and all the hours that everyone has spent on this.

Before I say anything further, we also want to stand with local two and ask that that provision be removed, that hotels as of right without any CU.

We certainly support that effort.

You know, the city has been having such a bizarre conversation around housing where we keep focusing on zoning and we are losing absolute connection to production.

Who knows how the 70,000 plus approved units in the pipeline, the 17,000 approved affordable units will ever be built for lack of financing, for lack of funding, and yet we continue to imagine that zoning itself will solve all these problems.

And I think that we need to understand that this is the moment that rather than continue a model where we hand over the reins of a most the most important issue in our city, which is housing to private development.

This is the time for the public sector to actually move forward into a role that is greater and larger.

In front of you in this plan.

The use of public lands and public sites is a huge way that you can reduce cost for affordable housing developers, site costs, land acquisition can be up to 50% of the site cost.

That is a way you have in hand right now to actually help affordable housing.

Right now, the pipeline is stuck.

And if we're talking about future ideas, we met with the mayor last week, whether it's a bond, whether it's more permanent sustainable funding.

That's what we need to start focusing on rather than arguing about zoning that actually won't build housing.

Thank you, members of the commission.

My name is Holden Weissman.

I am the director of policy and advocacy at Habitat for Humanity.

Excuse me, Habitat for Humanity in Greater San Francisco.

Um I'm here today to talk in support of the Family Zoning Plan.

Um I've heard a lot of folks today already speak about having made an investment in communities and in this city.

We want to make sure that that is a possibility as well.

One of the only ways that we can do so to provide the that kind of dream that folks have to be able to purchase and own a home in our city and stay in this city for the long run, is by having the kind of zoning that would help us produce the kind of housing that would be able to do that.

Um we are a developer.

Uh many people have talked uh very negatively on developers today.

I want to assure you that there are those of us out there that want to be able to build the kind of affordable, permanently affordable uh housing for ownership in this city that wouldn't necessarily be building high rises, but would be able to provide extensive opportunities where they otherwise wouldn't be able to do so.

Um we cannot do that without the zoning that would allow us to build the structures that we need to pencil out these projects.

It is incredibly important for us to be able to uh have the zoning that will support uh multifamily, permanently affordable homes for ownership.

Um I just want to say one last thing that um, again, we are looking to just make the dream of homeownership possible and to keep San Francisco for San Franciscans that haven't been able to set down roots already.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Abby, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Chinatown CDC.

As a place-based nonprofit affordable housing developer, we strongly support building more housing.

But the plan before you today neither identifies sites for permanently affordable housing nor provides funding mechanisms to make such housing feasible.

Once passes are upzoned, you all know acquisition costs rise and that prizes out affordable housing projects.

We urge you to incorporate strategies that prioritize affordable housing, such as designating large passes, including public passes in the upzoning map for 100% affordable housing through uh through designating a special use district.

Without such strategies, San Francisco will continue to fall short of its arena and goals for low and moderate income families.

Finally, this plan reduces the requirements for family-sized units at a time when our communities are struggling to find two and three bedroom un uh homes.

We need stronger commitments to ensure that these units are not only built but are truly affordable for everyday families.

San Francisco desperately needs housing that our seniors and families can afford.

Please make and strengthen this legislation so that it meets that need.

Hi, Commissioners.

My name is Sharon, and I'm also from Chinatown CDC.

As Avi previously stated, we're in support of building more housing that meets the needs and affordably affordability levels for the people in our communities, but this plan doesn't guarantee that either of these will be built.

First, with inclusionary housing rates and in leave fees lower than they were in past decades.

We need proactive strategies to make truly affordable housing for our most vulnerable residents useful.

San Francisco's Reno Goals state we have to produce approximately 46,000 low and moderate income units, but this plan forces nonprofit developers to compete with the market for sites.

We instead urge the commission to explicitly incorporate a non-contiguous affordable housing and special use district that identifies priority sites most feasible for 100% affordable housing development to allow nonpro nonprofit community-based developers like ourselves to remain competitive through provisions of the housing choice SF program.

And this affordable housing special use district wouldn't prohibit market rate development via existing pathways.

Secondly, the plan decreases requirements for two and three bedroom units within the housing choice assessment program.

Though we understand and appreciate the minimums for three bedroom units reincorporated, the percentage of units required will not guarantee a substantial number of family sized units be built rather than studios and one bedroom units while families buy for the elusive three bedroom unit.

We've heard from our staff and families with housing choice vouchers about the difficulty of finding family sized units.

And even then, these units may still not be affordable.

This underscores the importance of strengthening the legislation.

So family sized units are not simply built but affordable to the people who need them.

Details on these points and others are included in the letter that we've just handed out and that we've also emailed you, and we're available to discuss further if you'd like.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Maina Young.

I'm the president of Business and Housing Network with thousands of members from the immigrant families who have language failures and a lot of seniors who are struggling to make ends meet to keep their houses.

We are small mom and pop owners.

What the government has been doing is distorting, it has been long time distorting the affordability and utilization of the housing stock.

Could we pause for a second, Mr.

Secretary?

Just to I think more people are coming in.

Perhaps.

As many have mentioned, there are countless vacant units in the city.

And even the city knows there are politicians who uh make vacancy tax just to punish the owners for not renting out.

So you know it's the elephant in the room, but you're not addressing it.

I have been going around to the different meetings, hearings, and telling people the rent regulations are killing the homeowners or the rental property owners.

And they are blocking out people who are trying to rent a place in this city.

So you mentioned like 3.4% vacancy earlier.

I don't know where you got that number from.

I checked the uh census data, the latest, it's close to 60,000 vacant units.

So by going through all the punishments, you know, to to put on the mom and pop owners is not helping.

And on the other hand, you keep on passing out cookies, you know, to the developers, the nonprofits, to make it easier for them to take over the land control in this city.

So we you are making it most unfriendly, unfamily friendly in the city.

Systematically forcing out us though there will be less of opportunities for mom and pop owners and renters who want to be mom and pop owners don't have the opportunity.

So that is your turn.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Asia Nicole Duncan, and I am with Build Affordable Faster California.

So, we all have heard about how there is no path to affordability with this plan.

We want housing, but we need a pathway for affordability.

There is still no real plan for building affordable housing.

This ordinance gives developers new height, density, and streamlining tools, but the only affordable requirements are the existing section 415 program and a narrow 20% set aside in a housing sustainability district that does not amount to the city-wide affordable plan.

We need to use city government to work with working people.

That means investing in financing housing that is truly affordable to the families, immigrants, and working class renters who make San Francisco home without that commitment, this rezoning risks, accelerating displacements instead of preventing it.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Lori Lederman.

I live in the inner sunset.

I followed zoning legislation for about 10 years, and what strikes me is that each time it seeks to add heightened density to reduce requirements for affordability, to reduce or eliminate open space parking setbacks and other important elements for the people who live, work, and visit here.

And a consistent demand from developers is to extinguish the participation of people who will be directly impacted.

While Yimbe's preached the trickle-down theory that somehow all these concessions will result in lower rents, the rent is still too damn high, and we continue to see thousands of empty market rate units and thousands of applicants for affordable housing that isn't built.

Demolition decontrol is frankly terrifying.

And a few nice words about right of return are emptier than vacant market rate units.

Developers will always want more concessions, yet they've failed to fulfill their part of the bargain, witness the 72,000 permitted units not built.

And how many multi-unit buildings where tenants were L-sacted years ago, remain empty, now blight our neighborhoods until they're allowed to demolish them.

Demolition always equals displacement, and this plan invites demolition.

It targets small businesses on commercial corridors who are vital contributors to community, walkability, and many low incomes.

Density decontrol on this scale without a budget commitment to expanded muni service and updated water sewer infrastructure is a recipe for disaster.

And there should be a clear prohibition on the sale of public land for private for-profit development.

This commission adopted a housing element that recognized the importance of equity and planning.

This legislation would toss that plan to the wolves.

Please fix it.

Thank you.

Hi, Commissioners.

My name is David Harrison.

I'm here on behalf of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce to speak in support of this plan.

Here representing over 900 members, businesses big and small, and we've had a lot of conversations about housing in the city and a few common themes.

One, we've got employers big and small, frontline employees who are driving over two bridges early in the morning who want to be here closer in the city and cannot live here, cannot afford to live here.

We've got talent that is difficult to attract to our city to retain in our city because of the cost of housing.

And we know if we're gonna solve that demographic gap of young people in our city, we have to provide housing for those folks.

Um ultimately uh we know that this plan is going to address that.

And then finally, I want to talk about small businesses because over 60% of the chamber's members are small businesses, and it's really important we all know and we all care and love about San Francisco that we address concerns that small businesses have raised, and we're really excited to be supporting this plan with commitments from planning, wonderful legislation from Supervisor Mirna Melgar to create a fund that is going to be able to mitigate in the very rare instances that small businesses are impacted for those costs, as well as commitments from planning for early notifications, as well as incentives to try to build out shells on the ground floor that will get activity going.

So thank you for your amazing work on this proposal, and we're happy to support.

Hi, good afternoon.

Nice to see familiar faces.

Uh recently I met with a long-time developer in Marine, and using the state bonus high provision, he was able to build 21 stories in a six-story zone.

The community objected, and the developer told them, you quote, you can't you can't fight me.

You can find you can fight me, but you can't stop me.

And he was right.

You clearly are aware of this bonus provision, but most people here are not.

Currently, the state bonus height provision appears in a small foot note and is not very clear.

It's important to be clear with residents about this trap.

I personally feel deceived.

If you need to build more housing in the city, by all means, but remove the many obstacles builders face or reduce their taxes.

As a small business owner for the past 19 years here in the city, I want affordable housing for my employees, over 20 employees who are early career scientists teaching a very unique advanced science to children of San Francisco.

Not only will they be displaced, my business will be displaced.

Already I struggled to find affordable location.

My own 28 years old daughter just moved into our house because even though she has a very respectable income, rent will represent a very high percentage of her income.

To think that this will only get worse, much worse, means no science education to kids and fewer jobs.

Thank you.

And everywhere I'm hearing, I don't understand what is this.

This is something we've seen in the past, right?

So it's knowing what we know, what comes along with demolitions, what comes along with speculations and allowing demolitions, allowing mergers, allowing conversions.

This is removing housing, and this is supposed to be about building housing.

And I know in North Beach, what we need most is actually affordable, truly affordable rental housing.

We have a glut of condos.

Many are vacant.

Um they are, you know, where money is parked.

So I I'm wishing that you would take time right now to actually look at how do all of these different pieces of legislation fit together with this upzoning and more is yet coming.

So how does it all fit together?

And what is the harm and what is the real benefit?

We do need housing, but please be very careful as you look at this.

This is not ready for prime time.

Thank you so much.

Hi, I came today because this is a really important issue.

I was not planning to speak.

So bear with me.

I have nothing prepared.

But um, you know, I I took off from work today because it was important.

But I grew up in this city and I love this city, but I don't love what it's become.

There have been too many promises over the years about all these ways that there was going to be affordable housing for people.

I'm one of the few people, I worked my ass off.

I'm a single mom, but it was important to me.

I grew up in a high density area in the city in an apartment building, and I want that for my son.

So as a single parent, I did everything that I could.

I cut corners and I managed to actually buy a house in Glen Park.

And I picked that neighborhood because it is single-family homes, because there's open space, because there's Glenport Canyon, because there's local shopping that I can walk to.

And now I feel like I'm under attack because my dream isn't as important as somebody else's.

I shouldn't have to feel guilty for wanting to raise my son in a single family home to have all that that offers him.

I think one of the greatest things about the city is that there is mixed types of housing.

And I want to keep that.

I don't think we need a city that's all high-rise housing.

And let's be real, it's not going to be affordable.

That's just BS.

I've known that because I've lived in this city, and I've seen all the promises and all the mismanagement.

BMR is a joke.

That has been mismanaged from the start.

There's so many people who got fooled into thinking that they had this home only to find out there was a catch down the road, and that they really couldn't ever, if they wanted to relocate, even manage it to um to realize a profit because there was a limit on that.

But that's another story.

My point is you need to really look at the unique topography of this city.

Thank you.

Not all neighborhoods.

Okay, can I just say one thing?

This is important, so please do not vote on this today.

It needs to be continued.

It's too important to be consistent with everybody else.

Thank you for your time, we heart you.

Thank you.

Hello, commissioners.

I'm here on behalf of the Jordan Park Neighborhood Association, and we are growing increasingly concerned with this plan.

Last week, my neighbor and I met with the Marin developer who's planning to entitle what could be the tallest multi-unit residential building in Marin at 21 stories in an area currently zoned for six.

We have to ask how is this even possible?

The short answer, it seems from him is by stacking all of the new state density bonus laws on top of base heights.

The plan before you significantly raises base heights and may actually incentivize developers to bypass the local program.

I've asked planning two questions.

What's the maximum height on Geary if a builder took advantage of all of the state bonuses?

How can the average they've been using to set base heights be reliable if AB 1287, which is known as double the density, didn't take effect until January of 2024.

I have yet to hear back.

The fact that there is not a ready independent analysis of this for anywhere that base heights are increasing is deeply concerning.

Raising base heights was not part of the original housing element and shouldn't be a part of this one.

This plan in its current form creates incentives for developers to run roughshod over our city and neighborhoods, and there are too many unanswered questions.

At Geary and Stanyan, very close to my house, we've seen what gets built even at four stories, luxury.

Of the available sales data, nine of 13 units sold for over one million dollars.

That's 100% of the available sales data.

This plan prioritizes developer profits over treasured historic neighborhoods and existing families and does nothing for affordability.

Commissioners, I urge you to vote no and at least take some more time to think about this.

Thank you.

I'm Virginia Barker.

Today my comments will focus on credibility, messaging, and substance.

I was dismayed to read in the chronicle that Director Dennis Phillips called opponents of the upzoning fear-mongers.

Like all Trumpian projections, her statement was wildly inaccurate, divisive, and demonizing, unbecoming of a public servant.

Fear is the appropriate reaction to the widespread eviction and destruction Mayor Luri's plan will unleash.

The Lurie administration has generated fear and opposition by betraying the residents you are here to serve.

Your betrayal of nearly half a century of rent control regulation on which the majority of San Francisco residents have built their lives, and your sellout of our small business, cultural, architectural, and social fabric are reprehensible.

Alarm is the proper response to the evident capture by industry of this formerly regulatory body.

Mayor Lurie's upzoning will not deliver an adequately housed city.

It will deliver only profit to real estate speculators.

It destroys trust in city government.

I appreciate that.

The planner Chen said today that there's tenant protections and that uh protection, there's people saying there's no protection for rent control is flat wrong.

I will believe that when I see it.

Given the planning departments in the city's spin, given the lack of transparency, given the misleading information that's been put forward, I hope that it will be accomplished by the Board of Supervisors, but as of today, Commissioners, I think the only conscionable vote on the upsending plan is no.

I'm going to remind members of the public to refrain from clapping.

You can wiggle your hands, fingers, whatever you want, but please do it silently.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Young Hernandez, and I'm a member of Labor's Local 261, the construction trade union here in San Francisco.

And we're here to here to express our support to the family zoning plan.

It represents a generational generational opportunity to build dense housing in an area of the city that was working class people have largely been priced out.

We also support our sisters and brothers in the San Francisco Building Trades as they work with the administration to make improvements to the plan so that it truly lives up the hardworking tradespeople who built our city.

Let's uh let's build more housing.

Thank you.

My name's Alice Williams.

I'm a resident of District 7 of San Francisco.

And so not only a resident, but uh um a homeowner.

So there's a difference.

Sorry to interrupt, do you mind?

Speak louder for Commissioner Vice President.

Yeah.

Uh there's a difference between homeowners and people that want to come into the city.

And so this family zoning plan is a bit of a government overreach, in my opinion.

San Francisco is seven miles by seven miles.

I mean, how many people or housing complexes can this build?

Can there be built on this land before saturation?

What about the resources that we have?

Don't we need to build infrastructure?

Has anybody looked into that?

Is that even possible?

Eighty-five thousand new units, that's a lot of units.

Why does everyone need to live in San Francisco?

Since expansion cannot happen horizontally, why must it happen vertically?

Now, how is the mayor's office and its zero funds?

The mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development has zero funds right now.

Going to subsidize this upzoning on steroids from taxes, right?

Taxing whom?

If taxing property owners, do we not have a say in this?

We would like to be included in these decisions.

It affects us greatly.

Is this about usurping property owners' rights?

Who appointed governing bodies as kings over us to just decide what they want to do without any input from us?

When property owners leave, who will find the government takeover then?

Do we trust the governing body that they will not try to enrich themselves financially?

What is stopping this administration from doing the same as the developers who will make a killing creating these eight to 20 foot 20 story foot uh 20 story infrastructures?

Thank you, ma'am.

That is your time.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Uh my name is Catherine Petron.

I'm an architectural historian.

I'm active with Neighborhoods United SF and on the board of San Francisco Heritage.

This week, Heritage submitted a letter to this commission focusing on the inevitable impact that the adoption of this plan will have on the city's historic resources.

If the plan succeeds in increasing development value at such an extreme scale, then upzone parcels, both numerous category A buildings and buildings that are historic but undesignated, will be in much greater jeopardy.

The Heritage Letter sets out real protections and solutions to balance the impact of the plan in terms of development and demolition to historic buildings.

We have been and we will continue to be at Heritage very amenable to working with commissioners, the department, and supervisors to improve this plan before it's adopted.

I also just wanted to use my time to acknowledge the big difference between the 2025 plan that's now before you and the 2022 housing element and the associated EIR.

On many levels, it's radically different.

But in terms of impacts to historic buildings, this is especially more expansive and radical.

We heard so much for years about west side development.

There's a major shift here, moving to the northeast corner of the city and other areas.

This plan adds 7,000 new parcels in District 3, something that was completely unanticipated until a couple of months ago.

This feels like something of a curveball.

In Fisherman's Wharf, and along Columbus Avenue, something that was not allowed or analyzed in the 2022 EIR or housing element.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

I'm Courtney Dam Kroger, former Historic Preservation Commissioner, a preservation planner and a supporter of Neighborhoods United San Francisco.

There are many potentially devastating impacts to our city from the proposed upzoning, and chief among them will be the loss of historic and cultural resources.

I strongly support the request made by San Francisco Heritage, as well as several points made by the Historic Preservation Commission in their September 10th letter to you.

And the highlights of those include excluding all Category A parcels in the proposed upzoning area, give the planning department the leeway to finish an ongoing survey and designation program without the threatened loss of historic resources, recognizing the challenge of exempting buildings while achieving acceptable unit capacity.

One HPC Commissioner recommended exemption of all category A buildings in the neighborhood commercial corridors where the greatest housing capacity is anticipated.

This suggestion was not included in the letter, though it is a viable alternative strategy.

The planning department's citywide cultural resources survey is a model program.

Tie the completion of and the support for that program to specific dates aligned with the upzoning plan.

This will help protect these resources and support the planning department.

A similar suggestion was made by an HPC commissioner.

Finally, San Francisco Heritage requested a reassessment strategy of the city's historic preservation program.

Their offer to partner with stakeholders is timely and sorely needed.

Please include this suggestion in your recommendations.

To conclude, I urge you to protect San Francisco's historic and cultural resources while addressing state housing mandate mandates by recommending inclusion of these constructive requests in your recommendations.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Planning Commission, Griffin Lee here, passionate San Franciscan district two resident.

I think we need to rethink about the plan.

I'll state a quote from Yoda Freemark.

He has evidence from the upzonings that happened in Chicago in 2013 and 2015.

Within the first two years of those upzonings, land and buildings increased in value.

That means the new constructed buildings that were bought, increase rents.

I understand there's a need for market rate housing.

There's a need for all types of housing here in San Francisco.

But this plan does not get us there.

We have a lot of speculation already happening in the city.

Lucky Penny site, Alexandria Theater, old Hong Kong 2 lounge, and nothing's happening.

I know people are anxious for more housing, but the reality is 70,000, 71,000 units approved in the pipeline as a quarter to 2025.

We need to continue improving on what Mayor Larry is doing today in permanent SF and getting out of the way so housing can be built in a responsible manner.

Thank you so much.

Hello, my name is Mo Zhu.

I'm here today to urge you to support the family zoning plan.

My partner and I recently decided to start a family.

Very exciting.

But uh not so exciting as looking at the math and thinking about uh how we are going to raise uh our family here in SF.

And uh I think this plan will be uh really great uh step towards that, so please uh support the plan.

Thank you.

Um Margaret Deets, Russian Hill resident.

Um I oppose the plan.

Um question I have for you, I don't expect an answer, but um I would like to get one eventually, is if the rent controlled building I live in, which is six stories, that parcel has now been rezoned 14 stories.

What does that mean for rent control in my building?

And I left town for two weeks.

Uh, I came back, I heard our supervisor, Mr.

Sauter say that rent control will be fine.

But um, have you changed the legislation in the last two weeks that I didn't hear about how rent control buildings will be protected from this zoning, and what is the speculation that this will encourage if you don't do something to protect rent control?

Because I don't know even who owns our building at this point.

Is it some speculative bank?

Um I'm gonna go find out.

But I hope you can answer the question.

What will you write into this legislation to protect a rent-controlled affordable building?

Well, somewhat affordable from being impacted.

Hi.

Hi, my name is Arman Domboluski.

I've been a resident of San Francisco for 10 years.

I have lived in the Bay Area my whole life.

Um, my family are my parents are refugees.

They fled communist Poland in the 1980s, coming for hope of a better life.

Uh, my father built Harvard floors since he was very young.

My par my brother and I spent our summers working on those harder floors, building homes around the Bay Area.

And if you ever told us that I could live in San Francisco, it'd be like telling me I could live in Disneyland.

I'm incredibly lucky to do so now, but I am always afraid that I won't be able to hold on because the city is so expensive.

We need to build this housing and we need to support this plan.

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve, New York Furman Center, UCLA Lewis, Turner Center, and UC Berkeley are just a few of the places that have found research climate.

Building more housing, building more market rate, building more affordable housing reduces rents.

Even if the new units are expensive, what happens is that affluent people fill those units instead of competing with people for existing units and sort of losing and playing a game of musical chairs.

A previous speaker cited, for example, Yona Free Mark.

But you own a free mark specifically at a follow-up to a study was asked: does building new housing cause increases in prices?

And he specifically said, no, it doesn't.

In fact, almost all of the research on the influence of housing supply and housing affordability suggests that increased housing supply improves affordability.

So please, for the sake of my family and the families like it, support this plan.

Let's build more housing.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Kent.

It's an honor to speak in front of you, President So, Commission, Rachel Tanner, and Director, Dennis Phillips.

It's an honor to be here.

You guys are on the front lines of democracy and abundance.

You hold the power to unleash the potential of San Francisco.

Imagine, we already have everything else.

We're the thought leaders, the technology leaders, the weather, we have really good pho.

Imagine if we also led in housing, we'd be unstoppable.

The only tiny little thing I want to ask for is please, please, please don't let this uh up zoning, this uh family zoning plan get watered down and become less relevant because y'all know the state is looking at us.

And if this plan gets watered down and not as effective as it could be, it's gonna become useless because they're just gonna replace it with what they want.

Thank you.

Thank you for your courage.

I know this is tough.

I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.

Thank you, thank you, abundance, thank you.

It's gonna be hard to follow up.

Hi, commissioners.

My name is James One, and I'm here to support the mayoral's family zoning map.

I'm a native of San Francisco and I've lived in District 7 my entire life where I still reside.

Since high school, I've seen many of my friends, really good friends of mine, leave San Francisco as they've been priced out of the city.

Of my friends, including myself who remain in San Francisco, we either live at home with our parents or with five roommates, despite making what many Americans would consider a good salary.

We need more housing, and the West side needs to do its part to build it.

For far too long, we have prioritized the character of a neighborhood, the view of a park, and the facade of the building over the economic future and stability of the city's children.

I really do want to take this time to thank uh the planning department and the mayor for all of your hard work, and I do hope that especially given the fact that the state of California a few hours ago gave you a preliminary approval that this plan is not watered down and voted in unanimously.

Thank you so much for your time.

Hi, my name is Charlie.

Um I live in District 6.

Um, I wanted to give my strong, strong support uh for the family zoning plan.

Um, and also thank everyone for being here and all the work that you've been doing developing this and reaching out to the community for years.

I think the first meeting I went to about this was like three years ago at this point.

Um I'm here because uh my partner who's just spoken, I uh dream of starting in a family in the city, um, but we really don't know how the math is gonna work out.

Um, and the biggest piece of that is housing, especially for family-sized apartments.

And it's not just me.

If we can somehow do it, I still wonder about where our future kids school teachers uh going to be.

Are they gonna be able to live in the city or child care workers or anybody else who makes a city work?

Um, and what about my kids themselves?

Like, will they be able to not just survive here but thrive, or will they be priced out because we've made it so hard to build enough housing for years and years and years.

Um, I've heard a lot of fear mongering, especially from from wealthy west side homeowners, but I want to call out there's so many things to want about this.

More housing would mean more affordability along the across the board.

We've seen in cities that have zone for more housing, places like Minneapolis, Denver, Austin, that rents have dropped year over year, Seattle as well.

It would mean more ridership for Muni at a time when that organization is struggling.

More tax revenue, more customers for small businesses.

SF could continue to be a haven for queer people.

It's sort of an empty promise when we say we're very welcoming, but it costs you have to be very, very rich to be able to rent here.

And then lastly, I'm very concerned about the fact that California is projected to lose four electoral votes in 2030 due to so many people being priced out.

And this is a chance that San Francisco can do to help stem that loss as well.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, commissioners.

Let's talk communication.

I'm Rommel Schmaltz and I've lived in uh and had businesses in North Beach for 20 years, and I oppose this plan and request a continuance because of the following reasons.

Even though our already crazy dense district wasn't in the housing element of 2022, as soon as he was elected in January, or took office in January, Supervisor Souter, development developer dependent Scott Wieners, acolyte, no less, not only put us all over the map, he volunteered away our waterfront, everybody's waterfront, with zero communication.

After seven months, his first meeting with us was on July 21st, and he tried to escape right away with I promised my wife I'd be home by 7:30.

And 250 of his constituents felt really abandoned.

So we're having problems.

He's not listening to or talking or taking us seriously, but he should, and he should ask District 4 if we're serious.

He's too stumped swamped to talk it out at a town hall, but he has plenty of time for Instagramming, pop-up wiener stands, and slurping flavored sodas.

So I invite Danny to come play with us at the camp and with the camera and shoot some killer PR videos of the many small businesses that will shutter forever because of his map, and the San Franciscans who exist now will certainly lose in this plan.

They're gonna lose their roots, they're gonna lose their homes.

Where are they supposed to go?

And you know this is the case, this is always the case.

So my sincere invitation to our supervisors to meet with us and hammer out a compromise, and my sincere request to you is to continue this hearing.

And Danny and the mayor asked for some for the same courtesy for our historic district when we were trying to um to have that passed.

They asked for more time.

Well, we haven't had any time yet.

These these maps have just been coming out, and it's a we need to talk about this.

So we demand to be heard, and we ask you to please give us some time to talk about this.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Um, thank you for hearing me.

Um, I am Sarah Cruz, I live in the Richmond district.

Um, my parents were both Californians and had to both leave because they could not afford to live in California.

I am able to live here because I moved back in the middle of the pandemic and rent had gone down.

And I live in rent control.

If I lose my rent control, I am an educator.

I will not be able to live in the city.

Prior to moving here, I lived in Portland, Oregon for 10 years.

Portland had an upzoning similar to this.

It did pass.

It did not make Portland more affordable.

It made Portland unaffordable.

It made rent unaffordable.

It pushed out communities of color, it pushed out artists, it pushed out teachers.

It became a tech haven.

We already have seen this happen in San Francisco with Mayor Lee and the tax breaks that tech companies got.

Um housing costs increase, homelessness has increased in Portland.

The homelessness rate from the year 2015 has gone up 65%.

26% alone between 2024 and 2025.

Pushing through development that gives tax that gives developers tax breaks and incentivizes selling small building to developers is not going to make the city more affordable for anyone.

I was speaking outside to Sean from Joe's.

Ice cream on Geary, who is a small business owner who could not be here because he had to go back to work.

The landlord sold the building that his business is in two developers.

It is being torn down and redeveloped, and will be three years before he can reestablish his business, and he also does not have the funds of 300 to 500,000 it takes to close a business, reopen it, and be closed for that duration of time.

I urgently ask you to reconsider this.

Um please consider a continuance.

There is not enough of the public, and the Yimbees are touting democracy.

If this is a true democracy, thank you.

It should go to a public vote.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Pat Huey.

I live in the Haight.

I've lived in San Francisco for 40 years.

I urge you to vote no on this plan.

I support affordable housing, but it must be carefully planned, and there's no evidence that this plan is being carefully planned.

There's no detailed plan for infrastructure details such as such as described, and certainly such as described earlier, and certainly no concern for historic preservation.

Most of the units are going to be one bedrooms or studios.

I don't see, or and there's definitely no parking.

I don't see how that's going to be for families.

The upzone building at Irving in 26th is being built on toxic landfill.

I have no idea how that was allowed, but that was allowed.

These buildings will only benefit wealthy investors.

I've also heard that one of you, one of you, and I hope this is not true, that one of you was bragging that you have not even read the plan, but you're gonna go ahead and improve it anyway, because that's what Sacramento wants.

And if there's nothing more frightening, it's being in the care of a puppet.

I urge you to vote no.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's James Osman.

Um the first thing I like to do is thank you, commissioners, for giving me a chance to speak.

Um I really appreciate all your service to San Francisco.

I mean, what you're doing today is truly heroic, and um I just you know, I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Um I'm speaking in favor of the mayor's family zoning plan.

Um I moved here in 1993.

Uh I'm bisexual.

Uh I felt very unwelcome in the world, and this was a refuge for me, right?

Um this is a place where I could be myself, and I could love who I loved.

Um we're not a refuge for people like me.

We're not a refuse for young queer people anymore.

It's because we priced ourselves out of it, right?

People want to come here, and we've the NIMBY's have stopped us from building housing.

They've stopped it for 50 years, right?

Finally, things are starting to change.

Um, you know, I look at transgender people in this country.

This is still the best place in the world to be if you're transgender.

And we have not been able to open our doors or our hearts for them.

So I urge you to vote yes on this.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Julian Ravenport.

I'm a lifelong San Franciscan, I'm a district seven resident, and I'm a college student.

I rise today in strong support of this plan.

I'm here because I'm tired of watching my friends leave.

I'm tired of looking at the salaries for entry-level jobs and then looking at Zillow and realizing that it's just not going to be able to work, and I'm tired of housing moving at a snail's place pace one lot at a time, and each time with immense difficulty.

To those who worry about neighborhood character, I ask, what character is there in neighborhood where businesses close because they can't hire workers, where schools close because teachers and families are priced out?

Because this is where the status quo has led us and will continue to lead us if action is not taken.

This plan is a principled effective step towards repairing the crisis of affordability in the city, and I urge adoption.

Thank you so much.

Hello, Commissioners.

As a district three resident, I'm concerned that the northeast section of the city was added to the plan without its significant impacts being studied in the final EIR.

Most District 3 residents don't even know about the recent 650% increase in upzone units in District 3, many of which are in priority equity areas.

It's impossible for those who do know about the plan to keep track of it with almost daily changes to the maps to the plan.

And I can imagine how difficult it is for you, Commissioners, to keep track and follow these dramatic changes and how they would affect existing residential and commercial tenants, infrastructure, historic resources, open space, etc.

This plan can be improved, and you need to know exactly what it is you're voting for.

For these reasons, I ask that you continue this item for further study and outreach.

And I know there were many other people who wanted to speak on this issue.

Um, but they have had to leave because the line is too long and it's taken too long.

So they have not had a chance to have their voices heard.

So I do urge you to continue this item.

Thank you.

Hello, Commissioners.

Um, my name is Andy Katz, and I'm a lifelong resident of North Beach, and I come here to oppose this massive upzoning plan.

The YIMBE's and the developers pushing this so-called mislabeled family plan are doing so even though it does not include much affordable housing or housing actually under rent control.

Our supervisor Danny Sauter came to one public meeting in our district about this issue.

There was no outreach.

People like me who've lived here my whole life.

Please do your job and protect our city from this scam of a plan.

This agenda item needs to be continued to be considered carefully.

It should not be treated as a political football.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Jennifer Gosslin.

I'm a District 2 homeowner, and I have lived in the city for 29 years, and my husband, a teacher, and I have raised our family here.

I fully support increasing housing.

I understand that every urban area in California is mandated to do so.

That said, how we do this matters.

As others have noted, the specifics for each location need to be studied further.

I am speaking today to respectfully ask that the Commission delay the plan until more review has been done with regard to each specific location.

Specifically, on 300 Lake Street, there has been no communication on the due diligence of the best use of the property accompanying the zoning recommendation.

Despite what was communicated in the FAQs on the family plan page, this residential neighborhood street is being zoned similarly to Geary, a major transit corridor.

When concerns were raised about the 80-foot five 85-foot height in April or May of this year.

Assurance was given that the conditions of the site would be carefully studied before a final decision was made.

No information has been forthcoming.

Specifically, these issues are proposed setbacks.

The current setback is 30 to 40 feet.

The proposed zoning change would allow construction just five feet from the property long, which is more or less this amount of distance.

This is completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood.

It's a large plot where lots of housing can be constructed, but not like this.

It is not clear whether the density bonus provisions would allow structures to exceed even the 85 feet and the 50-foot height limits.

I understand this would be conceivable along major traffic corridors such as Geary Van Esser Market, but like Lake Street on Lake Street, it's like dropping a office building in the middle of the middle of a residential neighborhood.

Within a 4085-foot structure and a five-foot setback, there's potential for significant increase in population to the area.

Hello, Commissioners.

Um 47 years.

But this bill, as applied to San Francisco, will reduce the stock and production of affordable housing.

The city is already filled with market rate housing towers that are vacant most of the year, most of the time.

People do not want to live in those towers.

Certainly not at the unaffordable rents that they are all offered at.

This is a national issue.

I know that you feel in the hot seat both from the state and the nation on this.

This will be in voters' minds.

Thank you, will be your time.

The nation is watching.

Please don't sell out the public good so cheaply.

Please think about this and continue.

Good evening.

My name is Daniel Marshall, and I oppose the upzoning.

I've lived in North Beach since uh 1990.

I asked for continuance until the 18th.

Some residents had to leave for work and could not be here tonight or this afternoon to speak.

You do not need to vote tonight.

The Democrats, the nation is watching.

Do not sell out the public interest without securing real affordable housing.

If this zoning creates so much new housing, why is there no guarantee that displaced tenants can return to their prior location?

The law offers no guarantee into this and to the same location.

We already have a city full of empty luxury units sitting vacant most of the year.

Residents of luxury units depend on service workers who cannot afford to live here.

Every additional luxury unit only deepens the affordability crisis for all.

It is the right thing to do.

Please do not rush this matter.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Gabriel Keys Powell, and as a lifelong resident and student, I am in huge support of the family zoning plan.

My whole life, my generation has washed as the city has failed to properly address the housing crisis that plagues our city.

We have grown up under the threat of displacement, losing friends and classmates as the city has grown more and more unaffordable.

Well, I do not believe that the family zoning plan will fix our housing problem all in one go.

I greatly admire the boldness of this plan coming from a city that so far has let me and my generation down.

Also, as a college student currently studying room planning, I admire the thoughtfulness with which this plan has been created.

I truly believe that this plan will create the more vibrant, equitable, and affordable San Francisco than my generation has long been promised.

Thank you.

One of my greatest joys as an organizer is working with other young people to fight for a better world.

I recently asked a 20-year-old native San Franciscan from Bernal Heights.

What would you say to the adults in the room if you could just scream at them about housing?

What do we need to hear?

His response broke my heart.

With his whole chest, he said, how are we okay with the fact that he and his friends won't be able to grow old tier?

How are so many of his classmates in SF public schools homeless and everyone knew it and just accepted it?

His whole life, he's listened to adults bicker about whether we really need to build more housing.

Adults who share conspiracies about a housing density boogeyman and scapegoat working people, our neighbors, our community who are being priced out before our very eyes.

And in the meantime, while we failed to take meaningful action, he's grown up in a city with skyrocketing homelessness and record-setting economic inequality.

In a country being led by a fascist dictator while his neighbors are being snatched up by ice.

How can we look our youth in the eyes and argue that building facades and shadows matter more than our community?

That neighborhood character matters more than the character of our neighborhood.

How can we tell them that letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is more righteous than their dreams of simply growing old in their hometown?

Are those really our San Francisco values?

I'm proud to support the family zoning plan.

This plan is one step forward.

It is not everything.

We need real avenues for affordable housing financing and protections for tenants and small business.

And honestly, this plan doesn't go far enough.

It doesn't include our neighborhood in Bernal Heights, which ranks last in housing production across the city and has built just seven, seven units of affordable housing in 20 years.

That's because 75% of Bernal Heights is still covered by exclusionary zoning, which everyone from Zora Mamdani to Joe Biden agrees has systemically rigged our neighborhoods.

But I know a better world is possible for our youth and for all of us.

Today say yes to this incremental plan.

And when I'm back in the future asking you to rezone my neighborhood in Bernal Heights, say yes to finally correcting our racist legacy of exclusionary zoning.

Thank you.

Hi there.

Uh oh.

Hello.

Um my name is Lisa Lugi.

And I'm a resident of the inner richmond.

Um I live oops, I just lost my notes.

Um, I live right by, I live adjacent to the St.

Anne's parcel at 300 Lake, and I'm here to express my opposition to the proposal.

I feel the new height limits are just absolutely ridiculous.

Um, currently, that neighborhood, the entire Lake Street, doesn't have a building with the possible exception of uh of Temple Emmanuel that's over 40 feet high, the entire Lake Street.

The proposal is uh to upzone the site to allow for eighty-five foot buildings or or a building.

I just think that's completely insensitive and unnecessary.

It's a huge site with many opportunities for development that could be more sensitive to the neighborhood, and I should say many opportunities for densification.

While densification may be a good thing, I just don't think this is the right way to go about it.

I think the plan needs more study.

I think we as neighbors need to know how we're going to be affected by possible 80 foot um 85 foot buildings.

Um will, for example, there be setbacks.

Will we have will the mid-block green space be encouraged and other such questions?

So I urge you to, and furthermore, we need more communication as a neighborhood and more from the planning department.

We didn't receive notice at this hearing, and I think we were all supposed to get that in the mail.

Um, and in addition, we need we'd like more input from our neighborhood.

So please don't please delay the vote.

Um, thank you very much.

Um hi everyone, I'm Sarah Rogers with District 9 Neighbors for Housing.

Um we're here to strongly support the family zoning plan.

And while we hope that Vernon Heights can be included in a future rezoning, we think that this plan is well designed and a crucial step forward for our city.

Um in 1978, the planning commission approved the disastrous downzoning that removed 180,000 units or one third of the city's um capacity for housing and banned apartments from wide swaths of the city where they had previously been allowed.

The city's own environmental impact report predicted that the downzoning would cause housing prices to rise, and this is a quote affect the low and moderate income groups more than any other group.

Community organizations and supervisors serving low and moderate income residents predicted the same thing.

Nevertheless, the planning commission at that time struck the EIR's warning from the resolution.

But removing a sentence from the written record couldn't prevent the results.

Those warnings are exactly what happened with low and moderate income residents priced out of San Francisco.

The 1978 downzoning created a legacy of harm.

The family zoning plan is a long overdue repair of that calamitous policy decision.

We have an opportunity now to start fixing the self-inflicted wound and to restore our city's welcoming character.

More neighbors, especially in areas that have built little housing, will support stronger communities, small businesses, schools, public safety, and the vibrancy and resilience of the city as a whole.

More types of housing will ensure our city has room for neighbors of every background and life stage and will allow people to stay in their communities over time.

We strongly urge you to approve this plan, and we deeply appreciate your time and your work on this.

Thank you.

My name is Philip Raffle.

I'm a resident of District 8 in Noe Valley.

I implore the board to pass this housing element and the zoning plan with haste.

This plan is a break from near from decades of failure that has brought the city to unaffordability and homelessness and people of lower income strata is being priced out.

I'm from Marin County.

I have one word for that.

More.

More housing in Marin, more housing in San Francisco.

This build must we must break away from the failures of the past where we treated this city as a museum and apartments as monuments.

Historical districts are not meant to be in Amber, and neighborhoods are about people.

This housing element, furthermore, will enable carpenters, operating engineers and laborers of all kinds to find work that will allow them to live in the city instead of having to commute from two hours away.

It'll also evolve many skilled tradesmen to become developers themselves, increasing the pool of competition and bringing down prices.

The failure to pass this bill will be catastrophic.

Not only because of state control being implemented if we saw if we failed to do so, but because more people leaving the city and moving to states is ceding our power away as a state at the national level.

That would be suicide.

Thank you.

Hello, commissioners.

My name is Christian Jung, and live in North Beach, been there for thirty-three years now.

And there's a building at my corner, about 70 yards away.

They want to probably make this a 10-story building.

Well, that's not possible.

And it's been standing empty for seven years.

Now the question is, how many more years are we gonna be trying to build this and make it happen?

So will there be displacement of the people living there because of constructions happening, or there will be like like no parking at all because of construction trucks?

Because I lived over, I worked for Virgin Megastore when they were building the buildings right across the street, and there was construction all the time, no parking for anyone.

So I'm not saying, hey, affordable housing, yes, that'd be a good thing, but we have over 70,000 units available to human beings.

Right now that could live in San Francisco.

There's a lot of empty buildings in the financial district.

Sure, you might have to rezone it and change it, but no one's addressing that issue.

So, hey, sure it'd be great to have maybe some people work in the city from other cities and displacement, but other cities in the world that we all know of have been commuting from Sacramento to the peninsula for their jobs because hey, it's pays a lot of money to be working in tech.

So do we really need that many more people to live in San Francisco?

Do we really want to go up and be at an 850,000, 900,000, one million thousand city?

And no one's addressing the fact that hey, this is an earthquake city.

I moved here in '93.

We lived here very affordably because everyone was still thinking earthquake.

Oh, I'm not gonna live in San Francisco.

The marina people were starting to move to finally after four years of it being reconstructed.

But uh a lot of people forget, hey, this is an earthquake city.

We want to build all these tall buildings, they're way ahead of a lot.

No one's everyone thinks of the super architect, but hey, we have a building here that's been collapsing-the leaning tower.

They finally figured out to figure to repair it, but it's taken them six years, so that's a long time.

Thank you.

Hi y'all.

Um, my name is Lila Holzman, and I am speaking in support of the family zoning plan.

I've lived in San Francisco for about a decade and was lucky enough to become a homeowner a couple years ago in District 5 after many years in North Beach.

As a citizen who's worked my whole career in climate change and social impact at a national and global level, I'm also very concerned about my own city's ability to tackle issues like climate change and of course homelessness.

The fact that we need more homes here should be obvious.

And no plan can solve all problems, but this plan is one step you can help take towards this now.

I support the plan, and I'd like to see our city do even more to combat and prepare for climate change, especially with respect to public transit.

So please approve this item.

And I know you don't exactly have a choice at this moment, but still thank you so much for your time.

Hello, Commission.

My name is Micah.

I'm a resident of Bernal Heights, which I'll note is not part of the upzoning plan, but I wish it was.

And I'm here today to express my approval and my encouragement of the plan.

If you'll allow me to be frank, many of the people I've talked to today who are critical of the upzoning simply do not understand the depth of the housing crisis we're facing.

If you're a homeowner and you bought 20 years ago, you don't get it.

You paid 2005 prices.

And she said when she moved here, she didn't even have a job.

She just made it work.

Right?

Don't laugh, please.

The median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in the city is $3,500.

You say you don't want the city to change, but it's already changed.

These people will tell you that they're pro-housing, just not like this.

Not here, not now.

Maybe next week, maybe another project.

These are the people that will march in the street against Trump's nativist rhetoric, and then turn around and tell you that San Francisco is full.

They'll put up a black lives matter sign in their window, but they won't say anything when actual black people are forced out of that neighborhood.

But commissioners, you're all sharp enough to recognize how slow we've been in the city to build housing and how unaffordable housing has become as a result.

And you have the opportunity today to do one good small thing by passing this plan.

And I'll be the first to say the plan's not perfect.

But doing something is better than nothing.

The displacement is already happening in this city every single day.

I urge you to support this plan for the future of the city, for young people, and for all the people who have already left San Francisco because they couldn't afford it.

Thank you.

Hi, Commissioners.

My name is Mike Hankin.

I'm here with D9 Neighbors for Housing.

And I'm an SF homeowner and a lifelong Californian.

My wife and I are raising a family here, and I'm asking you to enthusiastically pass this crucial step towards a functional, equitable future for our city.

Freezing housing will not preserve our city.

We're seeing that it will drain it, it will continue to drain it of life, of youth, and of vibrancy.

I've spent my whole life watching friends and family forced out of our cities, pulled from their communities, and denied opportunities.

We need the expanded housing stock encouraged by this plan.

We need it to help prevent dissolution of our existing San Francisco communities.

We needed to welcome those fleeing persecution, and we needed to bring those and bring in those seeking economic opportunity.

Instead of doing that, California is hemorrhaging population to Texas and Florida, where women's bodies are policed and climate change is ignored.

We've made it nearly impossible to build here for the past 50 years.

We're seeing the results.

We need a new approach.

And this family zoning plan is a great first step.

One thing I would ask is that you take seriously both the issues of small business displacement and the issues of amazing small businesses dying off for lack of customers.

That's something that plagues my neighborhood.

And I'd ask you to do so by funding a small business relocation support from sources other than new housing development, which is not something that we should be disincentivizing to protect our small businesses.

So again, asking you to please pass this and uh to please include Bernal or at least consider it for a follow-up.

So uh thank you very much.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Eric Munsing, District 8, um, here both on behalf of myself and on behalf of the DeBos Triangle Neighborhood Association.

Um, on behalf of myself, I want to say I uh vehemently urge you to pass this for all of the friends of mine who can't be here because they've had to move out of the San Francisco, out of the bay, or out of California to be able to raise friends, uh raise family, and then also as um uh resident and neighbor in the Castro, on behalf of the small businesses who can't find workers to fill their shops and their uh restaurants, but on the weekends we see the Castro flooded with young, queer, vibrant folks from as far as Stockton and Salinas who would love to live here in the city, but we haven't built the housing to allow them to come here.

On behalf of Debost Triangle Neighborhood Association, really appreciate the last three years of work and deliberation and thought that you've put into this.

We've gotten this far, we've put in a lot of work.

Let's now get it over the finish line.

Um we as the neighborhood association over the course of the summer did a lot of neighborhood outreach and uh surveyed the neighborhood to the best of our abilities.

We gathered about 150 um feedback points from over 85 residents.

Um, at a high level, I would say those fall into first encouraging the upzoning, supporting it, and potentially even adding more height.

Um, second, that affordability and protecting tenants and businesses against displacement are really critical.

And third, historic preservation is really important for our neighborhood.

So, really um support the current plan, also support the upcoming legislation packages, addressing that.

And then two points that I would like to highlight.

One is that we'd like to see a more equitable upzoning of the western side of the city.

Um, while DeBose Triangle is transit rich, the um Forest Hills and West Portal, which are just one or two stops away, don't see nearly the same height increases, though they have similar size boulevards and streets.

So we'd love to see Geary, West Portal, Taraville, Judah, other transit corridors zone to where their heights are similar to their street widths as we're seeing on Market Street.

Thank you.

I grew up in the East Bay and I moved to the big city to attend law school in 2007.

My housing journey seems impossible for so many now.

First, I lived in student housing over in Mission Bay.

Then I shared an apartment with several roommates.

Later I moved into a small studio where for years and years I saved and saved until I was finally able to afford a duplex with my sister, which afforded me the opportunity to be close by my nephew and a present aunt.

Today I live with my own family in a single family home in District 7, which affords enough space for my parents to live with me as they reach their 80s.

Each of these homes, different sizes, different arrangements, gave me the ability to stay in San Francisco through the different chapters of my life.

San Francisco Family Zoning Plan is about to is about making sure that people at every stage, students, new professionals, growing families, multi-generational households, have housing options that fit their needs.

This plan recognizes that stable housing isn't a one size fits all.

It's expanding opportunities for duplexes, fourplexes, multi-unit buildings, and family-sized homes.

We are opening doors for residents across all income levels.

We know that the cost of uh living here has pushed many families out, uh, case in point, those folks I started law school with in 2007.

Every single one of them has left as their families expanded, and I'm the only one who's still here.

Family zoning is a tool to create more homes, more choices, and a fair system so people who want to build their lives here, whether they're raising kids, caring for parents, or just starting out, can do so.

My story shows how flexible housing options can make it possible to stay rooted in San Francisco.

This plan will help others write their own stories here.

I strongly encourage you to pass the family zoning plan so San Francisco can remain a place where families of all shapes and sizes can thrive.

Thank you so much.

Madam President, Commissioners, Director, Kathleen Courtney, Russian Hill Community Association, District 3.

I'm here to speak in defense of alleys.

There are 30 alleys within a 15-minute walk from my house.

These alleys are between 10 and 22 feet wide.

The homes on these alleys are one-story flats or two-story flats that were built shortly after the 1906 earthquake.

The current plan calls for six-story buildings to be built on these alleys.

That is unbelievable.

It is as if someone took a yellow magic marker and just marked up our area.

The lack of nuance is inordinately disturbing.

This is a situation that needs to be addressed before this plan is approved.

We all know there are a lot of questions.

We've got a lot of other questions about the proposed plan.

But really, given my area, I speak in defense of alleys and urge you to take a more critical look at what the planning, the upzoning plan calls for in this area.

I also urge you to take the time to really look at the other anomalies.

Thank you for your time.

This is not what democracy looks like.

This is not a representative sample of people.

This is a room full of people who had one more time, please.

This is not what democracy looks like.

This is a room full of people who had the privilege and time to show up at a meeting on a weekday at 1 p.m.

and then wait several hours in line.

This is a group of special interests.

If you want democracy and you're scared of the fear mongering that's happened behind me, put this to a ballot.

Put this to vote.

That is what democracy looks like.

This city could be denser.

I have been to Paris before.

Paris is about 41 square miles.

You could fit the entirety of Paris inside of San Francisco, and there would still be room for more San Francisco.

Yet San Francisco has less than half the population of Paris.

Yes, Paris has many six-story tall buildings in it, and people love to visit Paris.

It's one of the most popular destinations in the entire world.

We could make San Francisco better, and I think this legislation is a start to improving San Francisco to undo the effects of exclusive zoning that were invented to exclude racial minorities from this city and from the nice neighborhoods in this country.

Let's change.

Good morning.

Oh no, that's not right.

Good afternoon.

I'm Julie Fisher, a resident of San Francisco and a member of SCIU 2015.

On behalf of the nearly 30,000 in-home support service providers, as well as the members of community to whom they provide care, it's critical to ensure that any plan to create affordable housing in San Francisco factor in the direct impacts for the quality and future of care for all San Franciscans.

We're all familiar with the stats that say how fast the aging population is increasing, and I'd also like to know that to say that that includes people who have developed disabilities, need care, and are best served in their homes.

Specifically, those that speak to boosting affordable family housing, meaningful tenant protections, and protecting the vulnerable populations.

How we develop housing is important to avoiding negative impacts to the delivery of care in our county and a future of care that needs to be available to all who need it.

The financial eligibility requirement for IHSS recipients to this program rest at no more than 138% of the federal poverty level.

So I know you can do the math and why this is a problem.

How are we going to keep the caregivers and the people they take care of here?

We're calling on all elected leaders to center care in any and all considerations of how we go about solving the housing crisis.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Part of the job of being a commissioner is that you get tortured before you take a vote.

This is your torture.

We know you're gonna pass this.

I'm Kim Tavallone.

I'm the executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council.

Labor Council took an opposition position to this zoning measure.