Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, October 9th, 2025.

When we reach the item you are 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 up to three minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At this time, I'd like to take roll.

Commission president so that Moore here Commissioner Braun, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner Imperial, and Commissioner McGarry.

We expect Commissioner Williams to be absent today.

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

Item one, case number 2024, hyphen 008383 C UA at 394 Naples Avenue, conditional use authorization at the time of issuance.

This was proposed for continuance to October 16th.

It is now being proposed for continu for an indefinite continuance.

Item two, case number 2025, hyphen zero zero zero nine five six CU818018th Street.

Is proposed for an indefinite continuance.

Further commissioners under your discretionary review calendar.

Item 13.

Case number 2024, hyphen 011548 DRP, hyphen zero two for the property at 2867 Green Street.

Discretionary review is proposed for continuance to November 6th, 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.

Again, you need to come forward.

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

Commissioner Brown.

Move to continue items one, two, three, and thirteen as proposed.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to continue items as proposed.

Commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Williams.

Excuse me.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President So.

Aye.

So move Commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously six to zero.

Placing us under your consent calendar.

All matters listed here under constituted 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 4, case number 2025, hyphen 002761 C UA 3360 Gary Boulevard, conditional use authorization, and item five, case number 2025, 005948 CUA at 3407 California Street, conditional use authorization.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission and request that either of these two consent calendar items be pulled off of consent and be heard under the regular calendar today or at future hearing.

Need to come forward, seeing none.

Public comment is closed, and your consent calendar is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Vice President Moore.

Move to approve.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to approve items four and five on consent.

Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commission President So.

Aye.

So move Commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously six to zero.

Commission matters item six, the land acknowledgement.

Okay.

I will.

I'll read that today.

Uh the commission acknowledged that we are in the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatush Aloney, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.

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

As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on the traditional homeland.

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

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Yeah, item seven, commission comments and questions.

Okay.

Seeing none, we can move on to department matters item eight.

Director's announcements.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Sarah Dennis Phillips, Planning Director.

Um couple of notes on events outside of San Francisco.

Last week, a number of our staff went to the American Planning Association conference in Monterey, learned some great stuff.

Rachel Tanner was one of the keynote speakers.

So proud that our team is continuing their economic development and to try to learn from other cities and other innovators.

I also had a really great opportunity to join 24 other planning directors of the largest cities in the country at the Lincoln Institute in Boston, Cambridge, sorry, smaller city.

And we spent three days together really just sharing the issues, challenges, and strategies that were using, and seeing where there was alignment and differences.

A couple of things I thought I'd share with all of you, particularly on where the synergies were, because it was it was fascinating to me to see the alignment of issues that we're facing from places like San Francisco to places like Louisville, fascinatingly enough.

So a couple of things that you know the number one issue that we talked about as a group was um state preemption in land use issues.

Um it's it is uh not just an issue in California.

I think from a presentation that we had from uh a Harvard professor, um Texas and Florida are actually have stronger state preemptions as states than California does at this point in time.

But almost every state that um was represented in the group is facing similar issues, support challenges where where um mandates are coming from the state level, and and that's impacting how they are able to do their own local land use planning.

So that was that was very, very interesting.

Um the other the other main thread that came up is and and I I put down the words moment of transformational potential.

Um that came up a couple times.

I think at the same time that this commission just heard the family zoning plan and has been working with us through that, you know, challenging um need to enable growth, meet state mandates, and still um listen and work with our local communities, um, that almost every planning director in the room said that they were going through a similar issue right now.

Not all with the state same state mandates, not all with the same numbers, but that that gist of moving forward, how do we move forward as a city that allows growth and how do we do it in a way that listens and works with our constituents was a big one as well.

And then the third issue that was shared across the group, it is fascinating because they all align with ours, was um the idea of fixing permitting.

Number one thing that everyone was talking about, um, different ways.

Um I actually met three different um uh planning departments who had recently switched to open gov, which is the contractor that our um permit center has recently signed a contract with, so made some great contacts there as there, you know, they've already made a transition that we're looking at, and and people felt really great about that system.

But the idea of fixing permitting, doing it better, doing it cleaner, being more responsive to applicants was also a huge thread.

Um a couple other things that were um, you know, I don't know, less positive and less universal, but but really interesting of note.

Many cities were moving away from area plans and specific plans.

They really felt that um not only, I think it was framed as you know, doing area plans was a bit of a planning trend 25 years ago.

Many of those are aged, and that they felt that they often prioritize certain constituents and didn't acknowledge shared issues across the city.

So that was not something we stated, but was something I heard across the event, which was very interesting.

Um we also heard, and this is really sad, a number of the cities mentioned that their equity work had been gutted recently, not just by words but by budget.

Um I and and I took that to heart.

I think that is something that we're committed not to doing here in San Francisco, and and we're really working towards that.

But it was it was sad to hear how many people felt that it's been a loss that they felt over recent years.

Um the last thing to mention, I think we we heard we we did share pilots and strategies.

There were a number of strategies, particularly toward missile missing middle housing, and um bringing forward ADUs, um, incentivizing ADUs, uh not only as a way of expanding housing, but as a path to wealth building for homeowners and finding out different economic strategies and ways the city or third parties could partner with lending to help homeowners, particularly lower income homeowners, build wealth on their property.

So those were some interesting things we heard as well.

So with that, I don't think there's much else to report.

That's great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

If there are no questions for the director, we can move on to item nine, review of past events with the board of supervisors.

There is no report from the Board of Appeals and the Historic Preservation Commission did not meet yesterday.

Good afternoon, Commissioners Aaron Starr, manager of legislative affairs.

Um, at the land use committee this week, the committee considered uh supervisor Connie Chan's ordinance permitting outdoor hand washing, vacuuming, and detailing of automobiles in the Geary neighborhood commercial district.

Commissioners, you heard this out on September 18th and voted to approve with modifications.

That modification was to modify the ordinance so that any automotive service station, regardless of zoning, is allowed to have an outdoor hand washing, vacuuming, and detailing of um as an accessory use.

At the land use hearing, there was no public comment and no significant comments from the committee members.

Supervisor Connie Chan did request that part of the commission's recommendation be added to the ordinance.

Instead of the change only applying to one business, um, the accessory use provision would be allowed for any automobile service station within the Geary Street in CD, however, not citywide.

The committee voted to in voted in the affirmative to amend the ordinance and then unanimously sent the item to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Next, the committee considered Supervisor Sauter's ordinance consolidating the North Beach special use district and neighborhood commercial district and expanding allowable uses and use size limits in certain zoning districts.

Commissioners, you heard this item on September 25th and recommended approval with modifications.

The modifications included various amendments, mainly proposed by the supervisor.

At the committee hearing, Supervisor Sauter introduced the ordinance citing the importance of removing barriers to bring more flexibility to support businesses in district three.

There was a robust public comment during the hearing.

There are close to 20 comments in support of the proposed ordinance, including but not limited to Discover Polk, North Beach Neighbors, Housing Action Coalition, and local business owners and residents.

Additionally, there was um almost a dozen public commenters opposing the proposed ordinance, including but not limited to Jackson Square Historic Association, Telegraph Hill Dwellers, and North Beach Tenants Association.

Supervisor Mahmood inquired about some of the reasons behind the amendments and if there were specific examples of who would benefit from this ordinance.

Supervisor Cheyenne Chin gave brief remarks expressing concern that the process was moving too fast and that the issues haven't been fully vetted yet.

And Supervisor Melgar acknowledged the disagreement of people's visions for what these NCDs should look like.

But she also emphasized that all cities and neighborhoods change based on environment, life, and circumstances.

After closing remarks from Supervisor Soder, Supervisor Mahmood moved to amend the ordinance as read into the record and to continue the file as amended to October 24th, as the amendments were deemed substantive.

These two motions passed unanimously.

Also this week, the land use committee passed 15 resolutions sponsored by uh Supervisor Mandelman initiating landmark designation on various properties in his district.

This is a rash of designations as response to the upcoming family housing plan and all these resolutions passed unanimously.

Then at the full board this week, the landmark designation for the Ment Mall and Hall at 9157 Mission Street passed its first read.

Development impact fees for residential development projects sponsored by Supervisor Mahmood passed its first read.

And the general plan, planning code, and zoning map amendment for 530 Sansome Street also passed its first read.

That's all I have for you today.

Happy to answer any questions.

Seeing no questions, 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.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, George Shutish.

Um, Sunday, uh, October 12th, will be eight years since the commission approved resolution 20024, which is the residential flat policy.

So happy anniversary.

Um, the resolution uh recognized flats as a quote unit typology that satisfies a number of housing needs, particularly for middle income families, close quote.

That could be for middle income families living in a flat currently or future families.

It's family housing for family zoning.

Um there's a pretty good definition of uh what a flat is in the draft from the mayor that you approved.

Um I may have a little quibble about it, but that's save it for another day.

But the flaw in the mayor's legislation is that it creates a loophole of no CUA if there is an increase in density.

The other flaw is that the limit on interior demolition is too high at 75 percent.

Flats can be in have been de facto merged under that.

Um for flats, there should be no more than 15 percent interior demolition allowing for bath and kitchen remodel.

Otherwise, I think you're in danger of losing the flats.

Um, as I said, this is housing for middle income families in a city of renters, and this typology of housing should not be vulnerable to speculators.

So I think the commission needs to retain their oversight on this recognized housing typology through the CUA process, since this is family zoning.

And since I have a little time, uh I'll just add that you know, many flats have been lost due to Section 317 B7, which is basically gone now, but also due to the demo counts, as uh shown for years with different projects that I've tried to put here.

Um, that have even been before you, because you've had to do a CUA on several projects that discovered to exceed the demo calcs after the fact.

Elizabeth Street, 21st Street, etc.

Um, that's one of the reasons that the commission approved the flat policy to save flats.

So, um I'm a little puzzled by what's going on with the definition of demolition.

I've done some public records requests, and I see there's a lot of stuff back and forth with the staff and members of the public, and I've raised the issue.

The commission's raised the issue several times in the last few years, and um I just don't know what's going on, and I think it's very important that you do something about that.

Um, and I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you very much.

At least clarify it somehow.

Anyway, there's my hundred and fifty words for the minutes.

Thanks a lot.

Last call for general public comment.

Again, you need to come forward.

Seeing none, general public comment is closed.

We can move on to your regular calendar, Commissioners.

Through the chair, we will be calling item 11 for case number 2025, hyphen zero zero seven three five seven pca and MAP.

Out of order for portions of Moraga and Oriega Avenues and Kensington Way Planning Code and Zoning Map amendments.

Good afternoon, Commissioners Aaron Starr, manager of Legislative Affairs.

Uh, the item before you is a rezoning ordinance that would remove portions of two unbuilt streets from the zoning map to create new parcels rezone a city property located at assessors parcel 2042039 to 041 from public open space to RH2 and also rezone parcels located on Kensington Way adjacent to Vasquez Avenue from RH1D 40X to public open space.

The ordinance is sponsored by Supervisor Malcar who is speak here to speak to the item I'll continue with my presentation after her remarks thank you.

Thank you.

Hello Commissioners I hope you're doing well I am the District 7 supervisor Mirna Melgar.

The item before you is uh a land swap and an ensuing rezoning of the land that we are swapping.

This item uh may be familiar to you because this has happened in the past with this particular hill.

Kensington Way is a very narrow street that abuts a uh hill that is made out of a rock called Franciscan chart and someone will tell you more about it who knows more about geology than me but it is an unstable hill that has seen a history of landslides in the past when there's been development and when there hasn't been development.

And even though there are houses built uh in some of the hill now and especially on the top of the hill uh over the last uh few decades the city has acquired that hill most of it is uh under the jurisdiction of the Wreck and Parks department some of it under DPW but it has done that because um it is unstable uh nevertheless uh it is now full of trees and hawks and squirrels um and uh there is an active group of neighbors that has maintained the trails on that hill uh to keep it as open space there is a uh party that own five developable lots on this hill uh who put in um a request to your department to develop them um and I have worked uh with the neighbors down the hill uh who were worried about the landslide potential from the hill to try to identify land that was more suitable to build on uh under the ownership of the city and county of San Francisco to swap for this land.

Now unlike previous swaps that have happened um the the laws around uh disposition of land in our state of California have gotten increasingly more complicated as you know and there are all kinds of rules now that um you know deter municipalities from using this type of mechanism as a mechanism to uh avoid building housing so there are now many more procedures processes and laws that regulate this um in 2023 I uh introduced a resolution at the Board of Supervisors that passed the land use committee and the board unanimously to initiate this process we have identified um a uh plot of land uh on uh between Laguna Honda Boulevard and 8th Avenue pretty close to the original land that is uh more suitable to build on that uh piece of land was uh acceptable to the owner in terms of a swap uh and we started the long process of uh working uh with the state of doing an appraisal of both parcels of land because the law now requires that we have an appraisal within the last six months of this happening um and doing all of the things that needed to be done legally um and one of the things that need to be done legally is that you uh need to rezone the land uh because right now they are paper streets, and we uh are asking that they be zoned for housing uh reflecting the same zoning designation as the parcels around them.

So we're not asking any upzoning, we're just asking for the same zoning, um, so that you know uh that can happen.

So that is essentially what this is.

You will hear from neighbors that about the original uh land on the hill and also neighbors uh from uh the parcels next to the paper streets.

Uh I am asking for your support on this because it meets both goals of preserving land that presents you know a life and safety risk, and we want to preserve it as open space, and it supports the goal of developing housing where it is more appropriate, uh, which is uh, you know, the land that we're swapping.

So um, you know, you will hear more uh from staff about the technical aspects of it, but I am here to answer any questions and to ask for your support.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Supervisor Melgar.

I do need to make a correction for the record regarding the ordinance in your packet.

Um so after a good deal of research, we discovered that the ordinance description of existing zoning is not entirely accurate.

The actual scope of this ordinance is in fact a little more limited.

So specifically parts of parcels on 78th Avenue are already residentially zoned.

Um, however, the resulting zoning will still be, as you see in the ordinance, RH2 and 40x.

I also wanted to make clear that um what is before consideration by this commission is just the rezoning and not the actual land swap agreement.

The rezoning is required as part of landswap deal.

The department recommends approval of the proposed ordinance because it advances key objectives relative to housing production and open space preservation in a balanced and context sensitive manner.

The ordinance facilitates a land exchange that enables modest residential development on underutilized city-owned parcels in a well resourced transit accessible neighborhood while permanently preserving environmentally sensitive hillside lots adjacent to Edge Hill Mountain Park.

The zoning changes effective in the intended future use of the properties are also consistent with the San Francisco General Plan, particularly the housing element and the recreation open space element.

The proposal also meets the exception criteria under the urban design element for street vacations, as it does not negatively impact circulation access or neighborhood character.

Those are all my comments, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we should take public comment.

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

I have handouts, Mr.

Iona, and I also have a presentation.

If you could turn on the projector, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jerry Dratler.

This first slide is an aerial view of the city's undeveloped Noriega Street open space.

It also shows the city's retaining wall and this the large amount of city owned space.

And the obvious question is is Is there a written plan for the development of this space?

The next slide is uh deals with the Board of Supervisors approving a $3.6 million exchange of parcels.

And then I'm calling up that the city retained a right of way, and does the fire department have egress concerns?

I sent the fire department a document request, and they responded they have no um documents.

The question is was the 3.6 million the city spent to acquire lots with unstable soil that are prone to landslide, a prudent use of $3.6 million.

Is there a soils report for the lots?

What is the city's potential financial liability in acquiring the LLC's lots?

And what is the potential community usage of lots with unstable soil that are prone to landslide?

If you look at the picture, I mean I wouldn't be interested in hiking or picnicking on these lots.

I don't think you would be either.

Is the approved parcel SWAT most importantly part of a larger city real estate strategy to promote the construction of affordable single-family residences?

Would the city have realized more value from the city's parcels if they were not part of a parcel swap, or if adjacent city parcels were offered for sale?

Would the city have been interested in acquiring the Kensington Wake LLC parcels for open space if they were not part of a parcel swap?

The purpose of the parcel swap is to encourage residential development.

What experience does Kansai Development Inc.

have in developing affordable housing?

And there's some documents here showing the ownership.

Most importantly, on the next uh slide with the map, you can see there's an adjacent property adjacent to the property that was swapped.

So what's the plan for that?

And lastly, is the CEQA determination from the Board of Supervisors.

Thank you very much.

I uh I'm Elizabeth Mayer, and I'm speaking for CARE, community action to rescue Edge Hill.

We're a neighborhood group that convened in 2019 after public notice of the plan to develop these five lots on Kensington and Vasquez.

And we were worried right off because there's a long history of slope failure when the slope gets dug into, it's actually not inherently particularly unstable.

Uh, and we brought a geologist, Dr.

Burwasser, who can explain to you why this particular kind of bedrock uh erodes when it's exposed to excavation, but there are many slope failures uh that are recorded on Edge Hill because of excavation back to 1952.

The history is in detail on our website, which is rescue the hill.org.

And uh there's also a photo to show the steepness of the lots.

Uh, but because of all this history, uh the neighborhood led by Guapna, our Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association has been trying to keep more development from happening on this steep parts of Edge Hill Mountain like these for about 50 years now, and that's why there's this Edge Hill Mountain open space, which is comprised of lots that were taken by eminent domain and by land swaps.

Uh, and uh that's just uphill from the land that we're talking about today.

Um we have a lot of support for this in the neighborhood, 200 people came down to planning two weeks after that initial notice out of concern.

Uh, and uh 300 people signed a petition to keep it as open space.

We've had 50 neighborhood organizations support that goal.

And uh also the San Francisco Land Use Commission and the San Francisco Housing Coalition, uh, and the Sierra Club.

Um, we think that Supervisor Melgar's proposal, uh proposed legislation furthers the goals of more safely buildable housing and preserving open space, and that it would allow for more dense housing to be built adjacent to current homes rather than less dense housing in the midst of a forested open space on a steep hillside that has failed over and over when it was dug into.

And we hope you'll see it positively.

Thank you very much for listening, and thanks to Supervisor Melgar for making this a priority.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is George Berwasser.

I'm a professional geologist.

Excuse me, I've been practicing in California since 1981.

I'm not going to try to give you the entire history of Edge Hill Mountain.

But I've been working on and off the mountain for a number of decades.

The proposed public open space area on this flank of Edge Hill Mountain is not just another steep hill in a city of hills.

It illustrates important phases of the geologic and structural history of San Francisco and supports a biata that is indigenous to the Franciscan formation.

It's one of the very few space places left in the city where an ordinary pedestrian without hiking boots or climbing gear can look at the geology of the underlying hills.

So it's good, it's a good educational resource.

Much of the formation here is chert and shale.

Chert is a form of silicon like sandstone, except this is like glass.

It's very brittle, it's very fragile.

Shale, as you know, is uh compressible rock that can be eroded very easily, it absorbs water, loses water very quickly.

The layers there are between a few inches and several feet thick.

As I said, it's a hard but brittle rock.

It's compressed, it's crunched, crumbled, crunched.

I like that, uh, and fractured in a series of folds.

Uh, although they're very picturesque, they do resemble uh show you the history of the tectonics of the Pacific Rim area.

So this is uh uh they say it it's actually a very important community resource.

Uh I should mention that uh I've been on a number of uh projects with Wreck and Park, where we were clearing trail and replacing vegetation on Edge Hill Mountain, and there were people there, not just from the neighborhood, but from the rest of the city and from across the bay.

So there are more than just the local neighbors in interested in this.

This is a citywide, in fact, an area-wide issue of concern, and we very much hope that this will go through so that this area can be preserved.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

This is a quick lay explanation, in addition to Dr.

Berwasser.

The hillside is formed, as you've heard, a Franciscan chart bedrock, which is relatively stable when not disturbed, but prone to failure when dug into because layers of shale in the bedrock more rapidly disintegrate when evacuation, when excavation alters water flow, and this can cause large sections of rock to abruptly collapse and slide.

It's particularly an issue where there's been quarrying, which is true on these lots.

And for perspective, they'd be digging 30 feet into the hillside in order to build because it's almost vertical in many places.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is uh Rich Simpson.

I live at 1722 8th Avenue.

Um we're just up from the Moraga Paper Street.

Um I'm here with some neighbors today, and we're a little late to the party in that we uh were just informed about this a few weeks ago.

We didn't have the benefit of two years of engagement with the supervisor.

Um very sympathetic to the Kensington community and their desire to protect their homes and you know the birds and the trees and everything, but um we also have birds and trees and open space.

Um, as to the land swap, you know, it seems that we want to trade one piece of troubled land for another piece of troubled land.

Uh 8th Avenue during the Loma Prieta earthquake uh is it's built, it's a sand hill, and it liquefied.

A lot of the houses were damaged, completely destroyed, and that is the reason that there is a FEMA wall behind the homes.

It's holding that hillside up, so it's difficult to build there as well.

One specific thing to the zoning question, um, is that the neighbors on that on the downslope of 8th Avenue own property that's behind this retaining wall.

We have access to our property that we pay property taxes on via that paper lot, and none of the materials that I've seen is there any consideration to maintain access to those lots.

That's one specific point.

We have lots of other neighbors, they're gonna talk more.

Um, I think about their challenges uh with the hill and the earthquake.

Thank you.

I live at 1798 Avenue.

Uh I'm here to object to the rezoning for the reason I am uh outlining below.

Um first one, I think the USI is really unstable for that new partial that 2042-039.

That's the one that's behind a uh hill between uh Noriega and 7th Avenue.

Um, I had a chance to go down the hill to take a look at what was going on about a couple years ago.

I have some picture to show that the retaining walls footing actually are settling.

The dirt of settling or the sand is settling, and uh you can actually see some area as much as 12 inches that has been settled since the the retaining wall was built.

So my belief is that uh it is unsafe for development unless there's some engineer that's already done that can prove otherwise.

Um I think uh the development would uh compromise the slope sustainability and also uh public safety and also the integrated integrity of the wall.

Um I have I can I have photo, I can submit.

And also there's an enclosure permit that um that uh I obtained when my building was built.

That was my building was earthquake damage in 1989, and uh a new building was built uh uh and uh get uh occupancy permit in 2003.

Um, when before it was final.

Um I also had to get a one-foot by 50 foot uh planting and quosmont permit in front of uh Noriega Street.

Uh, that's 50 feet.

Um that's in front of uh the 2042-041 uh proposed lot.

Uh also my uh gay, the wording gay, that's also 11 feet into this partial that's proposed.

Um improvement on my building, it was all um all inspected and uh approved before I could get a certificate of uh occupancy.

So I can also support all of this uh supporting document and photo.

I'm not sure is that is that how how I'm not sure how would I be able to submit that?

Thank you.

If I have uh materials copies of what I'm about to testify to, I only have four copies, I'm afraid, but for the reading, uh my name is Robert Daniels.

I live about 150 feet away from where the new Moriega lot is proposed to be constructed.

Observation, concern.

There's a proposed planning code section 101 finding number six in the materials regarding preparedness against injury and loss of life in an earthquake.

And is that adequately supported with regard to the so-called city properties that are being exchanged and will be acquired by Kensington?

The proposed recommendation emphasizes the need to protect environmentally sensitive lots in the edge hill area.

I'd agree with that, but the materials do not mention the steep way Moraga and Noriega streets decline, like a cliff edge from the Eighth Avenue Hill Crest down towards 7th Avenue, and as the earlier speakers have noted, the area was and the houses were extensively damaged in the 1989 earthquake, requiring construction of a retaining wall that hopefully will hold them together when, not if, when the next earthquake arrives.

From its geoengineer with regard to the so-called city properties on Morega, Moriaga, Moraga and Noriega.

Have you heard?

Do they say it's safe?

Has the effect of adding of RH240 X structure been investigated?

Might it put an excessive burden on the part of the wall that it has been, if you will, gerrymandered to fit.

Thank you for your comment.

I think your time is out.

Yeah, I also just one more thing.

And it's in the materials here.

That is your thank you.

Why bundled the park?

Hello.

Is it my mic on?

Okay.

My name is Larry Dickey.

I live at 1706 Eighth Avenue, which is next to where there's a house between us and the Moraga lot.

We've lived there since 1989 before the earthquake.

Watched everything over the years.

And I just want to support my neighbors in uh expressing our concern about how the process has gone on this, and that we really learned about this uh, you know, in the last two or three weeks.

Um there are concerns about one access to our property which extends beyond the wall.

Uh I think a previous speaker talked about the fact that there's no at least that hasn't been addressed in the plans.

Um, and also I'm particularly concerned about what about the Noriega property that's on the other side of the wall that uh goes down to um the Gunahanda Boulevard.

Um there is no wall there, and if that is dug out or whatever, what is that gonna do to the stability of the wall uphill?

Um so I I have the same concerns as as my neighbors has really an adequate geologic study been done of uh uh how this is going to affect things.

I can tell you that that hillside is a hundred percent sand.

Uh after the earthquake, they drilled down in front of our house and found they stopped at 150 feet and it was still sand.

So uh there is no bedrock down there.

Um anyway.

Thank you for your consideration.

Good afternoon.

I'm Helene St.

John.

I reside at 217 Kensington Way.

I have letters here that we wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission did receive, along with a newspaper articles that were sent.

Thank you for your time.

Hi, my name is Mariuka now, and I live at 1726 8th Avenue for the last 40 something years.

So we were there for the big earthquake when the foundation of the house is split like that, and we were out of the house for three years in order to stabilize the hill, which we discovered that was a uh sand hill.

Uh the Honorable Nancy Pelosi had to make an appeal to the federal government to get the money because the city and the state didn't have the funds for the retaining wall, and they were very concerned that if we slide down furthermore, it will affect the Seventh Avenue.

So the owners of the houses on Seventh Avenue were totally in involved in all the work we did, was even suggested by a lawyer, uh a professor lawyer from Berkeley, that we have the right to see tools.

Um to what?

To sue the city for approving construction on that hill 70 years ago.

We were disregarded to do that, but the concern is there.

This the hill, it's a sand hill, doesn't have any base of rock.

And we don't we know that was a big geological survey done after the earth earthquake, and you must have it somewhere.

And that uh the hill cannot or the wall cannot take more load.

The stress on that hill.

And on the on the wall, it's calculated.

It ends at the last house at the Moraga Avenue, doesn't continue on the open space or paper or street, whatever it's called.

So there is nothing done for that part of the hill to be sustained.

So I think that it's a big danger for us.

I won't tell you again, three years out of the house, 300,000 to rebuild nine piers into the soil on the sand soil.

So constructing there is a dangerous activity, and I suppose that the city will be liable if anything happens.

Thank you.

We've had this building prior to the earthquake, during the earthquake, and of course, post-earthquake.

I would like to submit this on behalf of my neighbor, also my sister, who cannot attend this meeting.

Uh you've heard all the discussion already, and I'm here to ask for compassion.

This stack of uh papers or the executive summary seems to be compassionate to one person, the owner of Kensington LLC.

I'm asking you to consider compassion for me and the other homeowners on Eighth Avenue, from the 1600 block all the way to the end of 1800 block.

Because we all have our homes on top of that retaining wall.

It's held by the retaining retaining wall.

There are not many of us here present today.

I believe this because they weren't notified.

But however, the Landstwap, the real estate group, did follow California law.

I read that.

But some of us were not notified, and you know, just because you do you follow the law, it's not necessarily the right thing.

And that's where the compassion comes in.

That's why the rest of my neighbors aren't here.

Because I suspect if they knew they would be here joining us.

I'm asking for compassion for the people who were here before, during, and after, like I previously said.

We walked on those broken streets of Eighth Avenue.

We waited for the demolition, we waited for the construction of the retaining wall, and we waited for the construction of our new building.

Some of us have two mortgages, one for the previous building that was destroyed, and the one that was rebuilt later on, and that's why I'm asking for compassion.

I want you to consider that when I built when we built our uh building, we built it with windows on the side of our building because we're adjacent to the paper street.

It was approved 30 years ago, more than 30 years ago.

I have a view of the Golden Gate Tower.

I'm gonna lose it.

I have a sewage line at the very bottom of my property, and it's adjacent to the sewage line that's going to be plugged.

And one of the words was missing about when you plug a sewage line, you're actually abandoning that sewage line.

There's always downstream effects.

If if the engineer doesn't look both upstream and downstream.

That means potentially, because I have the sewage line in my backyard, I could be flooded with wastewater.

Thank you, sir.

That is your time.

Okay.

May I just say one thing?

Last year.

That is your time, sir.

If commissioners have clarifying questions, they'll call you up.

Okay.

If you want to submit that, you can just leave that right there.

Next speaker, please.

That's for 1798 Minute.

I'm Steve Chan.

Thank you.

Thank you for the consideration.

Okay, last call for public comment on this item.

You need to come forward.

Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Vice President Moore.

Uh let me uh say that while I'm interested in uh land swaps that create additional housing.

This particular project as it was described for me as a commissioner, created more work than what I felt I need to spend on it.

The fact that the background of the project was not properly explained, made it almost impossible to fully understand it.

The first thing I was asking myself, do I have a jurisdiction to deal with a land swap?

What is the San Francisco Administrative Code saying?

How are real property transactions being handled?

And so I had to dig deep to figure out what the background was, because the background just was not described in uh the report that is in front of me.

Uh and uh it is just today here in this meeting that I understand the complexity of not only the existing condition for people uphill, the the hill itself, but also even more um urgently the downhill conditions which deal with uh Roma Prieta and consequences which people are still uh affected uh with today.

And it's f I'm really burdened by the lack of having had a full introduction to fully understand this project.

I'm not quite sure why we were not given more detail, but I personally found it very difficult, and I feel not fully informed by technical questions that I would like to see answered uh uh uh in order to opine on it today.

And again, I'm interested in uh the idea of positive land swaps.

Uh a win-win if the technical under chassis for this project wouldn't be as difficult as it is.

So I'm interested to listen to hear what my other fellow commissioners have to say, but I am on the fence on this one.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Brown.

Yes, uh, just you know, the the item as I understand it, just to confirm, you know, the item before us is the planning commission, is about the rezoning of the parcels that are involved in the landslop at Moraga and Norniega.

Um, but I'm gonna back up for a second and just say I I can understand why the concerns exist for Edge Hill.

Um that's an area that I I run on pretty frequently.

There's you know the trail that runs alongside that area, and I've looked into that place before because it's an interesting uh feature in the city, and everyone should go check it out sometime.

But um, but you know, I've seen the history of of collapses that have happened on that hill, and so I understand the concerns that are coming from that.

Um the community who's been interested in seeing development not happening um on the Cousington site.

It is quite a sheer hill right there as well.

Um, for those who came out and raised their concerns uh for the properties at Moraga and Noriega, um I agree also that's a very steep hill, and you have a long and well-informed memory of what's happened at that property in the past.

Um, however, I you know, as I understand it, and from looking at the zoning maps, every other parcel surrounding those two areas that are part of the swap at Norrigan Moraga are all zoned the way that we are going to be that what's before us to potentially rezone them to RH2 and 40X.

Uh you look at the zoning map, everything there is already that except for these properties that the city owns.

Um the we're this action to me is not an action of approving a project.

There is no project before us, it is rezoning.

And so what I'm thinking about is the fact that any anybody who comes forward and proposes a project after this has been rezoned will have to go through the full permitting process.

They will have to submit their geotechnical analysis.

Um I certainly hope it is, you know, still possible to build on that site, given that a lot of folks spoke about how they rebuilt on these properties in conjunction with the retaining wall.

And if if it's a place where you just cannot have something, then I that raises a lot of concern for me about the fact that rebuilding was allowed.

So, you know, I I think that for me, I I just I don't have concerns about the rezoning, but I also want to just put it out there that this is the first step in a process.

It is not a project, and I don't know.

It's possible if somebody comes forward with a project, it might actually be proven to not be feasible to build on the slope.

We'll we'll see if when and if that happens.

But uh I I do support the rezoning, it matches all the other zoning on the surrounding properties.

It seems very reasonable to me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Braun.

Um, yes, it is pretty clear today what it's coming in front of us is asking us to consider the purpose of um looking into rezoning these lots proposed in front of us, and I found this pretty clear uh clear in the packet, and I just want to reiterate today is really for us what's asked for us is to consider the rezoning component of it.

Um with that, um I actually want to take a moment to just thank you, Supervisor Melgart, for spending a lot of time taking on this from what I understood is your predecessors for decades, uh, even prior to Supervisor Yi had also attempted to try to come up with a solution.

So I applaud you working with the community, try to find amicable solutions and don't give up on it.

So thank you for that, and thank you, department staff and everybody to actually try to work it out.

And um, I see the department of the real estate is here too.

So, Sally, thank you for doing that.

Um in general, I'm also supportive of that uh with Commissioner Braun's uh deliberations, but I would like to also listen to what my fellow commissioner has come in.

Uh so Commissioner Imperial.

Thank you, President.

So, and thank you, um, Supervisor Melger.

Um, it seems to me as well, and that um the neighbors on the eight avenue.

Um, I guess that's my question as to what has been the conversation with the eight Avenue neighbors as well.

Has there been any communication with them, or what has been transpired?

Um, so no, there hasn't been the level of engagement with the Eighth Avenue neighbors as I've had with the Edge Hill neighbors, uh, because uh the Edge Hill neighbors had been working uh on this before I was elected supervisor, whereas we identified these parcels as possible swaps only fairly recently.

So I'm as a supervisor moving as fast as I can uh to do this.

So it was, you know, within the last uh few months that we uh nevertheless uh they have been notified.

I have met with some of them.

Let me just say for the disposition of ownership of a property, there is no notification requirement.

It's very different if this was a project that there would be a 3-11 notification and you know, a full disclosure of all this is about ownership.

Uh so you know, we it's not the same requirements, nevertheless.

You know, I um have tried to engage, you know, in in Mike Farron, my office as well.

Um, but you know, once this is done, I just want to point out uh that there are legal requirements for any project in terms of your process, but also the building inspection process.

Uh earthquake codes have changed significantly since the 1980 earthquake.

Um so you know, this uh any project here would have to be code compliant.

But that's not what we're talking about today.

We're talking about just zoning.

Um and the uh swap is not what is being proposed.

That will come to the Board of Supervisors uh at some point if you approve the item today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sir, sir, you're out of order at this moment.

Okay, please.

Thank you, supervisor.

I think um, and you can sit down.

I don't have any more questions.

I think for me, and you know, in um when I it looks um, you know, when we're talking about safety, and I understand, and there has been history of land swaps here in the city, um, that I'm also aware of.

Um, and in terms of the particular land swap on this, um, I'm not really questioning that.

I think it's um just be, you know, the we're it's a commission and there is a particular to speak with the community.

Um I think it's really important as well for the community to be well aware of of the land swap.

Um, and I understand.

I think if anything, my concern is around the surplus land act is because um in terms of surplus land act, you can actually build affordable housing on this if if it's if it's available.

Sure, you can talk about if you want.

Um, but yeah, I'd but again, even that there will need to have some assessment on that and geology study on that.

Um so uh as you just pointed out, uh the surplus lands act now requires us to take a few extra steps for a uh activity just as this one.

Uh the state now requires us to advertise these parcels to nonprofit developers for possible development of affordable housing, which we did twice.

Um and nobody took us up on it because they're single family and you know the RH lots not, you know, suitable for affordable housing development.

Um but that was done.

And in addition to that, a new requirement that is now uh in case that wasn't before is um the requirement for HCD to approve uh this potential swap, which they did.

So uh we did do all those steps already.

Okay, thank you.

Um, yeah, um, you know, in in what it looks like.

I mean, there is a neighbor, the Kensington Way neighbors that are concerned about their safety.

And I also hear about the Eighth Avenue neighbors as well, who's also concerned about their safety as well.

I think for me, um, this is more like how can be the neighbors feel confident in terms of this land swap, um, since this is going to be an RH2.

And I, you know, you um this is zoned for that as well, or the surrounding neighbors are uh are actually zoned for that as well.

Um, so for that reason, but I think in in I mean the neighbors also spoke about geology and safety reasons as well that I think should be heard and should be you know explained to if anything about the process of this.

Um, you know, I mean my concern is like we're giving up the the the city-owned land that can be built for affordable housing, but you know, that it's being turned into an R you know um into an RH2.

I actually that's my main concern, but again, the neighbors are concerned about the safety that they have that um I think they need to have that space as well to bring it up for the next um development that may happen, or perhaps if the city can buy it back from the developer itself.

Um maybe that would be the case, but but yeah, I understand that what is going through on this.

Um I would say it's for me, I find it complicated, but I do you know resonate in the in terms of the reason for safety on the Kensington Way.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner McGarry.

It is complicated, but I spent three hours driving around yesterday.

Uh, and it was complicated to get around Edge Hill and actually get and pinpoint uh all the lots we were talking about, but I did, and I went up Edge Hill and went around it four times.

It's all one way up there.

It's Billy Goat Country, it's beautiful.

Uh but you can clearly see the danger of landslides because it's there, it's just basically it's it's just layer after layer.

So then down to Moraga and uh Noriega.

And this is purely zoning today, and I don't have a problem with that.

I'm for it.

Uh, but on an observation observation down to Moraga, I'm not a geologist, I'm not uh an engineer, but I've worked in construction and there isn't a problem building in modern day construction codes on Moraga or Noriega.

Uh, in fact, you'll actually help the neighbors on both sides.

But on an observation, I couldn't help noticing that all the neighbors on Marraga and Noriega have basically taken the property and they're utilizing it for themselves.

Uh it's landscaped out and it's basically incorporated.

One of them I couldn't help but note 800 eight uh 1,800 eighteenth Avenue on one side, and then the other side is actually four units that totally in have included this into their property, as has uh Moraga down the road as well, but not with the same amount of upkeep.

But on uh Noriega, it's meticulous.

It's big it's like it's part of the building that was built there, uh, which it's not because it's not their property, it's their neighbor's property, and it's a sitter's property.

So I find that weird.

Uh, well, more than a little odd because it's it's not their property, it's the neighbor's property.

Uh, but you wouldn't think that to look at it, you know.

So uh I do not have a problem with this uh today.

Um I get that the neighbors who are utilizing this as their own property would, uh, but it's not their property.

So from a zoo zoning point of view, I don't have a problem with this, and I would make a motion to uh go forward with this.

I can.

Thank you.

And then um before we are ready for the vote, uh, Commissioner Vice President, you have a further comment?

Yes, I do.

Uh Supervisor Melgore.

Uh I have a question for you.

Uh at what point is suitability, buildability, and life safety being addressed.

Is that at the time of a building application, or is it at the time when the city considers doing a launch land swap from one to the other?

You know, I trust that the folks at the department of real estate who were in charge of getting an appraisal to uh you know assess whether this was a comparable piece of land uh that we could swap, knowing the uh goals of the swap, did their their job and their due diligence.

And so I don't, you know, this is sort of above my pay grade, even though as you know, I am a former planning commissioner and a land use geek.

Um I think that you know the fact that it is being proposed for rezoning uh and that the parcels next to these are zoned for this same you know zoning proposal, are you know that that it's adequate for building?

Um now uh whether or not it would support a specific project at the bottom of the hill on Laguna Honda or at the top of the hill, uh I think that would be a question for both you uh and your uh staff, because that's what you're there for, uh, and also the building inspection department, which enforces uh the codes and as you know, has a process.

If there is an issue that is geotechnical, uh the suitability for a parcel to be built.

Um, did you bring somebody from the department of real estate who may be able to opine on that and support one another?

If there is someone here from the department of real estate, it was a little deeper.

Who is probably known to you but a brand new to this job, so welcome.

Okay, thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

I'm Sally Orth, the Director of Real Estate.

Um, and so yes, I can answer any questions you have about the appraisal process.

I actually would like to just restate the question I ask uh Supervisor Melgar, and that is our life safety, building suitability, et cetera, being considered when parcels are being swapped.

So, what the department of real estate was asked to do was to evaluate the uh fair market value of the parcels, which was done through independent appraisals and through the board action related to the land swap exchange was reviewed and approved through prior board action.

I think as been has been discussed here, when you get to the question of of suitability of just of construction is going to be very related to the specific project that would be built upon the property, which isn't yet determined or or before the body.

So I can't speak to anything related to a specific set of conditions for construction at this time.

What the department of real estate looked at was uh the fair market value of the exchange, which was determined to be a fair market value transaction.

This is really good, and I think it's director uh Phillips.

You wanted to have some comment.

Commissioner Moore, I was just also going to attempt to answer your question because I think it is more in plannings purview um than our director of real estate, although I understand your question was related to the land swap.

So um, and I and I think we can put this in parallel with the many rezonings that you see as planning commissioners here.

We um uh outside of CEQA and as as you know, the environment the California Environmental Quality Act, where there are topics that we review under a rezoning.

Buildability is not we cannot and and don't assess buildability as a planning department when we do the rezonings.

We assess it under the California Environmental Quality Act, we do the rezoning, and then the specifics, as I think um Salary stated, thank you, are are examined per project when the project is brought forward through the permitting process.

I'm glad that we had several people answering that question because ultimately I want the neighbors to hear of what is basically in front of us.

Ultimately, the question of buildability or how something is built in an area where left and right and up and down there are indeed houses, so this is not an area where there are no houses at all.

Uh, there comes the issue that any measure, anybody who builds will take has to meet every aspect of one building, a building that can stand on its own, but also takes into consideration how it affects uh people uh up, down, left and right uh in the situation that you are in.

So what it means is that uh as this project potentially moves forward with different or a single application for related houses to be built by the person who is purchasing the house purchasing the lot, the entire questions that you brought today, which are technical and very specific, have to be brought up again because the building will have to meet the difficulties of the circumstance in which the parcels are being developed.

And for that reason, I basically have to move away from asking technical questions which would not be answered at this particular moment, other than what technically is already in uh our package and what the experts on soil spoke about today, which indeed makes it clear that uphill there's a difficult situation where you are and left and right there is also so uh it is basically in the spirit of that that I asked these additional questions, but I as I said earlier uh I am uh interested in the land swap and in the uh uh rezoning uh in in terms of what's in front of us.

Thank you.

Thank you, and I think we're ready to vote.

Very good commissioners.

Uh, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval on that motion, Commissioner Campbell.

Commissioner McGarry, Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

I and Commissioner President.

So I.

So move Commissioners that motion passes unanimously six to zero.

Commissioners, that will place us on item 10 for case number 2025, hyphen zero zero seven three six one PCA inclusionary housing waiver.

And land education and well-resourced neighborhoods.

This is a planning code amendment.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Veronica Flores Planning Department staff.

This next item is the inclusionary housing waiver ordinance introduced by Supervisor Melgar.

So I will invite her to speak on this item and then I will return with the staff presentation.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, I thought she was going to speak before me.

Um, so thank you, commissioners, for hearing this item.

I want to give you a little bit of background of why I introduced it uh first.

Uh, and that is as you know and have heard uh in uh in uh commission meetings before, uh, the mayor has introduced the family zoning plan.

Uh now uh some of my colleagues um are working on amendments to that plan, which is going to come to the land use committee on October 20th.

Uh I have chosen to instead uh introduce separate legislation uh to address all of the concerns that I have with the uh zoning plan that um don't go far enough for me in uh what I think are my constituents, and so um this is one of the pieces of legislation.

I purposely chose not to amend that plan because I didn't want to hold it up, frankly.

Uh we are under very tight timelines from the state uh to uh get that rezoning right, and I know a lot of my colleagues have amendments, and so I wanted to make sure that concurrently I have uh legislation.

Some of it has to do with you, some of it doesn't even touch the planning commission, like for example, the small business fund.

Uh but this does.

And so what uh I was trying to do with the rezoning plan is to ensure that rental housing was built in my district, and the reason for that is that district seven, uh, like most of the west side uh is uh seventy-five percent single family homeowner occupied, and of the 25% that is renter occupied, more than half is in Park Murset in one you know uh development that has its own development agreement.

So uh that presents a problem for us uh because you know, for young people like my daughter who's living in my basement for free, uh, who needs an apartment to be with her boyfriend, uh, there's very little in our neighborhood where she can go.

And for seniors who have now, you know, four or five bedroom homes uh and their kids left 30 years ago if they want to downsize and want to stay in the communities that they love, where they have friends, a church, you know, a community, there's also very little units, housing stock where they can go.

And so I'm afraid under the rezoning plan, what we have seen a lot of on the eastern neighborhoods is condos.

We've seen a lot of condos, and that's great, we need them.

Uh, but we need rental housing, and so this legislation is an attempt for an incentive to build rental housing.

I am a firm believer in rent control.

I think that it has been one of the most useful tools that we have in our toolbox to stabilize communities over time when prices fluctuate.

So this uh legislation is uh option uh to the inclusionary housing obligation that developers have, that instead of doing that, they would from the get-go have all of their units opt into rent control.

What that does from a construction financing perspective is essentially defer that obligation for 20 30 years because rent control departments only become affordable over time.

So I am well aware that we are giving something up from the get-go, but what we're getting is two things.

One is more rent control departments, which we are building, which we are losing every day.

Every day we are losing rent controlled departments because 1979 was the last day that those uh you know were built.

But also we're gaining them potentially on the west side, which has very little rent stock, rental stock, and uh very little rent controlled stock.

So um I have been working with a group of folks um on the west side in my district, but but you know, on the greater sort of uh area to hone a lot of these proposals.

It is not a standalone proposal, as you probably have heard.

I also have uh enhanced infrastructure finances district for affordable housing development.

I have another proposal for uh, you know, uh development transfer of development rights for rent control buildings.

There's a whole bunch of ideas out there.

This is not alone, but I do really believe in this because I believe that we need more rent control units to add to the stock and also uh rental housing units on the west side.

I think in a high interest uh environment like we are right now, this provides an incentive for developers, and I have heard that feedback from my development folks.

Um I think there are a couple of things in your staff recommendations that are good, and one which I will respectfully um disagree with, uh and that is uh they liked it so much that they are saying that we should do it citywide.

And I do not agree with that because um I don't think that on the east side of town we have the same disparity about rent controlled units that we have on the west side, and that is one of the goals of the legislation.

But the second goal is that um I am also a firm believer in deeply deeply affordable, restricted, 100% affordable housing, and what we have relied on as a source of dollars for affordable housing construction is the in LU fees, a hundred percent of which have been generated on the east side of San Francisco.

None of it has come from the west side because we haven't built anything.

Um, and I do not want to jeopardize those dollars without identifying a new source, and that is not today.

We don't have another source of funding, so I would rather not mess with it.

You have uh probably received communication from uh the Chinatown Community Development Center and uh two, uh, where they have expressed some concerns about this legislation, um, and I am actually happy to incorporate that feedback when it comes back to the land use committee.

Uh, their main concern is that it stay uh where it's intended to develop rental housing and uh more dense rental housing, and I share those goals.

So they are proposing that we look at the jurisdiction of where this is applied to the areas that right now are low density where there really is a dearth of rental housing.

Uh, and I am totally uh, you know, on the same page as they are.

So if we are gonna restrict the geography uh and take out, you know, those areas in districts three and two where there already is dense housing you know, not to have them.

I I'm also all for that.

So, you know, that being said, I hope that you can support this.

I think it is a good incentive, it is not a prohibition, it is not an impediment to development, it is an incentive to see the behavior that we want to see, which is uh, you know, the development of rental housing and rent-controlled housing.

And I will take any questions, but also Miss Flores will uh say her presentation and I will stick around for your deliberations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, supervisor.

Just want to give an overview of the proposed ordinance in front of you today.

So, under the proposed ordinance, the planning code would be amended to allow the city to waive the inclusionary housing requirements for projects and areas outside of the priority equity geographies.

There are two paths to qualify for this inclusionary housing waiver.

First is to subject all units in the project to, excuse me, all net new units in the project to rent control, that these units remain rental for the life of the project, and they will need to execute a regulatory agreement with the city to reflect and uphold this.

Such land that is identified as a potential dedicated land needs to be located outside of the priority equity geographies.

The department supports this proposed ordinance and really supports the goal of increasing more rental housing in the well-resourced neighborhoods.

As the supervisor mentioned, there is the trade-off of projects not providing the inclusionary housing at this time or paying into the in lieu fee requirement, but this really does create more opportunities for rent controlled units.

And that really does support residents as it guarantees that there's limits on the annual rent increases, which creates stability for our residents for as long as they remain in those units.

The first is to explicitly prohibit condominium conversions of the net new units resulting from this proposed ordinance.

The department has coordinated with the supervisor and also has some potential ideas to execute this.

Some suggested language from the city attorney's office, so that could be reflected in the regulatory agreement, and it's something that we can continue working on after the planning commission hearing, just throughout the legislative process.

But one idea is to explicitly note that the units have to be held in an undivided ownership that cannot be subdivided.

Second is for the land dedication alternative, and that's to specify the minimum housing requirements for the dedicated land.

Right now, the proposed ordinance refers to an established process for land dedications under section 419.5A2.

However, it does not specify the minimum housing requirements.

The supervisor is in agreement with the recommended modification of 35% of the potential units that could be provided on the principal project site.

And lastly, the department recommends this inclusionary housing waiver be applied citywide instead of just outside of the PEGs.

Again, as the supervisor mentioned, we support this idea.

We support increasing opportunities for rental housing throughout the city.

So this is something that we would like to see recommended, if not now, in the future.

We understand this is a shift or departure from the intent and really the goals of this proposed ordinance.

Again, that's to increase rental housing on the west side of the city in the well-resourced neighborhood.

So we understand that the supervisor is not inclined to take this last recommendation at this time.

This concludes the staff presentation, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we should take public comment, members of the public.

This is your opportunity to address the commission on this item.

Hi, George.

I'm a little out of my depth here.

I just read it this morning, but I want to focus on a couple of things.

One, this doesn't cover section 317, so that's why I'm out of my depth.

But if that's in the TPO and in uh the mayor's legislation 317, it's still there, the definition.

Just leave it at that.

I guess I have a question about what Ms.

Flores just said.

Does that undivided ownership that means cooperative, right?

So it won't be like a 228 Vicksburg scenario where we're supposed to be rental housing, and then they made it a stock co-op.

That's a question you don't have to answer.

Maybe she'll answer it.

Um again, it goes back to the what's a demolition.

I know this is for 10 or more units, but I've seen some projects where they added, you know, six or seven units to what was there, three or four, and the whole concept of this this is this this is confusion that I have that I think exists out there that when you do an alteration, it's great because if they're units there, they get to stay rent control.

Well, I just don't think that ever happens.

I'm sorry, I haven't seen that happen.

You know, I don't I it just nah, sorry, it's just I don't believe it.

I'm I'm a cynic.

So that's why I'm worried about that.

But I think this is a great idea.

I think rent control is great.

I someone who grew up in rent control and lived in rent control housing for years.

Um, I think it's good that it's outside of the PEG.

I don't think I don't think even 423 should apply to the PEG neighborhoods.

And I've said that before, and I think the city should lobby for that because I think that defeats the purpose of the PEGs, and I understand why uh the supervisor doesn't want that in her legislation.

But again, you know, I know this involves demolition.

Making sure that units stay rent control if something's demolished, 10 or more units, but what's a demolition?

So I think that's it.

I think those are my only points.

Oh, and I thought the findings were great, justifying rent control.

I mean, I thought they were the best I've ever seen, and everybody should memorize them.

Okay, thank you.

They were, they were really good.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the planning commission.

My name is Brianna Morales, and I am from the Housing Action Coalition as their community organizer.

Um, and I'm just here to say that we're really encouraged to see Supervisor Melgar's continued um work and being able to modernize how San Francisco delivers inclusionary and rent-controlled housing in our city's most well-resourced neighborhoods.

This ordinance recognizes that a one-size fits all inclusionary framework doesn't always produce the housing outcomes we need, especially in places that has seen very little builds in the previous decades.

And so while affordable housing remains to be incredibly difficult to get financed and subsequently built, um we need to offer as many creative, flexible solutions to actually bring affordable homes to fruition.

Um, at HAC, where we have members of all types of builders and industry folks, including um, including affordable and market rate.

Um we know how flexibility and being able to have choice really does make or break a project.

And having predictability, flexibility allows builders to do um things that are a little bit more risky and a little bit more creative.

And so these are the types of projects and policies that we're really excited by and hopeful for.

We're also really um invested in the equity part of this plan.

It's um aligning with our housing element goals in order to see increasing housing choice in high opportunity areas.

It promotes racial and economic integration and removes barriers that was able to keep entire swaths of land in San Francisco untouched.

It's a smart step towards um trying to bring out every tool in the toolbook to get housing built, including uh meeting our mandated housing element requirements.

So we appreciate the supervisors' continued work and bringing multiple options, multiple plans of actions to the table to tackle creating affordable housing, and we are excited to see how we can continue expanding pathways to build more homes of all types of all income levels in every neighborhood.

Thank you very much.

Uh good afternoon, commissioners.

Uh, my name is Eric Wu.

I'm assistant staff with the Chinatown Community Development Center.

Um I'm speaking to share concerns with the proposed ordinance.

I want to start by saying that while rent control is a vital protection for existing tenants under this proposal, the units will be market rate and does not generate affordability at initial occupancy, making them out of reach for uh to most working class families and seniors.

Um so we want to center the conversation on affordable housing for low-income working families and seniors.

Uh the city currently has no consistent dedicated funding source for affordable housing.

The uh 300 million affordable housing bond passed into 2024 has already been allocated, and without any affordable housing money, the inclusionary housing program is an extremely important tool for the city to reach its affordable housing arena goals, which the city has fallen short of in the previous housing element cycle.

Uh since its inception in 2002, the inclusionary housing program has created more than 4,700 affordable units throughout the city, including in high opportunity areas, allowing low-income working class families to live in neighborhoods where they can access schools, jobs, public transit, and other neighborhood amenities.

Uh waiving inclusionary requirements would result in fewer equitable affordable housing opportunities for the residents, like those getting displaced by no vault evictions and others who need it the most.

Furthermore, inclusion or affordable housing requirements were already temporarily reduced in 2023 based on the recommendation from the inclusionary affordable housing program uh technical advisory committee.

This was a balanced approach toward the feasibility of new construction and a need for affordable units.

Um we strongly support efforts to expand rental housing options across all neighborhoods, but such expansion must not come at the cost of our inclusionary commitments or the long-term production of affordable units in the high opportunity areas.

We urge the commission to recommend adoption of limits that preserve a balanced and equitable housing strategy, ensuring that any waiver program begins at a modest scale, is geographically targeted and includes meaningful public oversight.

We respectfully urge the commission to recommend amendments adding clear limits and reporting provisions before forwarding this legislation to the board.

Thank you.

Okay, last call for public comment.

Seeing none, public comment is closed, this matter is now before you, Commissioners.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Malgari.

Commissioner Imperial.

Thank you.

Thank you, President.

So and thank you, Supervisor Melagar.

I'm not sure if you or um or the planning staff can answer this question.

I have some um few questions over like technicalities in terms of like how it's going to apply with SB 330.

Um, in terms of, as we know, in terms of SB 330, um, there's a requirement on in terms of risk replacement and also there's also other provisions in it that in a way um preserve um the income or the income and also deligibility for affordability.

Um and and so, yeah, so will this ordinance also be applicable to SB 330?

Thank you, Commissioner Imperial.

The net new units resulting from this proposed ordinance, those are the ones that would be subject to rent control.

All of the SB 330 replacement requirements, all the protections under SB 330, that still remains in place.

So that would still be the same even after this ordinance.

If there is a proposal where there is an existing unit already on the property, um, we may see one inclusionary unit, for example, that um just through SB 330, it is retained, it is protected, and then the rest of the units.

So then I'm I keep saying net new just to try to differentiate, but the net new units, those units would be fully rent control.

So that's just um an example of what we might see, but just to further emphasize all of the SB 330 requirements would still be in place.

I see.

So there will be um, so there will be the in a way for SB 330 projects, um, there will be an inclusionary part of it, and then there will be also the rent control that will be part of this legislation, where the legislation would apply to SB 330.

Is that what I'm hearing in a way?

Yes.

Okay.

And in terms of let's say also SB 330, let's say a developer, you know, did the um, does the SB 330 provide land education or as part of the option?

I'm wondering if that's that's more.

That's agnostic in terms of the programs, right?

It's the basically the right for return.

So it refers back to what the local jurisdictions affordable housing program is.

So obviously on our end, land dedication is an option to meet the inclusionary requirements.

And then for our own local program, our own local density, definitely, because the local density program is 24 units and more, which can actually I believe can call for 100% rent controlled.

Correct, as part of the family rezoning plan, they can utilize anything that is within 415 as an option to meeting the inclusionary requirements.

So land dedication is one of them.

So if this ordinance was to pass, that would be opening up this pathway in terms of meeting your inclusionary requirement this way.

So there will be, you know, we if a developer used the the local density program, and if there are 10 units or more, they can choose the rank this rent control option at this point.

And when there is an SB330 development, they can have the option of the inclusionary requirement will still apply because it's part of the SB330.

And then there will be replacement of rent control units where there will be.

Correct.

Yeah.

So a good way to think about it is SB330 doesn't impact our local inclusionary, it just puts a requirement on top of rent controlled units that they have to basically come back as rent controlled units.

I see.

Okay.

Um and then my other question was around the land dedication alternative.

Um so the land education alternative, it um it seems like in this legislation by the supervisor is will apply outside of priori equity geography.

So that means any, so it can be so now we're having more options at this point.

Um we have the inclusionary on-site, inclusionary off-site, rent controlled um option, and then land dedication option in the family zoning plan that is going to be.

Yes, so all of the existing options, as long as the project's eligible, this just adds a new path or a new opportunity for them if they are eligible.

As in the case today, if they're eligible, if the project is eligible for multiple programs, then the applicant then decides which program meets most of my goals, which ones do I want to pursue?

So they may be eligible for multiple, but now they have a new path, a new opportunity to consider.

And the supervisor is mentioning that um the goal of this um, you know, the goal of this um measure is to focus primarily where the family zoning plan is going to be.

Um, and so um I just want to make sure that that language um, you know, uh, you know, is really intentional to be in that way.

Um, and I, you know, I think there are some concerns with other neighbors or especially with the letter that we received from CCDC about this requirement where again their main issues about affordability.

Um, but I just want to mention that when it comes to inclusionary housing, and I I know people, this is not a popular opinion, but inclusionary housing, there is a rent increase.

You get the affordability uh upfront of the unit, but there is a rent increase, which is higher than a rent control.

Um, it would be like sometimes three to five percent, depending on how our economy is actually.

So I just want to also, you know, there's a give and take when we're talking about inclusionary housing.

Um, and I'm still big proponent of rent control because it does cap, I mean, it's very straightforward in a cap that makes the unit, again, it will be a market rate, but the rent cap on this will be according, which is usually one percent and less, if anything.

Um, and so, you know, that so there's that.

There are these trade-offs that we deal with, whether inclusionary or rent control as well.

Um, and I understand where you know other community members are coming from when we're talking about the um the rent control and the market level of rents, um, but at the end of the day, I think the main the biggest issue still is affordability, where affordable housing funding is something that needs to be prioritized.

Um in terms of the um, I'm trying to understand as well the recommendation by um CCDC and Choo Choo in terms of limit eligibility to lower density districts.

Um I think they're trying to also mention that it should be just within the family zoning plan and not outside of priori equity geography, which sounds like that's what also what the supervisor is also intending to do as well.

Um, for the planning recommendation, um I support um number one, and also I think this number two as well, the altern the land education alternative, perhaps that's something that needs to be specified.

Um, but I will not support the recommendation number three.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Brown.

Well, thank you, supervisor, for um bringing this forward.

It's an interesting solution, and I have some some thoughts on that.

Um I I just want to quickly address the land education side of this.

I have no I'm I'm very supportive of the land education option.

Uh I am glad that staff recommended some kind of guardrails or a way to think about you know the capacity that has to be created through that land education option as opposed to just the process which was already in there.

So I definitely uh do support the recommendation.

I think it was number two that was about that from staff.

Um but moving on to the rent control side of this, you know, I I think this is a really unique response to the fact that that inventory is kind of frozen in place in a lot of ways, unless we can come to regulatory voluntary agreements with with developers and property owners.

Um, and I really take to heart the point that the supervisor you made about the the lack of rental stock in general on the west side of the city and therefore lack of rent control rental stock.

Um I agree that rent controlled housing is critically important for maintaining mixed income neighborhoods and communities.

I've seen it firsthand, I'm sure we all have, but when I look at every block I've lived on and who has managed to stay there at much lower income levels than many of the new entrants to that block, it's it's rent control almost every time.

That's that's played a big part in that, and so I think it is really important for stabilizing neighborhoods.

At the same time, you know, with our structure of rent control with vacancy decontrol, um, I don't have the concerns I otherwise might in terms of you know reducing incentives for development because of rent control, you know, with vacancy de control, there's still incentive to build and be able to rent at market rates, so that that makes a lot of sense to me.

Um I do have a couple of questions and and thoughts uh to kind of go in parallel with this legislation.

So uh my first question actually is for the supervisor.

You mentioned I just mentioned the feasibility consideration for development, whether this impacts the likelihood of development moving forward.

I mean, were there any discussions or analyses conducted to look at um you know what's influence uh this option might have on development patterns or the likelihood of development of new housing?

Yes.

So there are a couple of things that I saw.

Uh, one was uh a study that was done by uh the housing action coalition uh on development and interest rates specifically.

Um and uh this was one of the recommendations uh and they you know the this idea that it essentially defers that obligation over time rather than it being you know something that is paid for out of a construction loan with high interest rate from the get-go, but you know, later, um, is compelling to me because you know we talk about the numbers right in a pro forma, interest rates, labor costs, but we um often don't think about time, you know, and that is also a factor.

Um, and then the your own analysis, uh century urban uh analysis also has this for buildings up to 25 units, and it shows that this would be an incentive under certain economic conditions, uh the ones that we're in right now with high interest rates.

So I thought that this would be a good thing to uh put out on the table.

And uh, like I said, it's an option, not a requirement.

So if it works, it'll work, you know.

And if it doesn't, nobody's gonna take us up on it, and they'll just do what we've always done, uh, which are the options that you already know.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and I think the affordable housing in TAC is meeting again starting next year.

Is that it's next year, right?

So I was just also thinking, you know, this might be if they conduct that same level of analysis they did last time with the running pro forma.

It'll be interesting to see kind of implications of this legislation with the a specific analysis in the future.

Um I uh I have a question maybe for staff or the supervisor, but it's about um hitting the lower income obligations in our arena numbers.

Um, and so you know, these as I understand it, I don't think these rent controlled if somebody produces rent controlled units that they would qualify as being lower income units.

Um, so what I guess I guess my question is just what's the what else is sort of coming down the line to ensure that we are um in ensuring production of the lower income units.

There's been talk over time of additional funding sources and and things like that.

But my concern here is that this doesn't really help us anyone out choosing this option, it doesn't help us get to the um low below below above moderate income housing.

No, that is correct, and I'm not pretending that it does, you know, which is why I've introduced like a whole package of legislation because I think in this town we often you know have the tendency to be, oh, if we just do this one thing, you know, like it's gonna solve all our problems.

And uh, you know, our housing crisis has been in the making for decades, and it's not just one thing, it's many different things.

And a tool that works for folks who are living on our seats right now, doesn't solve the problem of single-family home ownership, you know, at the other end.

They're different things and different tools.

So one of the things that I have introduced is, you know, uh the need for an enhanced infrastructure financing district for the west side to produce affordable housing funding that is count not counter-cyclical the way that this uh is, you know, right now, all of our money is one-time money that gets paid by developers when the market is producing market rate units.

And so when the market dries up, we have no money, or occasionally we go to the voters, you know, hat in hand, asking them for money for a bond.

That is also one-time money.

So I am uh interested in exploring every way that we can to have steady for sources of funding that are not subject to market whims as much to produce affordable housing always.

Uh and I'm also interested in building the capacity of nonprofit developers on the west side, which we don't have right now.

We've had a couple people who have dipped their toes in, but not like the you know, east side of town.

And so um that is another part of the package that I've introduced.

I mean, I'm hoping that it'll pass as well.

It's not gonna come before you, I don't think, because it's you know, something it's uh it's a budget issue, not a not a um, you know, zoning or planning issue, but we're thinking about it as well.

And the same group of folks that I've been working with on this, I've been working on that as well.

Great, thank you.

I appreciate that.

And yeah, let's let's try to get some incremental financing again.

That would be great.

Uh okay, so um I there's some smaller stuff too.

So um that language that that um Ms.

Forrest uh suggested about protecting um against uh disallowing condos for properties that have opted into voluntarily opted into the into providing rent control units.

Um so uh Ms.

raised the same question I had actually, which is that language didn't necessarily sound to me like it it controls for TICs, because this is about uh the the language seemed like it was about the ownership being sort of um subdivided in a way, and as I understand it, TIC still have kind of single ownership.

Um thank you, Commissioner Braun.

Um TICs or tenants and common seat.

This was one of the um concerns or questions that we had at the staff level, and in discussing with the housing implementation team and the um city attorney's office, we really tried to capture all of those um unofficial condo conversions or other ways that properties may be divided.

So we feel we have a good um starting point and able to prevent any type of subdivision, unofficial or official in the records, and um we can continue to revisit that with the with the supervisor and the city attorney's office, but we did consider this as well, and I that was one of the concerns that we want to make sure we did not encounter that we did not lose the rental unit as a rent controlled unit and it stays outside of the TIC discussion, um, but we will make sure that the upcoming language safeguards this.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate your working on that, and I'm I'm in full support of uh making sure the language protects against that situation as well, uh, just a little more.

So the you know, I think one one concern that I have is that it's already very difficult for a renter to determine whether or not a housing unit is subject to rent stabilization.

And you know, there's the 1979 rule, there's the uh number of units in the building or property rule.

Um, but it's it's an exceptionally difficult thing to do.

And now we're talking about building a lot well, potentially having new housing units that are subject to rent control, but they're new, and so even somebody with an entry understanding or even somebody with a pretty advanced understanding of our rent stabilization might not be able to identify that those are rent-controlled units.

I know that we have the rent registry, and so good actors should be you know submitting their rents to that, and there could be an oversight mechanism um to ensure that those units actually are being rented under the rent stabilization rules, but uh I guess it would just be helpful for me to know.

I mean, what what are the ways that we are going to track implementation of this, ensuring that they're actually the regulatory agreement is being followed, and what are the ways that that renters looking for housing can know uh whether or not something is subject to rent stabilization?

You know, all they see is it's for this much per month, and that's usually it.

So I'm sorry, I've got to go soon because I have another meeting, but I will say that thank you for bringing up that point.

We did not put in the legislation a requirement for the planning staff to uh send it over to the rent board for inclusion in the registry, but we could do that.

Um I mean, that would be a very easy thing to do, uh, rather than wait for the developer to do it, or you know, you make them do it and then check off the box or something.

I mean, I think that's very easy to do because uh, you know, Supervisor Sandy Leafewer already did the heavy lifting by requiring that they have a registry and and have a database.

So that's alright there.

Okay, thank you for that.

I mean that I don't know if I need to put that as a recommendation, but I would just strongly suggest that you said.

Okay.

Uh that, okay, so uh just to wrap up, I I'm in full agreement with recommendations one and two from staff.

Uh I don't want to go as far as recommendation three regarding application citywide for all the reasons that have been discussed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Braun, and thank you, Supervisor Melgard.

Um, if you like to stay, we're happy to have you.

And if Jen is available, experts thank you.

Appreciate we appreciate your time.

Thank you very much.

Um Commissioner McGarry.

I'd like to thank the supervisor.

Always playing the long game here.

Basically, there is no one side fits all, no quick fix, but this is an option.

And it's an odd it's another option.

It's a different option to what we've have.

And we're in a problem where we are today because it is we have been looking at it, boom and boss, one size fits all money today, no money tomorrow.

So this will get developers, future developers or people who are maybe not developers today, but maybe tomorrow because this is an option for them, an option that is outside the box.

The what we're ordinarily dealing with.

For as was mentioned there, time.

Time is never taken into account, and people are never taken into account future generations.

So based on all that, I think it's a great option.

And uh I'm in favor of it.

So thank you, supervisors.

Malgar.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Campbell.

I agree with everything you just said, Commissioner McGarry.

Um, I'm also very supportive of the ordinance.

Um I don't need to overly opine.

Um I did appreciate all the modifications that the planning staff put forward.

I understand the concerns around the third one.

Um I do I would love to see though how this ends up playing out.

If this is an option that ends up getting exercised a lot and it ends up being the trigger that stimulates a lot of housing um production, I it would be really interesting to think more broadly about it.

So maybe after some period of time, if it's possible to hear how this plays out in either one or two years or something like that, I think I'd be curious to get some sort of memo or report back as to if this is something we should um consider more broadly across this the city and in some of these other areas.

And with that, I'm going to make a motion to um adopt a recommendation for approval with modifications one and two only.

Um and then do we want to just layer in the suggestions that have been mentioned?

Um there was the suggestion to add the TIC language in addition to modification number one in addition to the condominiums and add the rent controlled units to the registry at the board, and then I'd love um a memo in in one to two years time just to see how this plays out.

Um, the supervisor mentioned a number of modifications based on feedback to CCDC uh two-to-letter that she was interested in considering.

So I would like to see those considered as as she mentioned them herself.

Uh we'll add those as well.

Commissioner Imperial, you have some more.

Just have a clarifying question on the rental registry.

Um, just want to make sure that it means that the planning staff will work on the reporting requirement to the rental rental registry.

Um, and then for us, um, I guess it's also good for us to assess like when do we have when should we do that kind of um reporting or I don't know, like yearly and Phillips?

Maybe that's something I would like to ask if that is possible.

Sarah has to be.

Commissioner Imperial.

Um I I think the point about how we track them is a valid one.

I don't think we're prepared to give you the best recommendations on how to do that on the spot.

So we'd prefer time to work with a supervisor past here.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'll just skip it.

I mean the language that you use suggestion.

Yeah, yeah, thank you.

Okay.

Okay, I can second that.

I support that.

Are we ready to vote?

Uh, there's no further deliberation, Commissioners.

There is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications one and two.

Uh not three.

And uh suggesting that consideration be given to TIC language, a rent controlled registry, a one to two-year update memo, and the CCDC and Choo Choo memo uh considerations.

On that motion, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner McGarry, Commissioner Braun, Commissioner Imperial, Commissioner Moore, and Commission President.

So I so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously.

Commissioners that will place us on the final item on your agenda today, number 12, case number 2025, I think 004308 IMP at 1001 Petrero Avenue.

This is an informational IMP presentation.

However, as they set up, I will say that in order to satisfy their IMP, you need to close the public hearing sort of formally.

So at the end, at the end of the public hearing and your deliberation, you need to close the public hearing formally on the record to sort of satisfy the IMP requirements.

If you find them satisfactory.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, President Zoo, members of the Commission, Laura Ayello with Department staff.

The project before you is an institutional master plan for the Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg, San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center.

Planning Code Section 304.5 requires post-secondary educational institutions and hospitals to have an institutional master plan, IMP for short, on file with the department.

The purpose of an IMP is to provide information at an early stage with regard to an institution's plans, and to provide an opportunity for public involvement prior to substantial investment by the institution.

The planning commission must hold a public hearing on the IMP plan, which will be for receipt of public testimony only, and does not constitute approval or disapproval of the IMP itself or any of the projects described therewithin.

Any proposed modification or project envisioned by the IMP as part of the future development of the institution will require separate approvals.

The planning commission will retain full discretion on reviewing those applications when they come in at a later date.

SF General is located within the mission neighborhood along the Petrero Hill border in the southwestern quadrant of the city.

The project site is owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health.

The site is zoned public and designated as a category A historic resource in the SF General Historic Hospital Historic District.

Master plans also document developments that have occurred since the previous IMP hearing and describe anticipated projects.

The last IM piece of middle for the hospital was presented here in 2008.

A major development since that time was completion of the new acute care hospital and trauma center in 2015.

Other accomplishments include upgraded emergency generators, completion of a new UCSF, Pride Hall research and academic building, which supports the research that enables the hospital to maintain its level one trauma center designation.

Ongoing projects include voluntary seismic upgrades, technology upgrades, clinical lab renovation, and public health lab relocation from 101 Grove Street.

Future projects include infrastructure improvements, equipment replacement, and interior renovations.

During the course of the public notification for this hearing, no comments were received.

In accordance with the planning code, the IMP addresses numerous topics, including the nature of the institution, its history and growth, services provided, service populations, and employment characteristics.

As noted in the executive summary, the IMP has been reviewed by the planning department for completeness, and the department believes that the IMP contains all required information.

No formal planning commission action is required, and your acceptance of the IMP by closing the public hearing does not indicate approval of any project.

By closing the public hearing, the commission acknowledges that the IMP contains the required items outlined in planning code section 304.5, and that there has been a public hearing.

This concludes my presentation.

I'll be available to answer any questions.

Our colleagues from the Department of Public Health are here to further discuss the IMP.

Thank you.

Jonas?

They've got hard copies.

Thanks, Laura.

Commissioners, I'm Mark Primo, Oversight Uh Advisor to the Office of Director of Health.

Joining me today is Jason's Director of Capital Planning and Programs at Sugarboard General.

I'm just going to briefly go through this PowerPoint that's coming to you on paper.

And obviously, there's like three areas that we want to update you on.

Number one being an update over the last 17 years to the 2008 IMP, and then as Laura said, some of the major accomplishments, ongoing projects, and then what we see for the foreseeable future.

So then I'll just jump to the institutional overview to give you guys a flavor of the rich diversity of both the patient population as well as the services offered at Sucker Road General.

And I'm not going to go through each of these percentages.

Basically, it looks like there's almost an even split between gender, ethnicity seems to be around 40, 41 or 42 percent focused on Hispanics.

And this is all data from fiscal year 21-22.

We track age under 18 and over 64.

And on an annual basis, at least in 2021-2022, we had over 360,000 ambulatories uh visits.

Now I'm going to talk a little bit about the campus overview.

It's about 24 acres in size.

It's zone P, and it basically consists of the new acute cure hospital and trauma center, the existing hospital that I think you were well aware of, building five, a series of outpatient clinics, some administrative buildings, and then, of course, our uh PowerPoint.

So the accomplishments, the three big ones on campus over the last 17 years, of course, are the acute cure hospital, which we uh number building 25.

It's uh base isolated building over 450 square feet.

It's nine stories, although we put two stories down below grade where the ORs are.

And if you recall the placement of the building, is it in between two other buildings where there used to be open space?

So up on the seventh floor, you can actually see a really beautiful roof garden that's open for different functions, as well as just to uh commemorate you know new staff coming on and also retirements.

If you have a chance, you should either talk with me or bit basically talk with Jason about getting a tour of the building.

It's also uh I think one of the best integration of the city's art enrichment program into the hospital, where we used all local artists, and I think the budget on that was near seven million, but it's just beautiful when you go inside the building.

It doesn't remind you of a hospital, and that was the intent of the design of that building.

So that was finished in 2015, and along with that we um replaced some generators in this other building, which is a service building, and that's building number two.

So as this was going on, we also negotiated with UCSF on um getting some of their staff research staff out of the existing buildings into a new building.

That was opened in 2023.

So I'm gonna let this next piece go to Jason Zook.

Sure.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Um actually Laura did a lot of what I was gonna do, so I'll just kind of fill in the blanks.

Um just the uh major accomplishments we've had, the 2016 bond uh program, which is actually ongoing.

We've completed a few of those projects, most of which Laura uh mentioned.

One that was not mentioned that is um a really important one is our new psychiatric emergency services expansion project, which will add approximately 300 percent um square footage to the to the unit.

Um we also have uh in agreement with uh the uh nurses union.

We are um looking into providing child care.

Uh we're in negotiations with one of the Walgreen stores down the street on Patrero to acquire that building or at least that building, um, and that's a uh ongoing project we're working on.

That's not part of the bond that's separate.

Um we have the we're we also have projects in this upcoming 2024 bond.

Um one of our buildings, building three.

We have a seismic upgrade and renovation of that building.

Uh that will include the relocation and rebuild of uh aging pathology lab and provide additional administrative and office space for folks we'd like to relocate out of the brick buildings uh in the future.

Um, in addition to that project, we have critical repairs, um, we'll be addressing IT infrastructure, uh, chiller and cooling tower project, um, fire alarm and uh fire life safety in buildings five and twenty-five, and um many other relocation projects.

So that's it.

If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

If that concludes your presentation, we should open a public comment.

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

You need to come forward, seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners, commissioner Bond.

Thanks for bringing it up.

Thanks for bringing forward the the uh update to the institutional master plan.

Um I just have one question.

So you mentioned the psychiatric emergency services expansion.

Would you mind just explain a little bit more about what bond measure that's part of, or kind of what the where that's located, or what the face of it?

It started as part of the 2016 bond program.

It's actually funded by um three different funding sources, including the 2020 2020 bond and the 2024 bond.

It's currently in construction right now.

When we finished the new acute care hospital, we relocated our acute care services into that new building, leaving a lot of you know space available to be remodeled.

The old emergency room uh on the first floor in building five is currently the um construction area for the new expanded psychiatric emergency services.

I see, okay, building five.

All right, um, all right.

Alright, thank you.

I I will say I I think my I don't want to just be too critical in the details.

I I it was a little hard to follow the institutional master plan at times reading through it.

It kind of felt like there were parts that um maybe an updates to an older version or something.

It was at times it was just tricky to kind of understand what was the projects we were talking about, projects from 2008 and their status and so it's fine.

Thank you.

Commissioner Vice President Moore.

Not trying to have the last word, but I think this institution master plan follows the typical format.

I think it's thorough, and while we do not live every step of the way, this is typical, uh detailed, very much uh appreciated the steps of hospital has taken seeing it from nowhere to somewhere over the many years watching Mission Bay.

Uh I think this is a great story, and I'm in full support that this definitely fulfills the requirements by which staff and the commission typically looks at these plans.

Thank you so much.

Well, um thank you for coming here to um show us what you have accomplished and what your future plan is.

Um I live um near those neighborhoods and I can see also just throughout the past 20 something years that improvement not only within the hospital campus, but also the infrastructures around it.

You have made Petrole Avenue much safer for all of us.

And I really personally excited to see that you are looking for the Walgreen uh site for child care, and I do hope that it will have opportunity for um not only the staff or youth uh for the hospital, but the community that actually can really needed uh child care to help our young parents to continue to stay in the workforce and and thrive.

So I applaud you for that.

Um I'm in support of all of this, and I wanted to I'm gonna save my little formal closing comment until all my commissioners had uh share their comments.

So I'll uh turn the mic to Commissioner McGarry.

I just like to say I'm in full support.

Uh two of those ambulatory visits came out of my house, not our house, but uh T-born two years ago, and I was taken, taken and but I'd like to say the phenomenal work that's done in uh in basically our only trauma trauma center here in the city and northern Simon Hale, 1.5 million people service.

Uh the work you do and how you do it and the people there are absolutely phenomenal.

And I would like to take you up uh on that tour in a future uh in the not so distant future.

Thank you for everything you do.

Yeah, me too.

I also really wanted to say, forgot to say that uh thank you for um the support, continuous support of our local artists and invested in them.

It's uh the amount of dollar that you mentioned, it's not small, it's very significant.

So thank you.

I do look forward to it.

I don't think I ever had a chance to see those art, and I would love to see it.

Um so formally in closing, I will have to make announcement.

We will formally close the public comments.

Public IMP.

Public hearing.

Did I say right?

Yeah, uh the public hearing.

The public hearing.

Thank you.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

And that concludes our meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.