Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, June 18th, 2026.

When an item is called that you would like to submit testimony for, 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 will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up.

When your allotted time is reached, there is a second chime, and 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 would like to take roll, Commission President Campbell.

Here.

Commission Vice President Moore.

Here.

Commissioner Braun.

Here.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner So.

Present.

And Commissioner Williams.

Here.

Thank you, Commissioners.

First, on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance at the time of issuance and to date.

There are still no items proposed for continuance.

Placing us under Commission matters for item one, the land acknowledgement.

Sorry.

No problem.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

The Commission acknowledged that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatush Alone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.

As the indigenous doers of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatush Alonee have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretaker of this place, as well as for the peoples who reside in their traditional territory.

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

We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramatush Allone community, and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

Thank you.

Item two, consideration of adoption draft minutes for May 24 for May 20 for the May 21st and May 28th, 2026 hearings.

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

You need to come forward.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

Your minutes are now before you, Commissioners.

Vice President Moore.

Move to approve.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to adopt your minutes.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner So?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell.

Aye.

So move Commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously 6 to 0.

Item 3, Commission comments and questions.

Seeing none.

She said I think that was left.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No.

Okay.

That will place us under department matters for item four, Director's announcements.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

We just want to report that our budget continues to work its way through the city's budget process without many changes.

And so the budget that you reviewed remains mostly the same.

So we'll continue to keep you posted as the budget process winds its way forward.

But other than that, there are no other announcements or updates.

Okay.

Item five, review of past events of the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission.

The Board.

This week the Land Use and Transportation Committee continued the institutional master plan requirements ordinance to June 29th, 2026, and the full board heard the Balboa Reservoir Special Use District and passed it on its second read.

I have no report from the Board of Appeals.

The Historic Preservation Commission did meet yesterday and considered restoration of the U.S.

Grant Monument at the Music Concourse.

Three legacy business registry applications, the Bay Company, Irma's Pampanga Restaurant, and the Royale.

Finally, they recommended approval for Engine Company No.

33 at Broad Street to be designated as a landmark.

If there are no questions, Commissioners, 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 accept 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.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

George Shudish.

I went to the BIC yesterday, and I raised an issue that I've raised here previously, and I actually think I raised it last on May 28th.

And that is that projects that are approved as Tanemat demolition, like the one I showed at 248 Valley, which had extreme demo calcs.

They should have a permit applications form six and two, not form three, which is an alteration permit.

I think that it would be very important to do that to clarify the situation.

And I think it can be done administratively.

For the record, if anyone is interested, or you could watch the hearing.

And that's that.

The only thing I'll add is if anybody has a chance before you go home, uh you should check out the uh Muni pictures photos in the basement.

It's the last day.

And it's a really interesting, fun thing to look at, especially if you look really closely and you see what people are wearing and what they're doing and all that.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, President Campbell, members of the Commission.

Uh my name is Diane Oshima, and I am here because I believe that your next planning commission meeting uh next week may be the last one for Vice President Moore.

And since I can't make that, I thought I'd beat the line, and I just wanted to express my congratulations and thanks to her.

Um there's such a deep in my heart appreciation for over 20 years of service.

I believe that uh that's probably the longest tenure for a planning commissioner and the city, and I should know because I worked as a planner at the planning department and at the port for 40 years.

So I went to a lot of planning commission meetings, and I know the hard work that you all have to deal with.

Just Catherine has been the most dutiful devoted planning commissioner in terms of just taking the work seriously and devoting the time and attention to reviewing all of those thousands of projects that have come before her as a commissioner.

And I know it's very hard and unglamorous work, but it's important work to do.

And your architectural and urban design expertise has always just been a stalwart resource for the city, but combined with your heart and your sense of the community values and public needs to balance out the best in bringing about uh changes in projects in the city.

I uh saw that most closely firsthand for the over 20 years of service that you uh pledged towards the Waterfront Design Advisory Committee, which was a city committee that worked with the port and BCDC to oversee the design of major developments and the public parks all along the port's seven and a half mile waterfront.

And I can tell you that those values and expertise that Catherine Commissioner Moore brings to the Planning Commission were especially important for the port because it really allowed for the city to be reunited with its waterfront with a lot of delights and business functions and developments that will provide a good foundation for future work going forward.

So I I take great pride in the opportunity to work with you, and I wish you the absolute very best for your next chapter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And um I apologize for the sunglasses.

I left my other glasses at my office.

So it's not meant as disrespect.

My name is Shannon Way, and uh you will see my name on your TAC inclusionary talk committee report.

Um I am here today to urge you to please just throw all of those talk recommendations out the window.

The process was flawed.

We are agreeing.

Excuse me, ma'am.

Are you here?

Are you speaking on the inclusion in the affordable housing program?

Yes, item 7A.

Okay.

So this is general public comment for things not on today's agenda.

When we get to that item, you're more than welcome to submit your testimony.

I'm so sorry.

My apologies for misunderstanding.

Thank you very much.

Okay, last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda.

Seeing none, general public comment is closed.

And we can move on to your regular calendar, Commissioners, for item six.

Case number 2026, 002046 PCA for the relocation and re-establishment of liquor establishments planning code amendment.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Veronica Flores, Planning Department staff.

This next item is the relocation and re-establishment of liquor establishments ordinance introduced by Supervisor Walton.

Today I am joined by Mr.

Ben Van Houten from the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

The proposed ordinance would allow bars with the pre-2003 ABC licenses to re-establish after closures of up to 10 years.

And it would also allow such bars to relocate within the Third Street Alcohol Restricted Use District or RUD.

This would be principally permitted.

All other liquor establishments would still need a conditional use authorization to relocate.

And all of these updates are reflected in the Bayview NCD zoning control table as well.

The department supports the overall goals of this proposed ordinance because it provides needed flexibility for long-standing bars within the Third Street Alcohol RUD and it supports continued economic activity in the Bayvie NCD.

The RUD has been amended several times in recent years, and this proposal represents another step in updating an older regulatory framework.

However, the ordinance highlights some structural equity concerns.

Only one establishment appears eligible under the narrow criteria tied to the pre-2003 ABC licenses.

This limited applicability underscores the need for a more comprehensive update to the NCD's alcohol-related controls.

For this reason, the department recommends a broader approach, and that is to conditionally permit all bars within the Third Street RUD and the Bayview NCD instead of the narrow criteria.

This would create a more consistent and equitable regulatory structure by applying the same level of review for bar uses, not just the few with the historic licenses.

My understanding is that the supervisor is not amenable to this broader recommendation.

However, um staff is still presenting it to illustrate a more equitable and predictable policy framework that could address the underlying structural issues identified through this analysis.

Had this broader approach been adopted earlier, Sam Jordans could likely have already completed the conditional use process in the time that this ordinance had been developed and reviewed.

This illustrates how a district-wide CU framework would provide a clearer, more efficient path for all operators, including the historic businesses, rather than requiring individual one-off legislative fixes as we have seen in recent years.

This approach still achieves the original intent, and Sam Jordans would continue to have a clear path to reopen at a new site, but other prospective owners would also have the opportunity to apply through the conditional use process and appear before you.

This shifts the focus from tracking relocation eligibility to reviewing each proposal on its merits, consistent with how most land uses are reviewed today.

Again, the recommendation is that you adopt a recommendation of approval with modification.

This concludes the staff presentation, and I am available for any questions along with Mr.

Van Houten.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we should open up public comment, members of the public.

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

You need to come forward.

Last call, seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner McGarry.

I'd like to make a motion to approve a modification.

I second it.

Vice President Moore.

I'd like to I like to ask Ms.

Flores a couple of questions.

The alcohol restrictive districts have existed for a long time, and I believe that they have been crafted in a protective manner for specific parts of the city to really ensure that there is health and common sense in the use of alcohol in those districts.

Over the years this issue has come back over and over again, and each time I felt that those supervisors who had a strong interest in supporting these uh uh restricted districts were taking a great deal of personal responsibility to monitor uh that this was applied with the most sensitive uh care regarding all aspects, uh neighbored viability, public health, community feel, etc., etc.

Uh I'm a little bit uneasy with particular uh supervisor Walton or anybody from his district being here, that we are trying to interpret something which you stated he is not uh really supporting very much, was not interested in it at this time.

And that worries me a little bit.

Particularly if you are asking us to expand this legislation citywide.

Uh there are other vulnerable communities where alcohol is indeed a big issue aside from drug use, etcetera, et cetera, and I put alcohol in that similar category, that I am hesitant to let go of what I believe needs to be an extended attitude of care and specific attention by somebody who lives and represents a district.

And I'm saying that you're modestly not passing judgment, but I believe that the careful attention, personal attention over the years has done a lot of good to those areas and to those communities who are in the middle of those conflicts.

Could you comment on that further, please?

Yes, thank you, Commissioner Moore.

And uh just a clarification the recommended modification is only to be applied to uh this area, not citywide.

Um I think we're in the s um and the same understanding there, but I just wanted to state that for the record.

Um regarding broadening this specific RUD.

It's something that we've talked about we talked about at length two years ago when there was another proposal to principally permit bars with a type 42 license within the Bayview and Third Street RUD.

And both in preparation for today's hearing and for that most recent ordinance, we really were considering the restricted RU um restricted use district, the original intent really to respond to the proliferation of bars and liquor establishments in the area.

The idea is that by establishing the RUD when a business closes, a new bar or liquor establishment would not be able to open up next door or around the corner.

It really was to help wind down these types of uses.

And when we're thinking about this from the land use perspective rather than specific tenants, that's where this broader approach could respond to more of the interest that we are seeing today.

So that's where the recommended modification is coming from.

And I I do apologize that we we do not have someone from the supervisor's office here.

Do we have any kind of complaint-based uh information built into this ordinance which would allow residents to say, hey, this is not working for us, and there would be exceptions made to potentially closely more closely watch or close undesirable businesses.

As currently drafted, there is no additional um complaint process.

We have the standard complaint-driven process where we would have our enforcement planners go out to the site as needed.

Um if of interest you you would be able to add a comment to that effect within the um your action today, if that's of interest, but there's not currently an additional um complaint process written into this ordinance.

Uh I sense that you have really thoughtfully uh given this consideration, so I'm interested to hear what my fellow commissioners have to say.

Thank you so much.

Commissioner Williams.

Just want to lend my voice to Commissioner Moore's uh thoughts.

Um I'm I don't see anything wrong with the legislation, but I'm not uh uh in agreement with the uh planning department's recommendation.

And we should uh respect his district and respect his wishes not to go along with the recommendation.

So just to be clear.

Thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

I have been listening to the thoughtful questions and comments and trying to take it in myself.

I certainly do support the legislation for its ability to allow this long standing business to reopen.

However, I also generally am a little skeptical of land use and planning code changes that are focused on solving for one specific issue.

And so I I understand and I can see where the staff recommendation is coming from.

I think where I'm coming down on this is that I I do support the motion with the staff recommended modification to allow bars with the conditional use authorization in the district.

It's I know the supervisor does not support it, and so in some ways I'm just hoping that this can kind of further a uh conversation that can happen about looking at changes to the restricted use district, especially given the way it has been kind of watered down.

I I do remember the uh not gonna get the terminology right, but the essentially um wine bar, um, wine and beer license businesses um being allowed in the district is that legislation we saw about two years ago.

Um so I think it's it it's appropriate to maybe just bring forward the question of uh whether uh further expansion is appropriate for allowing these uses.

But with the conditional use authorization.

So I will support the motion.

Okay, Commissioner seeing no additional request to speak.

Uh there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt recommendation for approval with staff modifications on that motion, Commissioner McGarry.

Aye.

Commissioner So.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams.

Nay.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

No.

And Commissioner President Campbell.

Aye.

So move Commissioners that motion passes four to two with Commissioners Williams and Moore voting against.

Commissioners, that will place this on item 7A and B for case numbers 2026, hyphen 003786 PCA and CRV for the inclusionary affordable housing program and develop impact fees, planning code amendment, as well as the delegation of authority to modify conditions of approval relating to inclusionary housing requirements, validity and period of performance, adoption of delegation authority.

Good afternoon, President Campbell and members of the Commission, Ada TAN with department staff.

On May 28th, 2026, City Staff provided this Commission with an informational presentation on the proposed changes to the inclusionary affordable housing program and development impact fee reductions.

Under the proposed ordinance, board file number 260538.

That was introduced by Mayor Mayor Lurie along with Supervisor Melgar, Dorsey, Cheryl, and Souter on May 19th.

We are back today to provide an overview of the key changes proposed under the ordinance, including revisions that were introduced through the substitute ordinance on June 2nd under the same board file number, which is included as exhibit H in the staff report.

I will discuss the relatively minor revisions under the substituted version later in this presentation.

The proposed ordinance is intended to address three key goals.

Goal one, meet the housing production objectives set forth in the 2022 housing element.

Goal two, incentivize development through local zoning regulations and this family zoning plan.

And goal three, streamline and simplify affordable housing requirements.

Today there are two action items before this commission.

The first is to adopt the planning code amendments under the proposed ordinance, and the second is to adopt a resolution delegating authority to the department to administratively approve requests for projects seeking to amend related conditions of approval.

The city's inclusionary program under planning code section 415 was formalized in 2002 and requires market rate housing projects with 10 or more units to comply with the program requirements.

Previously, changes to the rates required a charter amendment.

In 2016, voters approved proposition C, which allowed the city to adjust the requirements by ordinance.

The inclusionary housing technical advisory committee, TAC was also established, and they meet every three years to evaluate feasibility related to the inclusionary requirements.

Temporary inclusionary rates along with the 33% impact fee reduction have been in place since 2023 and are set to expire on November 1st of this year.

Overall housing production has declined sharply since 2020, with annual market rate housing production down by 70% compared to pre-pandemic levels.

As fewer market rate developments move forward, overall housing production declines, making it more difficult for the city to achieve its housing production goals.

Section 415 inclusionary units account for 9% of the total, and since 2020, only 6% of affordable housing production has come through the inclusionary program.

Annual inclusionary fee revenue has also declined compared to the years prior to the pandemic, and as funding and market conditions evolved, the city must have a broader mix of housing production and financing strategies to help sustain long-term affordability.

During the informational hearing, chief economist Ted Egan provided an overview of the technical advisory committee and the findings made under the triennial economic feasibility study.

The controller's office worked with the consultant and conducted a study on 20 different prototypes.

They found that no amount of inclusionary housing is currently economically feasible, and that the feasibility gap has worsened since the 2023 report, due primarily to rising construction costs and financing costs.

If a companion measure is placed on the November ballot for a long-term recurring affordable funding source, exempting projects with fewer than 25 units from the inclusionary requirements, removing the middle income tier and retaining the low and moderate income tiers, and to reduce development impact fees on new housing by 67%.

Following the tax recommendations on May 19th, Supervisor Melgar introduced a charter amendment to expand and renew the city's affordable housing trust fund.

The ballot measure would increase the current annual contribution from $50 million up to 125 million dollars over the next few years.

It would grow the annual funding by setting aside a portion of the city's annual growth in property tax revenue generated by new development projects allocated towards the fund.

This is projected to increase the city's total baseline annual funding for affordable housing production and preservation by an additional approximately $3 billion over the next 30 years.

This measure is co-sponsored by a majority of the Board of Supervisors and is supported by the mayor, so it is expected to appear on the November ballot, keeping in line with the TAC recommendation.

The following slides highlight the proposed ordinance key changes, many of which reflect the TAC's unanimous recommendations.

The applicability threshold would increase to projects with 25 or more units.

The on-site rate would be 5% with identical rates for rental and ownership projects.

The highest tier middle income would be removed, and the low and moderate income tiers would be retained with 4% at low and 1% at moderate.

The ordinance also proposes that the affordable housing fee rate and off-site rate be set to 10%.

Proportional reductions to home SF requirements are proposed to align with the citywide on-site reduction.

The areas shown on this map currently have higher rates than the citywide rates.

Projects in these areas will be subject to the citywide on-site rate of 5%, with fee and off-site rates set at 15%.

The ordinance expands the land dedication options citywide.

Projects in the specific areas shown on this shown on the previous map would still be able to dedicate land for affordable housing equal to 15% of units on the principal site, while most other projects would dedicate land equal to 10%.

Dedicated sites must accommodate at least 70 units, be approved by most city, and generally be located within one mile of the principal project.

Projects located in the specific areas or within a well-resourced neighborhood could locate anywhere within those areas.

The same location standards would apply to projects providing units off-site.

The proposed ordinance also establishes administrative processes for how projects can take advantage of the new rates, request extensions to their performance period, or modify the method of inclusionary compliance and project tenure.

As part of today's action item, the commission the commission would need to delegate authority to the planning director or their designee to allow for administrative approval of such requests.

Projects have a three-year period to vest their approval.

If a project requests an extension, the department will apply new requirements related to inclusionary and impact fees, and new objective standards would be triggered.

Projects that do not qualify for administrative approval may still request to modify their conditions through the planning commission process.

Under the proposed ordinance, all Article 4 impact fees except for the inclusionary affordable housing fee would be reduced by 67%.

This reduction would apply to all projects, including non-residential projects that submit a complete development application and two pipeline projects that have been finally approved but have not been issued a first construction document.

The list of Article 4 impact fees that can be reduced by 67% are stated on pages 18 and 19 of the staff report and are also listed in the department's impact fee register.

The fee deferral program that was reinstated in the 2023 ordinance would remain in place and would be amended to allow all projects to defer 85% of fees to temporary certificate of occupancy, including Section 415 fees.

Currently, projects and area plans may only defer 80% of fees.

The area shown on this map are required to pay additional affordable housing fees on top of the inclusionary fee.

This ordinance would eliminate the additional housing fees for these areas.

When impact fees are reduced or will eliminated by legislation as proposed under this ordinance, pipeline projects would be able to modify their requirements to incorporate those reductions.

Any amount that has already been paid at building permit issuance would not be refunded, and the reduction would only apply to the remaining deferred balance due at occupancy.

Projects with minor modifications can retain their original fee types, and the rates will be locked in at final approval.

Projects with major changes, entitlement extensions, or expired approvals will be subject to the requirements in effect at the time of the request.

Projects must obtain first construction document within three years of final planning approval.

The proposed ordinance includes planning code simplifications and cleanup amendments as outlined during the informational hearing.

The substitute ordinance introduced on June 2nd adds clarifying and conforming amendments to improve consistency across the code, including updates to definitions and other technical cleanup items as noted on this slide.

The department has three recommended modifications to the proposed ordinance.

I provided a handout earlier with the redline version of the specific code changes and revisions to exhibit A, the draft resolution for reference.

The first recommendation is to amend Section 249.5 C6 for the north of market residential SUD to allow exceptions to the 80-foot base height limit in the 80-120-T and 80 130-T height and bulk districts to be approved through conditional use authorization.

A CUA is already required to exceed 80 feet in the north of market residential SUD.

The CUA is currently required under Section 263.7, which currently establishes an affordable housing fee that is proposed for removal as shown on the map in the previous slide.

After the publication of the staff report, two typos were identified in the proposed ordinance, so the department also recommends correcting Section 415.10E to reference 415.4 G4 and G2 instead of 415.4E4 and E2.

And the third recommendation is to correct the definition of development application.

Specifically for projects that are subject to a development agreement, the development application shall mean an individual building's first site or building permit application.

As of this morning, the department has received 21 letters of support for the proposed ordinance.

The letters state that currently inclusionary requirements and impact fees are making many projects financially infeasible, contributing to stalled housing production and affordability challenges.

They also instigate that the ordinance would improve physics feasibility, increase production, and support long-term affordable housing investment with the housing trust fund.

The department received two letters of opposition stating that lowering inclusionary requirements would weaken or eliminate one of the city's consistent affordable housing tools.

And additionally, the department received one letter expressing concern that as market conditions improve and housing projects on standard lots of 2,500 square feet become more financially feasible.

Existing ministerial approval programs may incentivize luxury housing development without corresponding affordability requirements.

On June 9th, city staff met with the department's community equity advisory council and presented the proposed changes under the ordinance.

Council members discussed the ordinance's impact on housing affordability, production and development feasibility, including the lower rates and the removal of the middle income tier.

City staff explained that the changes are based on TAC recommendations and most CD data and are intended along with the housing trust fund measure to increase affordable housing production and preservation.

The council also raised concerns about advancing the ordinance before the housing trust fund vote, and staff relate that the timeline is driven by the expiration of the current temporary rates on November 1st.

Broader equity concerns were also raised, including displacement, gentrification, and access to affordable housing opportunities.

Again, there are two action items before the commission today.

The first is to adopt the resolution for approval of the planning commotion code amendments under item 7A.

Staff recommends approval with the three modifications that were previously mentioned.

The second action is under item 7B.

Staff also recommends adopting a resolution delegating authority to the planning director or their designee to allow for administrative approval through the process outlined in Section 415.4G.

The proposed ordinance supports advancing the objectives of the housing element, aligns local zoning regulations to support new housing development, and streamlines and simplifies affordable housing requirements.

If adopted, these changes would better align the planning code with the city's housing goals while making the development process more predictable and efficient.

As for the updated legislative timeline, this item was presented to the Building Inspection Commission yesterday, and they unanimously approved the proposed changes under the ordinance that pertain to the building code.

After today's planning commission hearing, this ordinance will go before the government audit and oversight committee on July 2nd.

The goal is still to get this proposed ordinance to the Board of Supervisors for the consideration prior to the August recess.

This concludes staff presentation.

Myself along with other city staff are available to respond to any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we should open up public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on items 7A and B.

Please come forward, and if you could line up on the screen side of the room on the right side, that would be great.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name's Mary Travisellen.

I am the co-chair of the American Indian Cultural District.

I also sit on the planning equity council.

But most importantly, and I'm going to say this.

Do you see me?

Does this city government see the people that are in most in need?

These ordinances, the resolution that was passed by planning in 2020, to uplift communities that have suffered disparities because of the decisions in this city that didn't provide housing for people.

Our community are the highest rate of unhoused.

As city unid council, and I'm going to support anything that's going give more housing in this city.

But what's affordable?

Because what we experience is unaffordability.

Our incomes do not afford affordable housing.

So when these decisions are being made for the housing trust fund, is it really comparable to the rate and increase in building these buildings?

And what spoke cause these landowners who are holding on to their properties so that they can profit more off of the sale of the bra for these to release it so we can build affordable housing.

There's nothing in this.

A lot of promises, and quite frankly, this country's history with our community has defaulted on a lot of promises.

There's a lot more I could say.

But I hope that for those of you look to your heart, look to your conscience, look to the resolutions that have been passed, give meaning to equity.

Don't let it just be a word of the past that was applicable, like equality and this and that.

Take it to heart and to the people who are suffering.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices.

Hello, everybody.

My name is Debbie Santiago.

I'm one of the elders of the American Indian community.

I'm on the advisory council on the American Indian Intertribal Center here in San Francisco.

I have been born and raised here six generations.

My grandmother was relocated here in 1919, not by her decision by force.

So again, when I'm listening to all of this and reading everything, what is affordable?

I read that some of these things seem like they're gonna complement each other.

It doesn't look like it's gonna complement each other.

These affordable housing needs to go across the board for everybody.

And for my community, as American Indian, my people are 20 times more homeless than anybody else.

And there are 28 more times in the country.

So when you say that these things are going to be available to everybody, make sure it's even available for the smaller units as well.

I've been waiting to hear.

See my people, see those who are less fortunate to help them.

There's so many people in the shelters that have been waiting for three or four years to get housing.

And a lot of them are my people.

So again, I ask you to please think from your heart, not what's what's on paper.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Um again, my name is Shannon Way.

Uh I am on the inclusionary talk, and I would like to first of all push back on this misnomer that the talk recommendations were at all unanimous.

This was a chaotic process that half an hour after our last meeting, after months of still not knowing what was going on and where we were gonna land, you know, things were pushed through, there was no vote ever held, and we've been going back and forth in emails for weeks afterwards, um, trying to even clarify what the recommendations of the talk that would be moved forward are.

Um I also uh want to push back on this idea that we have to pit the housing trust fund against the inclusionary housing.

They're talking about two completely different things.

We should not be putting low-income housing against middle income housing.

That's ridiculous.

There's a lot of other things that I think the TAC brains that are all the smart bodies in the room could have been talking about.

But what we were told was here is your, you know, you're determined how what is the percentage of occlusionary that is affordable.

And by the way, here's a trick question because here's a report that shows that no level of inclusionary is affordable.

And I think that where you'll see maybe the commit the talk did step a little bit out of bounds is that through without this all we were all very frustrated that we couldn't be having a broader conversation about what other things that we could do to actually increase the development without having to throw our middle class under the bus or to take away from these very, very critical units, over 24,000 households every year apply for these.

I also want to push back on the fact that for the TAC committee, Choo Choo, who had helped draft the original legislation for inclusionary in the early 2000s, was removed in their place, Mercy Housing and the community, San Francisco Community Land Trust were added.

Those are wonderful organizations that do absolutely amazing critical work in the city, but neither one of them work with inclusionary housing programs.

They do 100% affordable housing development, and I'm not sure that they have the authority to sacrifice inclusionary in order to get the funding that they need to build the affordable housing that we also need.

I really want to urge you guys to push back and to stall this and not let this just steamroll forward, because in addition to being a critical program, a housing program that does produce housing units that we need so desperately that people are applying for years in lotteries to try to get.

Um, this is also a planning tool.

And just in the same way that we don't, you know, we require developers to build two bedrooms and limit parking.

Those are all things that do impact their bottom line.

And also we have to do that because of the fact that it is in the greater good of the San Francisco that we need to build.

We need to be having the conversation of how to preserve the highest amount of inclusionary possible, not putting these bizarre political trade-offs of like, well, what if we get a housing trust fund in exchange for inclusionary?

That framing is so dysfunctional and really needs to stop here before it goes forward and the board of supervisors unwillingly pass something that they don't understand and that actually limits your ability to do your job.

Thank you, that is your time.

Good afternoon, um uh President Campbell, commissioners and staff.

My name is Lee Lovett, and I'm a new member of Planning's Equity Advisory Council.

So there's an old saying that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't get it to drink.

And that's the situation that we find ourselves in with the change with changing the inclusionary requirements.

So we want developers to build more housing in San Francisco and be using these tools, both the city and the state, um, that are at our disposal.

But let's look back from the last three years.

Uh when we are reducing inclusionary housing, what are we doing?

We're kind of repeating these conversations that we had with the TAC recommendations from 2023 and also the controller's report.

Currently, the controller is saying that the cost of construction have really been tamping down on housing development.

It's the labor, materials, finance and costs, including interest rates, which have stayed very high.

And even adding to what um Ms.

Tan was saying, even when you zero out inclusionary housing rates, almost all those project scenarios are still not feasible, except for I think a mid um mid-rise condominium um project.

So what are we trying to do?

We're leading our market rate developers to the watering hole, but all these factors throw mud into their willingness to build at this point.

And as the previous commenters said, we really need to explore other tools.

So if we kind of you know look back and look like I think we need some data from the past three years.

Just looking, let's say, at the rental projects with 25 or more units with the on-site affordable requirement, right?

Like in in 2017, this was set at 18%.

Now, with the 2023 legislation, the TAC recommended, the board passed 12% for pipeline projects.

So let's look at the pipeline projects because these were the ones where an administrative process was put.

So the developers could say, hey, you know, I have a higher rate.

Can I apply for this this newer rate under the 2023 legislation?

So we should have a record here if we indeed saw that these projects were jump started in the last three years, and probably really two and change, right?

Because now we started this conversation in 2026.

So my question is you know, are these pipeline projects really going to be jumpstarted as we move forward with 5 percent?

Right?

It's another jump, and it feels like this is this becomes a slippery slope down to zero, and we won't have a core tool, a core program, actually, um the inclusionary program that helps to provide additional housing, not insignificant again from the charts that we have seen, you know, at its peak, and of course, this is at the peak of market rate development.

This was, you know, thirty thirty million dollars that was provided.

Um finally, we should really ma'am, but that is your time.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Uh, my name is Betty Trainer.

Uh I'm a board member at Senior and Disability Action here in San Francisco, and we strongly oppose this reduction and even elimination of some of the inclusionary affordable units in new market rate developments.

The very word affordability says it all.

So many, even most San Franciscans cannot afford market rate housing.

Our city workers, people right here in this building, as well as bus drivers, nurses, teachers, and younger people with disabilities, they cannot apply for senior affordable housing.

They also cannot afford market rate housing.

We at this point we say that we understand that we need to wait for these units in uh to as market rate housing cannot be built at this time, as other people before me have said, it's not even feasible if it was at zero percent.

But we believe it is the city's moral obligation to not reduce affordability.

In fact, it should be increased.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm going to take this opportunity to remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices.

If you don't know how to silence them, please just turn it off.

S.F.

Cov, we're going to need the overhead.

Oh, thank you very much.

My name is Calvin Welch.

I was a original member of the Supervisor Luno task force that developed uh the uh inclusionary zoning ordinance uh in the very beginning.

Uh nothing is gained, in my view, by reducing affordability requirements in terms of increasing market rate development.

I have no idea what policy you are following, since that is inimicable to the policy articulated and the housing element.

Uh uh in a recent analysis of what it would take to pay for meeting the affordable housing requirements of the housing element, we're talking about seven billion dollars.

The notion that a housing fee, uh housing uh uh development fee that will produce 30 million in uh excuse me, 10 million in 30 years is laughable.

It is laughable.

Let's take a look at where we were in 2017, the high point of market rate housing production in San Francisco.

Uh uh, some uh uh 4,972 units were produced.

The overwhelming majority were market rate units.

This is at the height of the inclusionary zoning requirement.

What relationship existed between the inclusionary housing uh uh requirement and market rate housing development?

Very little.

All kinds of other considerations were made to assume that we're going to increase market rate housing production, which is not an emphasis in the housing element by reducing the amount of affordable housing is again laughable.

Uh uh by 20 uh 25, according to the housing inventory of of this department, uh we were producing 2400 uh uh and six units.

The housing requirements, the inclusionary zoning had been dramatically reduced.

All kinds of fees have been waived, all kinds of procedures have been removed.

Still, market rate housing development is not responding.

There's something else going on that has nothing to do with permanently affordable housing.

If we look at 2025, according to your own statistics, we see that almost 74 percent of the housing produced in 2025 was affordable housing.

You are proposing an ordinance that will reduce that number.

In what sense are we increasing the housing inventory of San Francisco by adopting policies that reduce the amount of affordable housing?

I have no idea.

And I don't think you do either.

Hello, I'm uh Teresa Dulalas with SomCAN.

I live in Soma Felipidas District 6.

You know, we strongly oppose reducing the inclusionary housing requirement 5 percent.

There are two sides of the housing story, increasing housing production and preserving affordability for the people who already call San Francisco home.

For years, community members have come before this commission asking for more affordable housing and stronger protections against displacement.

We have consistently asked the city to give the same urgency to building and preserving affordable housing that it gives to market rate housing.

San Francisco's housing element requires us to produce thousands of affordable homes.

To meet those goals, we need every available funding source, policy tool, and housing strategy working together.

We need the housing trust fund, public investment, impact fees, preservation programs, tenant protections, and strong inclusionary housing requirements.

And this is not stalling.

What we don't need is to weaken one of the city's most important affordable housing tools.

We understand that developers may choose to dedicate land instead of directly providing inclusionary housing.

But dedicating does not automatically create affordable housing.

Are we expected to wait 10 years or even 115 years?

The community cannot afford afford affordable housing that exists only on paper.

We need affordable housing that is funded, built, and occupied.

The city has already provided significant incentives through upzoning, streamlining, density increases, and regulatory changes in favor of developers.

Yet today we're being asked to reduce affordable housing requirements even further.

At a time when San Francisco is struggling to meet its affordable housing goals, we cannot achieve them by weakening the tools designed to achieve them.

We need more affordable housing tools, not fewer.

And then we don't want the city coming back to us and say there's no money.

We urge you to reject both proposals.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Lloyd Sarangan, a San Francisco resident and sophomore in college.

I'm working with the South Market Community Action Network.

Again, we strongly oppose the reduction of the inclusionary housing requirement to 5 percent and the development impact fees on new housing.

I was born in a low-income family in the Philippines and grew up there for a part of my life while my parents worked here in San Francisco.

When I immigrated here to the U.S., I found myself in a cramped one-room apartment where my entire family had to squeeze itself in.

And it would take eight to ten years before my family could move into an affordable unit.

Housing is beyond just a place to stay.

It is where families and friends break bread, where students study, and where full-time employees go to rest.

Failing to provide adequate housing is a failure for our labor force, our students, our families, and who holds this city together.

And as we have experience in the city, SAP is in another moment that could leave tenants vulnerable.

And yet housing development continues to not meet our city's trajectory.

I was at the land use committee hearing on June 8th.

The BLA found that reducing inclusionary housing requirements and fees did not spur new market rate development.

In fact, it reduced city revenues.

We are in a budget crisis in a housing crisis.

We shouldn't be cutting back on one of our most consistent sources of new affordable housing units and funding.

These planning code modifications presupposes that the invigoration of market rate developing would also benefit low-income working class families.

We cannot count on market rate developers and profit-minded entities to address our housing crisis.

Only the public sector and you all here have the power to do something for the right reasons.

We must not be stingy and hesitant about this issue.

We are living through a crisis and we must handle it as such.

It is our responsibility to protect the families that breathe life in San Francisco.

Thank you.

Thank you for your lot thoughtful work on the inclusionary requirement changes.

At the informational hearing, you highlighted that we can't lose sight of those most vulnerable in this crisis.

Neighbors suffering from or on the verge of homelessness.

I spent years in that situation myself, and I can't imagine how much worse it would be today with costs so much higher.

Homelessness, affordable housing, and market rate housing are not separate problems.

They are one system.

Close to the neighborhood I've called home for six years.

His former tenant paid $3,500 a month.

He floated 4,500 to his rental agent.

The agent said go to 5,000.

They had 20 applicants in one day.

When apartments cost four to five thousand dollars a month, I stay in my eight hundred and thirty dollar room longer than I need to, even though I could afford more.

And the person who actually needs that room has nowhere to go.

More market rate housing can free up below market rate availability for the people who need it most.

Just a single room costs double, triple, quadruple what I've been used to before in other cities across the country.

My friends, neighbors, and I, we love living in SF, and we love the community here, but the rent is just too high for everyone here.

One of the paths out of this housing crisis is by increasing the supply of housing in the city over time.

And reducing the current requirements and fees are a key step forward in doing so.

The historical requ the historical requirements were well intentioned and have worked in previous periods to create affordable homes.

But now economic conditions have worsened.

As you know, the TAC report has found that costs have grown so much that it is no longer financially feasible for developer for developers to build market rate rental housing.

Unfortunately, an inclusionary requirement reduces to nothing if no housing is built.

When these market conditions change, as they are changing now, it is critical to review and update local laws to make sure that they remain effective.

This is exactly what's required now in this moment, which is why I request the commission to send this ordinance to the Board of Supervisors with a positive recommendation.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Hello, my name is Lisa Dance.

I'm a renter living in the mission, and I support the staff recommendation and the update to the ordinance for all the reasons that the previous speakers mentioned.

Thank you.

I want to say uh thank you to the previous speakers.

Um a lot of what I want to say has already been said.

With the exception I'm I'm really saddened by my South Asian brothers and their lack of connection with other communities who have uh sacrificed here in San Francisco and been displaced.

Um hearing uh the voices of our indigenous sisters um I don't know, like why.

Excuse me.

Why why when it comes to issues of affordability and homelessness, why is San Francisco insisting on fighting that battle with one arm behind our back and our knee taped to our elbow?

There's way too many smart people in this room to recognize that this recommendation of reducing um the BMR percentage is just it doesn't make sense in this environment.

You know, the the BMR program and this particular aspect, uh, the clients, the community that we work with, these opportunities provide space for people who are in the shelter system to move up and then free up further space.

I mean, I'm glad that people can recognize that connection, but I don't think people are taking that to heart enough.

Um, yes, I I really want to re-emphasize the this reduction is something that we need to look at more closely.

And I think that 5 percent is way too low.

There needs to be a different number that gets negotiated.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Commission and uh staff members.

My name is Kate Hartley.

I am the Chief Lending Officer at the Housing Accelerator Fund.

I'm also a former director of the Mayor's Office of Housing in San Francisco, and I implemented both the Housing Trust Fund and the Inclusionary Ordinance during my time there.

I'm speaking in support of the ordinance.

It's the result of extensive analysis by the inclusionary technical advisory committee, which includes members that have dedicated their careers to affordable housing and community development.

The reason the ordinance works is that it's a companion to the Housing Trust Fund amendment, which will increase and extend the much more significant, more reliable and more impactful resource this city needs for affordable housing.

The inclusion inclusionary ordinance has currently written is not reliable year to year.

It's rigid in its implementation.

It does not enable good planning because you can't count on those resources five years out, and housing takes five years or more, oftentimes.

A steadily increasing housing trust fund extended for 30 years does allow good planning.

And the housing trust fund can serve extremely low-income people and prevent displacement in a way that the inclusionary housing fees don't.

We need more housing of all types.

We especially need affordable housing.

We cannot do that without a steady, reliable resource.

And the inclusionary ordinance amendment can help expand that resource through an increased tax base.

Without those that tax base, we can't serve low-income people in our community.

So together, the inclusionary ordinance and the change to the housing trust fund amendment, which is essential, will produce better planning opportunities, help lower costs with those planning opportunities, and provide the how better provide the housing that we need.

And we need this change.

Thank you.

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Lori Drosti, and I'm the housing and planning director at Spur.

Spurs supports the proposed inclusionary housing and impact fee reforms because they reflect current economic realities and are grounded in evidence.

Last month, the controllers housing feasibility analysis found that housing development in San Francisco is largely not financially feasible under current conditions.

When projects don't get built, neither market rate housing nor affordable housing gets built.

In response, the technical advisory committee, a diverse group of affordable housing advocates, market rate developers, housing finance experts, unanimously recommended recalibrating inclusionary requirements and impact fees.

While no stakeholder got everything they wanted, the tax recommendation reflects the compromises necessary to reach a broad consensus after months of discussion.

This is not about abandoning affordability goals.

It's about recognizing that affordable housing requirements only create public benefits when housing projects actually move forward.

Higher requirements on paper may sound appealing, but they produce no affordable housing if they make projects infeasible.

Of course, these reforms are not a silver bullet and are only one part of the solution, but they are necessary.

Of course, San Francisco will need additional affordable housing funding and other strategies to increase housing production, but restoring project feasibility is a necessary first step.

Spur also supports exempting smaller projects, focusing scarce resources on lower income households, and simplifying regulations that add cost without providing meaningfully public benefit.

The choice again before us is not between housing production and affordability.

These goals are interconnected.

If we want more affordable housing, we need policies that allow housing to be built again.

Thank you, and please support these reforms.

Hello, my name is Mo Zhu.

I'm a resident of San Francisco.

I urge you to uh support and approve uh the department's recommendations.

Um I live in market rate housing, and uh this year my rent went up by 10%.

Um I felt lucky actually, and then I felt um that uh nobody is lucky when someone's rent goes up by 10%, um, even in a market rate uh situation.

And I think that there is a false uh sort of choice put before us by some of the folks previous uh where um either we are going to have affordable or we're going to have market rate.

But here, uh as many of the previous speakers have also said, uh these two things are not mutually exclusive.

Right now we're choosing between absolutely no new units versus uh some uh new units.

Um I also uh think that there's another false choice uh that is presented, which is whether or not um market rate units actually help people uh who need uh affordable units.

I saw in the controller's report a shocking number, something like two and a half percent of people who are applying for uh affordable units or trying to get in actually get it.

So 97% of them, what are they doing?

Where are they going?

Um in fact uh combining that with another uh research done by the Pew Center, um they looked at moving chains, which was when new housing gets built, somebody moves into the new housing, and then other people move in.

And so then uh at the end of that chain, uh a unit of affordable housing becomes available for someone else to take in.

So it actually does.

Uh building more units in general actually does free up uh units across the entire um uh spectrum.

So I do uh urge you guys to uh look past these false choices and uh have a clear uh sense of what the choice is here.

Thank you.

Hello, all my name is Lisa Platt.

I am a resident of Pacific Heights.

Um while there's a proposal to increase the housing trust fund as a way to address the gap in funding created by reducing and eliminating inclusionary housing requirements.

That has no guarantee of passing.

So we're replacing the only meaningful lever we have with thoughts and prayers.

At the same time, data suggests that this wouldn't even result in the construction of additional market rate housing.

So we're giving away what we have for no gain.

That is hella irresponsible.

I support more public housing, but we can't yet rely on that without enough guaranteed funding, which we don't have.

I also know that the current inclusionary system isn't producing as many affordable units as we need, but getting rid of it without a viable replacement reads only as a developer giveaway, and we've had enough of those.

Only 1,000 affordable housing units were built each year since the inception of the housing trust fund.

At the same time, there were more than three times more market rate units built.

And yet, the influx of AI money with several more IPOs on the way and thus thousands of new millionaires in this city, continues to drive up the cost of housing while SF population is actually lower than pre-pandemic levels.

This isn't a supply and demand problem.

My newly arrived in SF neighbor happily pays five thousand dollars per month for a one-bedroom because he can.

Market rate units attract new people who can afford them, while those who cannot leave the city.

I know that's how I too ended up here with a great paying tech job, and I probably took someone's home.

We need to stop the cycle.

The previous speaker was right.

Someone does move into these units, and it's people like me.

Don't give away one of the only mechanisms we have for no ROI.

Have a holistic solution in place and then move forward.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Whit Turner speaking on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition.

We are hella excited to support this legislation.

Our membership builders, affordable housers, labor, community organizations has been saying for years what the controller's data now confirms, which is that the current inclusionary and feast structure is not working.

We are not producing enough housing.

The inclusionary program, pardon me, has consistently underdelivered, not because it's not important, but because it's only as effective as the housing starts it's attached to, and right now those are zero.

What's in front of you today aims to fix that.

And what you give the commission confidence is that the people who actually deliver housing in the city across every segment of this industry are unified behind it, and that doesn't happen often.

It's happening now because the ordinance is grounded in reality, and because the companion charter amendment to more than double the housing trust fund means that the city is pairing housing production with the largest dedicated affordable housing investment it has ever made.

The coalition is here, it's present, and the data is clear.

So we ask for your vote to advance this ordinance today.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Rami Dare, and I'm the regional director of real estate at Mercy Housing California.

Our President Tiffany Bohe served on the Technical Advisory Committee, which informed the recommendations in the legislation before you.

This would help ensure that San Francisco can continue to invest in housing for low-income families, seniors, veterans, and people who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

We also support the broader legislative package, including modifications to the inclusionary housing requirements and development fees that can help improve project feasibility and encourage the production of housing.

Taken together, this package represents a significant opportunity to expand housing opportunities across income levels while ensuring that San Francisco remains a dedicated remains dedicated and committed to serving its most vulnerable residents.

We urge you to advance the housing trust fund charter amendment and the accompanying legislation so that the city can make meaningful progress toward addressing its housing needs.

Thank you.

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Mitch Mankin.

I'm the policy and data manager at San Francisco Housing Development Corporation.

We're a community-based affordable housing developer, resident services provider, and HUD certified housing counseling agency, and we serve clients across the Bay Area, but especially focus on the San Francisco's black community and the Fillmore and Bayview districts.

Our housing counselors have clients coming in every day asking how they can find an affordable place to live.

And inclusionary units are one of the major sources of those homes, as well as the 100% affordable that is built with the loo fees from inclusionary.

The need for affordable housing is urgent, real, and not going away.

The analysis presented to the tax show that there is no level you can reduce the inclusionary rate to that would make the performers pencil out.

Inclusionary housing is not the problem.

Cost of building is the problem.

As long as the costs of land, labor, lumber, and liquidity stay high, market rate projects will remain stalled.

And when those market conditions improve, we will still need inclusionary housing dollars to support affordable housing.

Further, I couldn't find a single city in the Bay Area that has an inclusionary rate below 10%.

5% would be an unprecedented reduction.

Given all that, I want to uplift the six modifications that were named in the Choo Choo letter you received yesterday.

Each of these deserve careful consideration and discussion from each of you as planning commissioners.

And hopefully I have time for all of them.

One, reject the permanent collapse to 5% on site rate.

Restore a meaningful floor, prioritizing units at 55% AMI, and provide a path towards pre-reductions levels as those as the market recovers.

Two, retain the 10 unit applicability threshold.

Reject the permanent exemption of projects that are under 25 units.

Three, preserve the geographic anti-displacement requirements in the mission, SOMA, and Eastern neighborhoods.

Four, protect the job housing linkage fee and the community stabilization fees from the 67% reduction.

And five, pair any feasibility release with cost side measures.

That's financing, construction costs, and process that address the real costs of getting shovels in the ground.

So the burden does not fall on affordable housing.

Even the Technical Advisory Commission acknowledged this burden should not fall on them alone.

And finally, six, advance the housing trust fund as additional support, not as the price of this rollback, and address the gaps between when these cuts take effect this year and when the replacement revenue from the housing trust fund will arrive, which doesn't come until 2029.

Housing is public good.

The market can be made to serve the needs of the residents.

We need to do it thoughtfully and think about not just current market conditions, but those that are coming down the road.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Dane Willette.

I'm a volunteer lead with SFEMB and I live in Cole Valley.

I'm speaking in favor of the TAC requirements, and I hope that you vote in favor of them today.

The reason that I'm in support is the same reason that I am part of SFEMB.

Me and my wife moved to San Francisco a little over a year ago.

We moved from Texas, which, as I'm sure you are all aware, is not the best place to be living for a lot of communities right now.

My wife and I want to be able to have kids soon, and that is a dangerous prospect in Texas with their abortion and health care lots.

And we saw that San Francisco has been welcoming to my sister, to my wife's parents, and we wanted to feel welcome and to come here as well.

Thankfully, we are able to get an apartment and we live in San Francisco and have for over a year now.

But as others have echoed with looking at moving up to bigger units, we want to be able to have an apartment where our kids can have rooms of their own, hopefully.

And right now the market is just not in a position where that's happening.

I believe that the TAC recommendations will help produce more housing and will make it where me and my wife are not going to have to wait for some miracle unit where we have some lottery that we manage to win to get a three or a four-bedroom unit to raise our kids in in this city, and we know that there are countless other people who have the same concern, where they cannot, even if they're currently living here, they cannot live in their ideal type of housing situation.

And so I know that in order for our family to be able to grow and prosper here and hopefully not get pushed out of the city.

We absolutely have to build more housing.

And the TAC recommendations are a well-grounded and well thought out effort to make that a reality for me and others like me.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, George Ashutish.

Uh I would like to make uh four points, please.

Uh first, uh everyone should read Lorraine Petty's thoughtful letter in the supporting documents, which is on the Commission website on the end of the inclusionary.

Second, there are three feasibility studies that need to be looked at together.

All are contingent on improved market conditions.

God bless you.

One year ago, in June 2025, for the FCP, the most feasible development across all project types was on a lot of 2,500 square feet, the typical lot in the residential neighborhoods.

Now, in June 2026, per the controller's report on the inclusionary, the most feasible development did not take lot size into consideration.

Yet the BLA analyzed projects similar to the type the controller used, market rate condos, roughly 100 units at eight stories tall, but that study did include a lot size of 10,000 square feet.

Aren't these all in conflict with one another?

Third, again, one year ago, the rezoning for the rezoning, the most feasible development under improved market conditions was any project on a 2500 square foot lot.

Given the real estate frenzy, the city is likely in improved market conditions.

But under the HCSF and SB 423, allowing fewer than four units in the 4044R is a loophole that should be closed because this may just lead to two units of luxury housing.

This is not affordable housing and it skews the market way upwards.

There's a prototype I submitted in August 12th, 2025 letter for about four units, four flats with two, three bedrooms, two baths.

Please look at that again if you are looking for a prototype.

And it has a 45 percent rear yard.

Finally, to everyone who follows the blanket, build baby build philosophy, including the people, all the people on the second floor of this building, they should recognize that they have won.

They've won.

And they should use their political capital and put their efforts into repealing and ending the Ellis Act.

Thank you very much.

And here's my 150 words for the minutes.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Paul Wormer.

I have various thoughts.

One is we have a residential nexus study.

And I'm assuming that that is a real useful document because the planning department has used that as justification for the inclusion requirements.

And it ties the demand for below market rate housing that is created by the construction of market rate housing.

So understand every market rate unit creates demand for sort of 30 percent or one-third of a below market rate unit.

Right?

That's an economic study that is based on really good economic models.

I've seen input operating analysis on similar things, and it's it's pretty reliable.

So it's not at all clear to me why allowing market rate up to 24 units to provide no inclusionary housing and to dramatically reduce inclusionary housing requirements for above 25 units, actually helps us deal with the fundamental problem of affordable housing in the city.

Couple that to the idea that we are going to do, you know, let me say there was a politician you may remember who was advocating for the repeal of the ACA.

But don't worry, you can repeal it, but I will have a very good program in two months.

And here I am hearing, oh, we will have a charter amendment in the fall.

How many of you can guarantee me that Charter amendment on the Housing Trust Fund will pass?

If you are going to pass something that is relying on the Charter Amendment, please, please, please make sure that its implementation does not occur unless that Charter amendment passes.

That needs to be a link.

Otherwise, it's promises.

And I think someone at the beginning talked about the history of promises from government to vulnerable populations earlier in this hearing, and I call back to that.

So thank you.

I think that as it stands, this really needs to be thought about a little bit more before it is put forward.

And then I would note a separate issue, a safety issue.

That seat in the back there is broken.

It sort of collapsed under me.

So maybe someone needs to make a note to get maintenance to look at it because someone could get hurt there.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Nice to see everyone here today on such an important issue.

Have a little perspective on this, having been one of the architects back in 2017, when we actually created the idea of the TAC and having there be a body of experts, both developers, affordable controller, economists that would come in and say, depending upon where the market is, we're going to take a look at where the inclusionary number should be.

So I'm happy to be here today on behalf of the building trades in support of this proposal.

There are a lot of different levers that you'll notice, and we have one of the TAC members that's going to speak after, but the cost of construction, the lending, the number, the transfer tax, all you know, the inclusionary number, all these things play into the levers that impact the decision of where we are in the market today.

And so it's not just fixating on one, they all are related to one another.

And so lowering this number today is going to unleash development in the city.

And there does need to be both affordable and market rate, and this can be done in good way.

And I think there's a nexus and there's a connection to the proposed housing trust fund.

So yes, this might be a reduction in the short run, but there is going to be, I believe, uh a larger allocation for affordable housing.

Another thing I worked on back in 2011 with Mayor Ed Lee.

And it's not enough money to jumpstart, but if we're able to increase that number, it's going to be overall a positive impact on the on overall for affordable and market rate housing development.

So happy to be here with on behalf of the trades in support of this.

And so I hope you all will send this out with approval.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

I'm Jesse Blout with Strata.

I've been a member of the TAC since its inception as then supervisor Safe mentioned, been on it since 2017 or 18.

And I'm really proud of the work that TAC did this time around.

Um six months of effort.

Um the group really came together with uh under a difficult set of circumstances.

It's never something that even I, as a marketer developer, relish doing, which is to lower um affordability on inclusionary basis.

But as I'm sure you've heard in in the presentations, uh, the controllers report shows the truth, which is housing construction isn't feasible today.

We've had the privilege of building over a thousand units in San Francisco in the last five years.

I think we're the probably built the most housing of anybody.

And I would be um lying to you if I didn't say it was very difficult to get housing built today, and this will make a material impact on our ability to build uh here in the city.

We have over 1,500 housing units in the pipeline.

Um of the things I'm most proud about is how much unanimity there was in the room around these recommendations, as I think it states in the controllers report.

Um and one of the big breakthroughs here was this notion of this comes together with the um what we call the grand bargain of moving forward with the housing trust fund, which is a longtime goal of everybody who's tried to support affordable housing, which is to create a sustainable source, a dependable source of affordable housing financing that doesn't depend on the exigencies of the market rate development market, which inclusionary, of course, is tied, and impact fees from inclusionary are tied to the market.

And so this takes that away a little bit and says, okay, no matter what, we're gonna have a reliable source of affordable housing funding for affordable housing developers to plan appropriately for and the city to plan appropriately for and to implement.

So I personally that was the big breakthrough in the room.

Nobody, including myself, relishes the idea of lowering the affordability requirements if we don't have to.

It's just what the time calls for, given how c how expensive it is to build and how hard it is to get housing financed.

But the housing trust fund, I think really brings this all together into a way that allows everybody to move forward in in a kind of comprehensive way.

The other thing I'll point out, which is maybe a subtlety of this set of recommendations is most, you know, setting the inclusionary level as low as 5% does create an interesting incentive for those of us that are looking at whether to not use the density bonus by having a lower inclusionary rate for non-density bonus projects and density bonus projects.

I think it really does potentially point a lot of developers towards using um things like the family zoning plan without requiring density bonus.

So I think that's a little feature of this thing important.

I've heard Commissioner Moore and others talk about the challenges that the density bonus presents from a policy perspective.

So just to note that.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Chaya French.

Um I am the director of organizing at Teen Air and Disability Action.

Um we are a nonprofit that has many we um reach a few thousand people in the Bay Area, and the majority of those people are people who have needed some form of affordable housing.

Um I think that we feel pretty concerned.

We're um opposing what's being put forward because anything that reduces the amount of affordable housing in the city really harms our folks that we have enough vacant units in San Francisco for every unhoused person to have two units.

The problem is not that we're not building enough housing.

The problem is that not enough of that housing is affordable.

And so the solution to that, there are many, but one of them is to continue to require to require developers to make more housing that is affordable.

And that, you know, we need all of the tools at our disposal in the city.

We need the rent control.

We need the supportive housing, and we really need this inclusionary housing.

Because if not, we will have a city of billionaires.

We will have a city of people who make you know 200,000 a year or more.

And we will lose the city, the people who make San Francisco, San Francisco.

I think it's unethical to pass this resolution.

And I hope you take these comments into consideration.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Maya Moria Selkie Scott.

My pronouns are they them.

I am 60 years old.

I am non-binary and queer and multiply disabled.

I was born with a really serious disability that makes it hard for me to breathe or swallow, which is primarily why I use a wheelchair.

I live in a unit now that has a combination of market rate, below market rate, and units that people with housing vouchers like me can live in.

And it's one of the most multiracial, multilingual, intergenerational, accessible places that I've ever lived.

It's an amazing place to live.

So I've been here for 36 years.

I am also a domestic violence survivor.

And I was actually married here in City Hall during the winter of love on Friday, February 13th, and also married again.

So this is a very important place to me.

But unfortunately, I'm in the middle of divorce because I'm a domestic violence survivor, and I had to go into the domestic violence shelter system in the height of the pandemic on May 4th, 2021.

There is an absolute pandemic around domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and trafficking going on in this time during the pandemic, and I am one of 70,000 families in the United States that got an emergency housing voucher under the Biden Harris administration.

So without these kinds of affordable housing, I am living currently on below $400 a month.

I don't even have SSDI.

I have to do GoFundMe to be able to eat.

So think about people like me.

I'm a mama, I'm a domestic violence survivor, I'm an organizer, I'm an artist, and we want the Bay Area to have folks like me here.

So please, please, please make more spaces like the place that I live in available for people.

And thank you so much for your time.

I'm also a member of Senior and Disability Action and Disability Justice League Bay Area and hand in hand and a lot of grassroots disability organizing groups.

So thank you so much.

Okay, last call for public comment.

Seeing none public comment is closed and these items are now before you.

Commissioner Williams.

I want to thank every everyone who can you hear me?

I want to thank everyone who came out and uh gave testimony today.

This is uh very um serious and impactful issue.

I have some prepared thoughts that I would like to read into the record.

Our inclusionary affordable housing program adopted in 2002 has been in effect for over two decades, requiring market rate developers to provide a modest initially 12 percent of their units be affordable to the communities they were building in.

From 2006 to 2018, the program produced 2,0761 below market rate homes.

That's 2,0761 families, mostly lower income, seniors, and working class residents.

I personally know several families and friends that have benefited from this program.

This program has been one of the tools to provide affordability and stability to existing residents of our city when luxury and market rate development is being built in their communities.

The legislation before us today seeks to lower the inclusionary rate to 5 percent.

This is not without consequence.

Every percentage point can represent hundreds of families, seniors, lower income residents, formerly homeless residents, not afforded an opportunity for stable and a stable stable affordable home.

At a time when rents in our city are at a record high, income inequality is soaring, and everyday expenses are soaring, the demand for affordable housing is at its greatest levels in decades.

Not only does this legislation seek to lower the inclusionary affordable units, it also reduces the in-leaf inLU fees that feed our affordable housing fund.

The revenues generated by the inLU fees are leveraged from State and Federal and private investment.

In a good year, that contribution has reached roughly $50 million.

All of this revenue dedicated to affordable housing production.

In the past two decades, in communities like the mission district and South of Market.

We've seen the impacts of luxury and market rate development when it is built without housing, affordable housing to offset the upward pressures.

The gentrification that has ravaged these communities has been well documented.

As a result, safeguards in land use have been put in place with the adoption of area plans and designating these communities as priority equity geographies.

This legislation dismantles these protections and leaves communities vulnerable.

According to our current state mandated housing element, all new development requires to be 57 percent affordable units.

This legislation further diminishes our opportunity to achieve our affordable housing requirements at a time at the same time reduces in lieu fees needed to achieve funding for affordable housing.

The findings from the inclusionary housing technical advisory committee leave out two fundamental parts that are required for development.

One, the cost of financing, the percentage rate to capitalize projects, two, the cost of materials, both having nothing to do with inclusionary units or impact fees.

Another recommendation from the Technical Advisory Committee is to exclude small projects of fewer than 25 units from the program, which currently is 10 units or more.

This recommendation will negatively affect our affordable housing requirements.

And in areas like the west side of our city, which have been upzoned and targeted for new development, because of the smaller lot sizes will ensure most new development will be market rate and not affordable housing.

Reductions to the inclusionary housing requirements and development impact fees wouldn't be so negatively impactful if we had a comprehensive, fully funded affordable housing strategy and production plan and pathways to achieve them with specific time frames.

Unfortunately, we don't have that.

This current legislation is written will impact the most vulnerable residents who are in need the most.

Dismantle current land use protections in our most vulnerable communities and further diminish opportunities to create affordable housing within the system that we have.

The need for affordable housing is one of the most important issues facing our city.

This legislation highlights the vulnerabilities in the way we produce and fund affordable housing.

My hope is that this sparks the conversation that we should be having right now, which is how do we fund and create the affordable housing that we so desperately need.

The proposed legislation to increase the annual appropriations to the Affordable Housing Fund starting it in 2029 is an important step to achieving our affordable housing needs.

I would like to thank Supervisor Melgar and the mayor for putting that legislation forward.

The voters of our city will have the final say.

The idea that we are putting this legislation that's in front of us today before having a permanent source of funding in place is unnecessarily adversely affecting our affordable housing.

Those are my opening statements.

Thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

I will also echo the thanks for the extensive public comment and interest that has happened here today with good reason.

You know, when it comes to protecting and producing affordable housing, it is a high priority in policy for well, high priority for me, I'll say that.

I'm going to I'm not going to rehash all my comments from May 28th.

Maybe some of them I'll try to not get back into that when this was an informational item.

I I will start, however, with a little bit in the weeds questions for staff before sharing some broader thoughts.

And so most of my questions are about changes that have happened since the May 28th hearing about this item.

So the first one is a recommendation, staff recommendation that was included in the original packet in here today about the alignment with the AD 120T and 8130T districts in the North of Market residential SED.

And my I just wanted to I I see what the issue is.

It's basically trying to make sure that there's still the same policy in place for that area with the changes that happen with this legislation.

Are those zoning districts are they exclusively located in the north of market residential SED?

Because I kind of was poking around in our in our zoning map and trying to verify this that looked like it to me, but is that for the most part the case?

Just one second.

Excuse me, folks, those of you standing at the doorway, if I could ask you to take a seat.

There's plenty of seats on this side.

It's just that uh blocking the door causes a fire hazard.

Harley Grove Department staff, um, it's not a perfect overlap between the north of market residential SUD and the 80 to 130 T and 80 to 120 T.

Um, there is some uh of those height districts right outside the north of market residential SUD, and they go um west to Van Ness a little bit.

Um, but it's generally almost a perfect circle in a Venn diagram.

Okay.

Thank you, Carly.

I just want to make sure it was roughly the same.

It looked like it to me, but want to verify.

Um I I have another question about um one change that happened since the May 28th packet, and that is the clarification of the definition of the phrase household of low income in the legislation.

I saw there that it's now being clearly defined at specific area median income levels.

Sorry, it's not my notes.

I think it was 100% of AMI.

My question is just I it was a little hard for me to figure out, and sorry I'm springing this on you, but uh now, but it was a little hard to determine the implications of where household of low income with that very specific AMI definition then plays through in the legislative code, like how we use that definition versus more specific guidance.

And so I don't know if it's possible.

It's a little in the weeds, like I said, but is there anything to share on that?

Good afternoon, uh Commissioner Maria Benjamin from the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development.

It is in the weeds.

I will say I should send ahead of time.

Um we're changing the 100 percent.

It previously was 105 percent area median income with uh with a qualifying gap so that the unit would be priced at 105 percent and then the maximum income to qualify would be 120 percent area meaning income.

It's the only uh pricing gap that's 15 percent between the qualifying and the pricing.

Most all others are 20 percent between the qualifying and the pricing.

So this is just taking out that extra 5 percent, pricing them at 100 percent so that we do have that affordability cushion.

The reason we have the cushion is because of HOA dues, simply.

When H the units are priced, including the HOA dues, but HOA dues go up.

And so in order to have a sustainable homeownership program, we would like to keep that 20 percent gap between the price and the qualifying the eligibility.

And that is that's that's all that is.

Is this is this based on the the um um I'm not remembering the right term, but the the implementation guidance, or is this what you're saying uh actually in the planning code?

It was in the planning code.

It is it wasn't the planning code, okay.

And it was a newly in the planning code in 20.

I can talk to the Ms.

Benjamin.

I was trying to find exactly the page in which in the legislation, but generally in 2017, the inclusionary ordinance went from one income level for rental and for ownership to three income levels for rental and to ownership.

And the ordinance was also modified to incorporate bans of who could qualify for the household at that certain income.

So your price would be set at an AMI, and then the or the legislator the inclusionary ordinance has a range of AMIs that a household earns that could qualify for that unit.

And so it at that time there was an effort to try to make sure that you know, if uh sorry, I'm trying to hold this up.

Um the bands were meeting one another and making sure that perhaps if a household made just too much to qualify for the lower band that maybe they could reach down to qualify for a unit or reach up.

Um so this is trying to clean that up a little bit.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Um that's helpful.

Uh yeah, it I think it just caught my attention because in the more typical terminology behind these things of when you you know the actual term for low-income household doesn't typically go to 100 percent.

So it's just something that kind of stood out in the in the legislative change.

Um but I recognize we're talking about the planning code as opposed to the you know the broader sort of like um um HCD definitions for these kinds of things and city definitions.

Um I think that is I'll stop torturing you with the the really in-the-weeds questions.

All right, so um uh you know, I I would say in looking at the legislation, a few things stood out to me here.

I I was it was helpful to see that there were clear requirements in this legislation for how to prioritize use of the affordable housing fees um that were generated in our SUDs.

So I was I was glad to see that, and that is really clear in the legislation.

Um broadly speaking, when it comes to just the basic idea of reducing the inclusionary housing requirements and the impact fees.

Um, to me, these are fairly volatile market-driven development conditions driven requirements and and historically, as far as I understand it, you know, the point was not to create a constraint um on housing, but to make sure that we are able to generate affordable housing when projects are are moving forward to kind of try to recapture some of that that value and make sure that we are contributing to our affordable housing supply through inclusionary housing and in loop fees.

We're at a point now where just these projects aren't moving forward.

There are, you know, I I've said it last time.

I'm not in favor of taking that and saying we should have no inclusion requirements.

There are still there are still projects that can always move forward because of some unique circumstances.

So you know, the 5% is a pretty low inclusionary requirement, but I I um I can get there given the current feasibility conditions, while also I I like that we're we're keeping at least the 5% because again, there will be some projects that move forward.

And the other the other point that's been made really clearly and found in the TAC analysis as well is that these lifting or reducing these requirements are not a magic bullet.

They're not going to make market rate housing suddenly pencil.

And I take that I take that to heart.

Um but you know, they do have uh uh uh an impact on the overall sort of project costs or the pro forma for for these projects.

So there come will come a moment when this change does enable um more housing to move forward while at the same time still contributing some affordable housing units and resources.

Um I would also be very uncomfortable with this change if we didn't have a mandatory process for restudying and revisiting these requirements as conditions change in the future.

But the fact that we have this mandatory legal requirement that we look at this again in the future, um that that does make me much more comfortable with going down to the 5% uh requirements on this.

Um, I'm looking forward to the day that we can actually increase these requirements again.

I think that should be a decision that gets determined by improvements in uh projects moving forward.

Um, I the other thing I would say is just there's talk of the fact that the Affordable Housing Trust Fund ballot measure isn't a guaranteed thing to pass.

And uh admittedly that that ballot measure is part of what makes me a little more comfortable with going to 5 percent.

It's been pointed out that's pretty low across the region, and I agree.

Um I would just say I I think that uh I don't need this to be part of a motion, but I I think it might be worth considering accelerating reconsideration of the inclusionary requirements if possible if that ballot measure doesn't pass.

You know, I think it's worth I think that would be kind of catastrophic it doesn't pass, but I I I think if that's the case, then that would be the time to really start paying a close attention to and tracking um market rate housing development conditions and looking maybe a little faster at when it might be time to to revisit these requirements and potentially increase them in case the market moves faster than this policy change.

Um so let's see what that you know the other item that we're voting on is the delegating authority for modifications to the planning director.

Uh I like that the language in there is very clear for the circumstances in which a request for modifications would be denied.

Um so when I I saw that I was uh maybe much more comfortable with the delegation of authority on this.

Um then lastly, I I want to actually um thank Commissioner um Moore for pointing out and as some other commenters uh noted during comments today that the legislative analyst office did um produce a report on funding and incentivizing affordable housing in the city for Supervisor Chen.

And uh I think there are some great ideas in there for other broader and kind of creative policy solutions for creating a more stable and broader-based funding source for producing affordable housing.

I think it's been that's really critical.

The the market rate housing, like I said at the top, it's volatile.

It's great if we can leverage it, but that's that's not the thing that's going to really fundamentally change how we are producing and ensuring that we have affordable housing.

And so I I just hope that I would encourage anyone who's interested to look at and consider uh, especially our our legislators, look at and consider the some of the uh the program and policy recommendations that are in that report.

There's some good stuff in there.

Um with that actually I'm gonna make a motion to um support recommendation for approval with the staff recommended modifications and approve delegation of a the the approve the delegation of authority resolution.

I second it.

Vice President Moore.

This is difficult to speak about uh because it is extremely complex, and I'm sitting here with meaningful letters and comments for many people, including you today.

Uh thank you for everybody who is here.

Thank you for staff completing an absolutely Herculean project, which is so difficult that I could not envision myself participating in its creation.

That said, uh thank you to Commissioner Williams for its for his very thoughtful summary of where we really are, and thank you, uh Commissioner Brown for setting some of the stepping stones for what I will also uh uh talk about.

Uh let me start with saying that the changes that I see are major, and they took a lot of time to prepare and understand, but also thoughtfully read through many letters and comments I've received since May 28th.

Uh when we left that meeting, uh I made it very clear that I'm extremely excited about the idea of the trust fund.

The trust fund, I think, is an innovative strong idea.

Uh uh, but what took my breath away is what we are taking away in lieu of it and the timing of what we're taking away.

Uh I addressed my questions to uh Mr.

Bintliff very clearly last time around, that the uncertainty about voters' reception of a trust fund remains uncertain, and why are we not considering extending our current legislation that expires on November 1st, at least till after we know the reality or the non-reality of this trust fund.

It's kind of like warning to skydive and be very excited about it about it and potentially the parachute doesn't open.

And I want to be clear about I am a risk-adverse person.

Uh while I do all kind of risky things things, uh, like skiing too fast or whatever, and ending up breaking my leg.

Uh uh.

In the end, I'm risk-adverse, particularly when I sit here and have to make decisions, which are affecting too many people.

And I think the downside of what is still after 30 years an unresolved problem hasn't gone away, particularly when we listen to the people who were in front of us today.

And it is there where I had been looking for more innovative tools to be be to be discussed before we are jumping on deciding something, which I don't think is quite ready for me to fully support it.

Uh a member in the audience quoted concerns expressed by um uh Chuchu.

And I want to repeat some of those concerns.

Give me one second.

Point one, reject the permanent collapse to a five percent on-site rate, restore a meaningful floor prioritizing units at 55 AMI.

Retain a 10 unit application threshold, uh, which was presented last time, where we questioned the wisdom of 10 versus 25.

I think there have been enough explanations why uh 10 would be better than 25.

Uh preserve uh the geographic anti-displacement requirements in the mission SOMA and Eastern Neighborhoods, protect the job housing linkage fees and community stabilization fees from the 67% reduction.

That goes all the way into concerns about uh Article 4 development impact fees and their reduction uh by 675%.

Uh advance the housing trust fund as additional support, but not at the price of this rollback and address a gap between these cuts take uh when these cuts take effect and when replacement revenue arrives in 2029.

I think those are the most crucial things why I see a disconnect between the reality and the uncertainty of what may or may not happen in November.

Getting back to my notes.

Getting back to my notes I like to uh actually ask staff or get a reading of why look for my document here why what was presented uh was was actually uh requi uh requested by uh uh Commissioner Shyan Shan uh and delivered uh by the budget and legislative analyst uh a hundred and thirty two page report was never discussed in front of the Planning Commission.

I've only skimmed to this report uh I got it yesterday morning 132 pages in an area that I have a steep learning curve is a very difficult thing to do but what I read in that report seemed to me important enough for this commission to potentially have a more fully informed basis to consider of what we are being asked to consider.

I I I'm very surprised about of what I consider to be a significant disconnect at a time of where we are making a really life altering decisions about the future of where we're going with affordable and inclusion housing in the city.

Did you want me to address your question, Commissioner Yeah if you wouldn't mind commenting on that and certainly uh did not mean to uh overlook the commission uh as you know the supervisor requested the BLA to have that report could you speak a little slower because I think yes thank you for that reminder.

The supervisor requested the BLA to uh create the report and she also requested a hearing that planning OEWD and the BLA attend which was on the 8th and so we all worked and coordinated to have that hearing for um the supervisors requested uh so that's why it didn't come to planning commission because it was a commissioned by the Board of Supervisors to come to the Board of Supervisors and be presented there.

Certainly we could speak with the BLA if they'd like to come here.

The information we presented was was presented to you all in April which was regarding our progress on RENA which was the part that the Planning Commission was responsible for for that multi-agency uh hearing uh for me uh today is my last two last meeting so I regret that this tool has not been made available and actually answers the question that Mr Bintliff said last time around that we will be looking for creative forward leading ideas and I do believe that this particular study allows for a larger amount of creative ideas which which have not been vetted at least to the to the extent that they could help m make us an informed decision today.

What resonated with me and what I will read as reflecting my sentiments is indeed a letter that we received yesterday from the Housing Accelerator Fund.

A group of people who were part of the TAC and that letter is in full support of what is being asked.

However in the closing paragraph there is a cautionary note and on the margin of this particular paragraph I wrote if if if if everything is dependent on the ability to make the trust fund a reality and that is I think the big question standing in the room so I'll read of what they are saying.

Without action on the housing trust fund the city will ex effectively exhaust its local affordable housing funding capacity after 2028 precisely when rents are rising again and displacement pressures will intensify.

I leave it with that Commissioner Williams just a thought came uh to me as as we were Commissioner Moore was was talking um and that is the um our housing element just last year we HCD the the uh the body that oversees uh our housing element state made us upzone three quarters of our city and if we didn't they were going to withhold hundreds of they threatened to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for affordable housing and for transit when it comes to the affordable side they also recommended that we build fifty seven percent affordable housing to meet the need of San Francisco but yet no nothing else it falls silent.

I I asked there's no there's no consequence, basically.

There's no if there's no pressure to actually come up with solutions, creative solutions to get funding to build this affordable housing.

And I think that that's very telling.

And I I wanted to make that public comment to the this comment to the public.

Because that's a serious issue.

In other words, the State is more concerned about market rate housing, luxury housing, than it is affordable housing.

And that's the greatest demand for our city.

Irritating to me.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sow.

Well, like I said before last time when this item came in front of us for informational hearing.

These numbers doesn't lie, the statistic of what we have.

We didn't able to actually encourage anyone.

That is not just affordable housing developer.

This is workforce developer, regular anyone who try to build something here, we are not able to meet any goals since the pandemic.

And I don't think this is single-handedly because of what anyone talked about here at City Hall about the ideology of everything.

I think we all love to have the ideology of everything we have been talking about, but the reality is that we do have to look at it's a free market.

I think this country's free market is supply and demand.

And people, if you talk to the bank and they will be like, what do you are definitely not going to make any return, so we're not gonna be able to give you a loan.

This is not any different than you guys you go and try to um get a simple loan to buy a car, get a simple loan to pay a down payment for your house, let alone get a simple loan to try to build something for anyone.

We need housing for everybody.

We need housing for really really below affordability people to address our homelessness situation.

We need to continue to uplift and be equitable to communities that this country has been systematically harmed for generations.

We also need to provide people who are in the workforce.

They are the missing middle.

They're not 100 percent truly unaffordable, but they're not rich.

And what happened to them?

I think they moved to Tracy and then commute here.

So a lot of developer went, well, if you charge us that much, we could have just gone to Burlingame or Millbrae.

I'm not gonna promote them.

I don't want to bring them up.

But that's that's the reality here.

And I truly like I said also how I want to see my aunties and uncles and myself when I get older to be able to live here in San Francisco.

I'm a diehard San Francisco fan.

And uh what we have right now, uh I think there's like a a little bit of misinterpretation of understanding of how we get here and what we're about to do to enable us to move the needle to somewhere else better.

I think we can understand everyone agree that we want housing.

Everybody spoke in front of me today.

Thank you for sharing your family and your personal history uh histori uh story.

It's really heartfelt from ranging from um be able to be fortunate to pay a market rate rent and still subject to a spike of increasing rent.

And the one that struggle to find a placement with our government help with subject to uh when you are in your life having such a difficulty situation is really heartfelt.

But what we're doing here, yes, I don't think there's any if if this is not a magic eight ball, everyone is if the economy is a certainty, I I think that will we will be living in a different type of world.

I I think that will we will be living in a different type of world.

Um we can never predict economy and have control over that.

But we can shape some policy to enable and encourage certain outcome and hope that this will do better because we did try a version 10 years ago or however many years ago, uh one of the tech committee had uh participate.

We had tried that strategy, and it's a supply and demand.

People can just take their money and build somewhere else.

So now we're gonna have to try a different strategy, and yes, um I hear my colleague, there are concern if this will pan out, but um we can't live with the theory.

We have to look at the numbers and move forward with low knowing these numbers have been six years of these records from um our chief economist and the tech committee and many very trustworthy um nonprofit think tank that is outside the city hall.

Um I do believe that they are not just saying things just to say it.

It is a lift history.

We hear everybody.

Um I myself is affected, you know, like can I afford to continue to live here?

I'm not sure.

Is my child able to find a place?

Um I'm really not thinking she would be uh when she graduated from uh hopefully she can graduate from college.

I'm not sure.

So um the the five percent I I don't need to go into detail about this.

I think what I one thing I wanted to mention is that um I'm gonna say it in one sentence.

I think we cannot solve a housing shortage by making it harder to build housing.

And I've received numerous letters in support and also letters of concern.

I do want to say moving forward, we can do better as a city and also with collaboration with our supervisors to continue to assist to foster better understanding and then interpretation of what this charter amendment will actually mean to do.

And as a whole, I think we will come out better than what we have, because what we have in the past is the data is proven to us that it's not working.

Um of my colleagues even challenge is five percent even too high, right?

Because you can look at the number and the chart uh looking at back the record.

Um, but if we create a lot more um opportunity for people to come in and build housing, the pot will get bigger for a tax-assise revenue.

If we continue to hold on to this is what we have and we're not gonna change, we've seen the history.

No one is coming to build anything.

So I I really wonder how we are going to get out of this if we're not trying to change something.

Um I really appreciate um to see Kate Hartley here again.

I think her experience and um being served as a head of Mo CD really speaks depth of these are the experts of what they have done.

They are dedicated entire life to serve people specifically in the affordable housing space and also of the Mo H C D staff sitting here today, Sheila and Costca and Ms.

Williams, right?

Benjamin, sorry.

Um so I really want to see the 1,500 units in the pipeline actually getting built.

Let's just really move the needle.

Um I'm already second my um support.

I think we all should be really positive, and I hope that we can attract people to stay in San Francisco and move back here and also have also senior housing continue to continue to be built.

Thank you.

Commissioner McGarry.

I really want to thank staff.

Everybody who came out, uh everybody's got opinion one way or another, everybody's affected positively or negatively one way or another.

Um staff, how you did this work, I I don't know.

I echo.

Um Commissioner Moore, it's her Herculan.

Uh I represent people, I put people to work for a living.

Um I'm just looking at the numbers, and it totally totally reflects numbers don't lie.

Uh uh, Mr.

Mr.

Welsh there, 2017, 2017, 4,972 units.

2025, 2,004 and 6, 48 percent reduction.

My members build those, and if they're not being built, they're not working.

And if they're not working, they're on a downward spiral into basically another level of despair that they can't basically provide for their family.

And they're close to basically home being on housed themselves.

And Tracy, Tracy is a luxury.

It's built out.

It's way way the other side of Tracy right now.

That's where people are.

But there is one thing we do, everybody has in common here, and that's this November.

Uh regardless of how you are affected.

Uh I represent 4,000 members.

I can reach out to people in the trades and get other people to vote.

And that's an issue we do have here.

Take the if out of it out of it.

I guarantee you that I will make sure everybody who I can touch or basically uh reach will basically vote this November to take the if out of the equation.

I ask that everybody does the same because what uh Supervisor Melgar has done here uh with uh her supervise her fellow supervisors reaching over the aisle and across the hallway to the mayor's office and basically creating the possibility of what Commissioner Williams has wanted from day one here.

There's one thing that's drilled into my head, and that's our guaranteed funding.

And this funding will basically uh possibly quadruple the funding that's there, and it's ongoing.

That basically we're going from 10 percent to 5 percent, bridges that gap, makes it based 10 percent of nothing is temp is nothing because right now it's ha we're building half of what we we built in 2017.

Uh COVID killed us, we have not come down come out of COVID.

There is a construction recession, savage recession here for years.

We have not come out of it.

Then we decided to have another war in the Middle East, which we were coming, we were just going, stars were aligning and then crash.

Uh but every major city is basically is out of it.

They're rising.

We're flat, but we're so flat we know that we have to move or we're left behind.

And if we don't move, we have the stars have to align.

The work staff is doing here.

It's basically preemptive to get everything.

So when in November when we get that, we can move.

And the money is there already and available to actually uh acquire whatever properties or build on the properties we actually have.

So we have to hold ourselves accountable.

We have to basically move forward.

This is moving forward, uh, but it all hinges on the if and everybody has to get out and vote in November.

So that's my two cents.

Thank you.

Vice President Moore.

Oh, you will.

Oh, you moved.

Okay, good.

Uh I have a technical question uh for uh uh planning.

Um despite eliminating the Article 4 uh impact fees, impacts will not disappear.

Uh and the uh previously uh uh imp impacts were mitigated, so very carefully calibrated nexus studies.

And they were actually very exacting and very uh complicated because you cannot uh establish impact fees without a nexus study.

Uh how are we uh handling that in the future?

I think Mr.

Bittle will take the first question.

Yeah, if if I may, Commissioner, as apparently maybe my uh last chance to address you from from here, but hopefully not, and other uh other venues.

Um we look at this very seriously, these programs have hard as a microphone.

Yeah, these these impact fee programs have generated revenue over the years.

Um it's a very similar story to what we see with the inclusionary revenue that dropped down from being about an average of 25 million dollars a year before the pandemic to about two million dollars a year the last couple of years with uh actually a negative balance where most CD actually lost money because we had a permit cancelled and they had to refund them last year on inclusionary.

On the overall development impact fees, um in the few years leading up to the pandemic, we were bringing in about a hundred million dollars a year.

That dropped to twenty-five million dollars a year from 2020 to 2023, and in the last two years it's been about three million dollars of total development impact fee revenue for the whole city from all 20 some fee programs that we have adopted over the years.

So this ordinance is removing some of them that are duplicative to the inclusionary ordinance and above what is feasible and reducing others based on the findings of the TAC report that will be revisited every three years.

In the meantime, just like with affordable housing, that is not our only source for infrastructure.

We have a robust uh general obligation bond program as well.

Uh the voters just passed a $500 million bond uh in the last election for earthquake and safety resilience.

There's another one coming up for transportation and part or parts rather next year for transportation.

We have uh two measures on the ballot in November: a parcel tax and a regional sales tax to continue to fund transportation.

Uh child care is funded through the props C measure from a few years ago in many orders of magnitude more than what was ever generated from the impact fees.

So we have many other sources and very similar to inclusionary.

This is yet another one that simply only functions as well as the market is able to provide it.

And so we're trying to get more development to get the 33 percent of fees we will continue to charge uh by reducing the upfront cost to development.

And Ms.

Tanner may have something to add.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

Vice President Moore actually uh cued me up kind of perfectly for my last thought on this um that's sort of related.

Um with the changes that are part of this legislation, we are sort of flattening some of the requirements to be a little bit more citywide as opposed to the old approach of um recognizing that there was a lot of value being generated through uh increasing development capacity in certain areas of the city and asking for contributions in exchange for that.

So that's those, you know, sub-area-specific development impact fees, for example.

Um, I think that given the current conditions, it is reasonable to sort of you know, flatten out these requirements, make them a little bit more consistent.

Um, but I would just advocate for and hope that you know the next time this is restudied, as part of that, it's also consideration of different submarkets within the city and how they are performing and looking at um you know the possibility of again considering some more geographically targeted um requirements based on the differences in development market conditions in our different sub-areas of the city.

I know I said that a little bit um on May 28th, but I'm hoping that can sort of make it into staff summary of this hearing as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I'll keep my comments brief because a lot of it is repeating what has already been said, but also want to just thank everyone that was involved across departments.

This is a lot of uh hard work that went into this and Supervisor Melgar and the mayor for putting the legislation forward and really the public for coming out.

I always say this is not an easy meeting to get to, so thank you for carving out time to have your voices heard.

And it's so clear to me how much we all are worried about affordability in San Francisco.

I think the question is just how do we get there?

Um for me, I land on the data, which this report has a lot of and the amendments are leaning on, and I'm very, very grateful for the creation of TAC.

Um I think it's it's easy to get caught up in creating policy in a vacuum or based on feelings, but um I I appreciate that that group is made up of folks that are very close to market conditions.

And I think it's clear that it's not working now as it is.

Um inclusionary housing is so dependent on the market, housing, and where the funds come from.

So I think to me, they're not, these are not like mutually exclusive decisions that we're making, like we're choosing one or the other.

I think we we have to have more market housing in order to get more of our inclusionary housing funds bolstered.

Um we can't change all of these other variables that have been mentioned today, like the construction costs and material costs and interest rates, but these are things uh that we can control by looking at um the inclusionary requirements and fees.

So I'm in full support of moving forward with this.

I am comforted by knowing in three years the TAC will meet again and we can revisit this accordingly.

Um I also would be curious, and I don't know if this is too hard of a scenario to walk us through.

There's clearly a lot of concern around what if this ballot measure doesn't pass, what if this ballot doesn't measure doesn't pass.

Could we exp could could someone speak a little bit to what that timeline is and what would our next steps be if that's something that we actually don't see if we I think we're confident it's gonna make it onto the ballot, but if we don't get the votes that we need, that's right.

Um in that um unlikely event.

Yes, unlikely, of course.

The you know, the ordinance before us is an ordinance, so the Board of Supervisors can adopt another ordinance um any Tuesday.

Okay.

So they could always revisit it if conditions change.

Great.

Thank you.

I believe that's all of the comments, and we do have a motion that's been seconded.

So indeed, Commissioners, we do have a motion to adopt recommendations for approval with staff modifications for the planning code amendment and to adopt the delegation of authority.

On that motion, Commissioner McGarry.

Aye.

Commissioner So.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams.

Nay.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

No.

And Commissioner President Campbell.

Aye.

So move Commissioners that motion passes four to two with Commissioners Williams and Moore voting against.

Commissioners, it will place us on item 8 for case number 2025, hyphen 007500 C Way for the property at 2785 San Bruno Avenue.

This is a conditional use authorization.

Good afternoon, Commission President Campbell and Commissioners.

I'm Maggie Lausch, Department staff presenting a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303 and 317 to demolish an existing single-family home, an accessory structure with an unauthorized unit, and to construct a three-story mixed-use building containing three dwelling units and ground floor commercial at 2785 San Bruno Avenue in the San Bruno Avenue neighborhood commercial district.

The one bedroom single-family home and the unauthorized studio unit have been unoccupied by tenants for approximately 10 years.

They are both considered protected under the Housing Crisis Act, known as SB 330, because they are assumed to be rent controlled.

The three-story new building would contain two small ground floor commercial spaces, two one-bedroom units at the second floor, and a three-bedroom unit at the third top floor.

The two one-bedroom units would be subject to rent control as required by SB 330 for the replacement of those protected units.

This proposal has a different shape, a lower height, a different mix of uses than the uh proposal in that application.

Most critically, that project did not include rent-controlled replacement units the way this one does.

Since my staff report was published, the department received correspondence with six more signatures on the letter of support from neighboring tenants, business owners, and property owners.

The support letter focuses on how the project would activate the vacant property and benefit the commercial corridor.

The department also received opposition from two members of the public, including an adjacent property owner who highlighted the site's rental history.

I believe the Commission received those communications as well.

The project before you meets the requirements of the planning code and conforms with the design standards.

So the changes we saw to Section 317 earlier this year do not apply, including the 70 percent threshold for demolition criteria.

You're instead asked to consider all the criteria before you and make findings on balance as in past cases.

The Department has found that on balance the project is consistent with the policies of the general plan.

While it would demolish two existing units, it would construct three units of varying sizes, including the two replacement rent controlled units and a net new family-sized unit.

It would also provide small-scale commercial spaces, creating opportunities for neighborhood serving retail, which is consistent with the San Bruno NCD.

Therefore, the department's recommending approval.

This concludes my presentation.

I'm here for questions, and I will hand off to the sponsor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

I guess Commissioner Moore stepped out.

I wanted to say a couple words.

Uh who uh Commissioner Moore has been on this commission since I started in uh fall of 2008, and uh I don't know a world where she's not on the planning commission.

So I'll have to talk to her offline about that.

Uh I'm having a little technical difficulties this morning, so I don't have a presentation.

You guys have the plans in front of you.

It's a relatively straightforward project, so I'm not too concerned.

Um so good afternoon, everyone.

Uh John Kevlin here on behalf of the project sponsor, the Huang family.

Uh the family patriarch Henry and his son Eric are here today.

Henry is a Chinese immigrant and spent decades of hard work saving to purchase this single property.

The project before you is more than just a new development, uh, but it is the fulfillment of Henry's long commitment to leave something better for his family and his neighborhood.

The family is proposing construction of a new three-story building with ground floor commercial, three upper story units, two of which will be rent control.

Uh let's start with what's at the site today.

Um there is a single family 900 square foot one bedroom home.

Second, the planning department has technically determined that the small 356 uh square foot structure at the rear of the site is an unpermitted dwelling unit.

Uh however, uh you can't see the pictures because they I can't bring them up, but um, it is not quality, safe or habitable housing.

Uh it was originally used as a workshop and hasn't had any occupant in it for over ten years.

The project proposes a three-story building.

This is uh achieves maximum residential density for the site.

Only 36 feet of height is proposed below the 40-foot height limit.

The project is also 100% compliant with the San Francisco Planning Code.

On the ground floor, there are two modest sized commercial spaces.

Uh the Huangs know the San Bruno corridor well, and establishing these two spaces were important to them as they see a demand for small businesses for these types of spaces on the corridor.

On the second floor, there are two new one-bedroom units proposed.

These also include an additional office room each.

Most importantly, uh these units will be rent-controlled consistent with state uh law unit replacement requirements.

So we're recruit we are creating two uh new modern residential units subject to rent control to replace a single family home and a structure that is not functionally a housing unit.

On the third floor, we have a net new three-bedroom family-sized unit.

Uh reflecting the Huang's history on this corridor, they have collected support letters for nine neighbors, including the neighbor to the immediate north of the project.

So, in closing, the project replaces a single-family home and uninhabitable rear structure.

It creates two new modest sized commercial spaces, uh, creates two new rent-controlled units, uh, and creates a new family-sized unit.

It's a hundred percent consistent with the planning code.

Uh it is fully consistent with all state laws, including the Housing Accountability Act, SB 330, and it also maximizes residential density at this site.

Uh in other words, the project achieves all the goals we have set for a site like this.

Uh so thank you, Commission, uh, for your consideration, and we respectfully request that you support the project.

I have two minutes left.

I'm gonna take 30 seconds.

Uh, I was gonna give you an extra minute if you're gonna be able to do that.

Oh my gosh.

Well, yeah.

I respect your guys' time too much.

Commissioner Moore, I realize this is going to be my last hearing with you.

Yes, and uh, I wanted to reflect um both because I feel this uh and because I know you have too much integrity to have any impact on the case in front of you right now.

Uh but my first time at the commission was in uh September of 2008.

You were still in your first term, and so I don't know a San Francisco Planning Commission that doesn't have you on it.

Uh and I just wanted to uh reflect on uh you make everyone on this side of the dais better uh because you require that of them.

And uh I've enjoyed my time here, and I just really respect or appreciate the respect and challenge you've given me over the years.

You've made me a uh better land use attorney.

So thank you so much uh and and good luck with wherever you're on to next.

Thank you.

If I may step out of line for a second, you actually wanted to be an architect.

You told me that early on.

So we always had a wonderful kind of like challenging relationship, and whatever I said to you, even challenging your legal opinions.

Uh I always respected what you said and did.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

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

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

Uh good afternoon, um uh planning commissioners.

Uh my name is Dr.

Mike Kowong, and I owned a building next door to the subject at 2785 San Bruno Avenue.

I opposed the demolition of the building and writing to you correct some of the misinformation that has been given to the commission.

First, the sponsor has never lived at the site.

The application stated that the building is owner occupied and simply not true.

You you will note that the draft motion presented to you listed a different address for the sponsors on Medrid uh Street, not 2785 San Bruno Avenue.

The sponsors bought the building in 2014, right after it has been remodeled by the prior owner, and immediately start a demolition permit, even though the building has just remodeled.

The demolition application was rejected by the Board of Supervisors, and nothing has changed since the time.

Over 60% of the immediate surrounding neighbors support saving the building.

And they have appetized on the crates list.

Uh foot rent on the building.

And you can s it was like in excellent shape.

And there was like a student that lived in the front unit and it has three bedrooms as the case list uh shows.

And there was there's a person, Eric Gorman was living in the second unit in the grass.

So in the total, there's four bedrooms at the property.

There has been tenants living in the site off and on in the past years.

We are requesting the commission rejected demolition of the sound housing.

Good afternoon, President Campbells and Commissioner.

Good afternoon.

My name is Theresa Duquet.

I'm the executive director for the San Francisco Community Empowerment Center.

I'm here today on behalf of our organizations, as well as approximately 200 volunteers, members, and community supporters who are deeply concerned about the proposed emulations of 2785 Sambuna Avenue.

This case is not about whether San Francisco needs more housing.

We all agree that we need more housing.

Commissioner, the questions before you is whether we should demolish existing natural affordable housing when preservation alternative may exist.

The City of San Francisco has repeatedly stated that preserving a system affordable housing is one of this biggest minority.

When it's demolished, it cannot be replaced.

It is a site with a long history of providing housing opportunity for working people, students, and community members.

Neighbor have the documented that the property house tenants for years and provide naturally affordable housing in the neighborhood that is already experienced increasing economic pressure.

The evidence before you commissioners that this property has been the subject of previous effort to demolish existing housing.

In 2016, the community organized, I'm one of them.

Neighbors spoke out, and the board of supervisor ultimately rejects a similar proposal.

The concern that it says them remains relevant today.

You have six seconds.

Thank you, thank you.

I want to emphasize that our coalition supports housing production.

We believe San Francisco should be more housing.

But housing productions and housing preservations are not mutually exclusive.

We should not be forced to choose between them when existing affordable housing is treated.

Preservation must remain a priority.

That is your time.

Thank you, ma'am.

That is your time.

On behalf of San Francisco Community Center and the hundreds ma'am, that is your time.

We afforded you additional time added as courtesy.

But that is your time.

And all of our priority policies say that.

There's a lot of history of this case.

Uh hopefully you had time to review my rather extensive proposal to provide you some of that background.

The applicants came forward last August with a new application for the site.

The application was in the form of affidavits under penalty of perjury.

Those are exhibits two and three.

Those affidavits are completely false.

And directly contrary to the very well established record in this case, the affidavits claim there's only one housing unit on the site.

They claim there are no units subject to the rent control ordinance, and they claim the site is a single family home and owner occupied.

They claim that if the C UA is granted, the units demolished will not include any rent-controlled housing.

None of these claims are true.

And the sponsor and their attorneys know it because they were the same ones that went through the history with the neighbors before.

There's a mountain of evidence, including findings from the Board of Supervisors who state exactly the opposite on every point in their affidavits.

It's always been a speculative development for the sole purpose of trying to tear it down.

Why they made these comments when there's recorded testimony from dozens of witnesses.

They didn't submit you any of these materials, by the way.

They acted as if none of it had ever occurred.

They all come to the exact same opposite conclusion.

They made these claims because they know they can't prevail on the facts of the case.

So under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 and planning director bulletin number seven, which I I also added to your pile, uh mandates that if a project removes protected units, and I quote, they must provide replacement units of the same number of bedrooms.

They don't do that here.

They're removing four rent controlled bedrooms, and they're only putting back two.

And so uh they're in break also in direct violation of the planning code because 317 G8 requires that after they lost last time, they were mandated to file an application to legalize the unauthorized unit.

And they have not done that.

Um this is also part of the priority equity special use district that was just created, also entitled to uh further protection.

Demolition of sound affordable housing.

We urge you to preserve this housing, as was done before unanimously.

Even Scott Wiener voted.

Thank you, Mr.

Housing.

Okay, last call for public comment.

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

Commissioner Braun.

I have a question for Department of Staff that sort of relates to some of the comments that we received, and I I did take a look at the full letter that was submitted.

The uh I am curious to hear from from your perspective.

What were there errors in the original application for this that had to be corrected by department staff?

There were.

So when we received the application, they it uh said that there was a single family home existing on the property.

I will also say a couple months prior to that, they had the sponsor had submitted a UDU screening and had gone through that process.

I personally did the screening.

And following all of our standardized process that we've had in place for a number of years now, I did not see and my colleagues did not see when we looked at it that uh it cleared the bar for an unauthorized unit.

Um of all the documents from the past case I looked at, I missed the final motion from the Board of Supervisors.

Um when Mr.

Williams brought this to our attention, we immediately, that's when we continued the case before in January.

We said, oh gosh, let's investigate this further.

Um it turns out that the Board of Supervisors did make a finding that very specifically there's an unauthorized unit.

And the department following that said, sponsors, please submit new application materials that reflect the status of the property accurately.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Um and thank you for your honesty.

And um the challenges of finding some of the the history of the site, um the experience.

So that just uh leads me to ask Mr.

Kevlin if there was if there was this previous action by the Board of Supervisors, how was that not included in the original application for this project?

Um not the application needs it, but still why why wouldn't there be an UDU if we acknowledged as being on the site?

When this project sponsor, the Wangs uh approached me uh a little over a year to go uh ago to take on this case, um I became aware of the background.

And uh I the UDU guidelines have evolved since 2016, and I said before we file any applications, we need to file a UDU screening form with planning staff today so we can have a clean slate as to what is this use, because in fact staff had back in 2016 also said it wasn't a UDU and on appeal at the Board of Supervisors, they uh disagreed.

So the whole the whole purpose of the UDU screening form was to kind of clear the slate.

Um and uh once we received confirmation that in fact it was only one unit, uh sorry, that yeah, it was only one unit and that was not a UDU, we proceeded based on that determination.

Uh not in any way trying to the in the intent of that was for everyone to kind of take the opportunity and say, is this a UDU or not?

So we went move forward on that basis.

That's the whole basis of whether or not these are rent-controlled units, et cetera, et cetera.

So um when Ms.

Laush brought this up, I think it was in December, we immediately pivoted.

Uh we we uh had a discussion about it, staff stuck by the the UDU determination, and so we immediately pivoted to uh identifying the two units on site that needed to be rent-controlled units and uh putting aside what's best for the project sponsor.

I mean I think it makes for a stronger case today.

So I at no point in in terms of we're creating two new rent-controlled units, uh uh one of which is replacing a unit that it really is uninhabitable.

Um so uh all of that is to say there is some background to this.

Uh the intent out of the gate was to try to clear the slate.

Uh didn't quite work out that way, but as soon as uh our team became aware of staff's uh position, pivoted, and now you have a project today with two rent-controlled units in it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh it's it's disappointing that the initial application would have not acknowledged the prior uh determination, although at the same time I'm also hearing that staff has now twice um you know screened for UDU and made a determination that there isn't one.

Either way, I I am I'm glad this was caught.

I think this was a good example of the conditional use process um bringing something to light because as a result of this, if I'm understanding correctly, this is partly why the new project includes two rent-controlled housing units in it because of that determination.

Um in looking at the project itself and the actual uh findings and case report before me now.

Um, you know, I I do believe that it's to the best of my my judgment of these the conditions that I agree with staff's analysis of the situation and uh like I said has been made better for the input that's been received.

What I'm what I'm seeing here is you know, there's this 931 square foot one bedroom house.

There has been advertised in the past as having three bedrooms, but if you look at the floor plan, it's maybe functionally easily, you know, not legally two functional as two bedrooms, but you could make it a two-bedroom home pretty easily because of the the double parlor in the front.

But but um you know legally it's a one-bedroom house.

And then there's also the the unauthorized dwelling unit in the rear, which is depending on how you look at the floor plan there, studio, studio or one bedroom.

Um what I'm seeing here is that we're taking, you know, the replacement project for this includes two rent-controlled housing units.

Um those housing units are one bedrooms, but they themselves include additional, not legal bedroom spaces, but additional bonus space in them as well.

They are at the same time uh smaller than the existing single-family home and potentially I mean they are newer product, but but they could potentially uh rent for um lower rates just on basis of size.

And then there's this three-bedroom um unit that's a larger family-sized unit, not to say that it's necessarily that affordable per se, but it is a larger family-sized unit.

Um so what I'm seeing here is a project that can support it.

And uh uh I I think in the end, you know, we retain rent-controlled housing, we get an additional housing unit.

There's a lot um that makes sense to me here with this project, and so it does have my support.

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you, Commissioner Braun.

I'm just I'm curious about this letter that we received from Dr.

Michael Wong.

That can you could you come up uh Doctor?

I just want I want to uh ask you you you said in your letter that there had been people were uh living there, and I'm just kind of curious how recently was that at least um 2018.

2018.

There was still people living there.

Okay.

Yeah, because on our staff report said that there hasn't been anyone living there in ten years.

So uh I remember that is because uh I was doing a new roofing uh at my building and there was like debris that actually went over to their property and the 10 one of the tenants came out and let us know that uh you know there's debris over there so to uh clean it up and that was there.

So it's like a February, uh February the 15th for 2018, if I as far remember.

Okay.

Um thank you for that.

And uh um so as as far as the single family dwelling, uh that that is this for planning, is that cover covered under rent control?

The single family, the single family dwelling.

That that's the one that was occupied, correct?

Huh?

Oh yes.

Please.

Yes, Key Connor from planning.

Um when there is an unauthorized dwelling unit and it's on the same property as a single family dwelling, if the units were constructed prior to 19, if the units were constructed prior to 1979, um and with an unauthorized unit, the rent board has kind of determined that we will make that assumption, because we can't really determine exactly when it was built.

Both units are assumed to be under rent control.

Both units.

Both units.

Because they are not separately alienable.

They are on one property together.

Yes.

So even though they're separate structures, they are both subject to rent control.

Oh.

Okay.

That that that's that's interesting.

Thank you, uh Kate Connor for uh that information.

Um just so just that I'm clear, what what is what's what's the law regarding uh or should say what what's the timeline as far as uh occupancy of a rental unit um and demolition um of a rental unit.

Kate Connor again.

So SB 330 has a five-year look back.

Um and that five-year look back really pertains to whether or not there were low-income households that were residing in the property.

Um we don't see any sort of evidence of tenancy in the last five years.

So then we have to look at other types of protection that could be afforded to those units.

And another form of protection is rent control.

And so a unit is rent controlled in San Francisco beyond the five-year kind of look back.

So it's always kind of going to be subject to rent control regardless of any sort of tenancy.

So because they are subject to rent control, they are subject to the replacement and relocation provisions of SB 330.

Right.

Right.

Thank you, Ms.

Connor.

Appreciate that.

Those are all those are my questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sounds, sorry.

Um Thanks for presenting again.

Uh I've got to have to tell you that this project you represent today is prettier looking than your previous one, John?

Yeah.

This this this property you present is prettier than your previous one, even though it's come from the same people, engineer who drew them.

Yeah.

But um I do hear a lot of concern about this property, it has history predated, uh wow, like it was like 2016, like some people came out today.

Um, not just one, but many people representing from the community in the neighborhood.

Um it had to do to probably some prior histories of um the community not get along.

Um but like by right now um with what you have work with with the with John and our planning staff, um things are under control that this is actually what will bring in more housing and actually tenants a rent control housing into the city.

So for policy wise, this is not a place where I will block it.

But I also understand there is a trust issue here with the community.

And I wonder with this conditional use authorization, we can add a condition of a monitoring program to this particular property.

And so with the monitoring condition, what would you be looking to monitor?

Specifically if these are going to truly use as tenant control.

Rent controlled, and then the commercial unit do activate it in due time, and then the things are fully occupied.

We do have our standard performance conditions for when they can actually kind of take advantage of this entitlement and start construction.

And so that does give them three years.

So that will be also recorded on title that provides a little bit more security around it.

That's uh more of like a um passive approach.

I'd like to have a condition of monitoring to make sure that the property owner truly do what they are applied to do today.

Because it seems like that's kind of what the concern is for the historically, they haven't been actually um having a um type of the and allowing the use the way it it it is permitted.

Right?

Do you think um with respect to the rent control, you know, part of what will happen is that being subject to the rent ordinance, the tenants who live there occupy it, they would be subject to the rental increases and all the other passengers ordinance.

My my point is before they I want to make sure that they actually truly place tenant there.

Well, we certainly can't require folks to rent their units.

And so, you know, once units are constructed, we could look at it and say if it's rented or not, but we can't do that.

We would not try to force them to rent it out, but we would have a monitoring controlling, well, not controlling, monitoring to make sure that once we allow this change of use, they really are using it per what they request today.

I'm not sure how we would set that up, Ms.

Connor.

Would there be a possibility of maybe within a certain time frame, you know, that the commission suggests to report back with like an informational memo, just providing an update to this project after any sort approval if that's what you decide?

I think that would be amicable, yeah.

That would be in the 18 months?

Or what would you say would you have more reasonable?

We could do a milestone base so that you know could be uh either I don't know if the milestone would be the construction document time or certificate of occupancy and kind of you know at these different milestones could be the reporting time frame.

Certificate of occupancy and then 18 months after the certificate of occupancy.

Yeah, I think that would be great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I'm in full support of this project.

Um, you know, history of it aside, it feels like um you know you're taking this very kind of non-historic single-family home with I would argue a suboptimal layout and um you know providing a code compliant mixed-use building that maxes out the density.

Um I I don't know how why why we would ever deny a project like this in light of what we're trying to do here in terms of creating more housing.

And we take demolition pretty seriously around here.

Um I particularly like the commercial spaces that the project sponsor is creating at the ground floor, it sounds like um that's needed by the neighborhood and will serve serve it well from a retail perspective, and we can all get comfort knowing that there were no um there was no displacements or evictions based on our the data that we have.

Um so I'm I'm in full support.

I did have one question that maybe is just from my own education from one of the um public comments around how we quantify units.

Because I think this sort of like one for one that we try to do when we're losing bedrooms, we want to replace the bedrooms.

Commissioner Braun pointed out are these bedrooms, they don't have closets, they're questionable access for the fire department.

Um to me, when I read the two plans, it does look like we're one for one.

But can you talk a little bit about how we how we quantify bedrooms?

What makes a bedroom when we're looking at this kind of scenario?

Absolutely.

And so we have to look at legal bedrooms.

In this case, you know, the planner definitely looked at the floor plans and ensured kind of what was an actual legal bedroom.

We're not able to look at spaces that may have been occupied by a person or used as a sleeping room.

It really does have to be a legal bedroom to require the replacement.

Okay.

And can you just hit on what that means?

That closet and fire department access and yes.

There has to be a closet.

I I don't know the square footage right off the top of my head.

Oh, yeah, you have to have a minimum for the bed.

Yeah.

Yeah.

All this exactly.

Okay.

Thank you.

Vice President Moore.

I like to have a little pushback on the request by uh Commissioner.

So I believe that monitoring these types of projects is inappropriate.

Particularly I want to remind us that the original UDU occurred under different ownership.

The building was sold in 2014.

So burdening a new owner with this type of arbitrary pursuit, I think is not particularly looking good for the de for the department nor for this commission.

We cannot single out somebody when it really defies the normal procedures.

But I have one remaining question for Mr.

Kevin.

Since we are not doing soundness reports anymore, and you remember that we used to do that when it came to demolition.

Have you seen the property?

I mean, the staff report describes it as having been remodeled prior to 2016.

And again, sometimes people do remodels, and they may be very simple.

This means a little more extra thick paint or whatever.

But have you seen it?

And would you, if I ask you for your good judgment on looking at a building, uh, what did you see?

Or what do you see?

Yes, uh, Commissioner Moore.

Uh all of this is kind of our own experiences with this building and you know, not having seen any uh anything official.

It's a pretty old run-down single-family home.

Uh the idea that it would have been uh renovated in the last ten years would have been surprising based on what I saw.

Uh but that's just my reflection um in my time in that unit.

So you if if you would be the purchase of that building, you would probably say, gee, it it's not worth doing a lot with anymore.

I I uh that this is the it could use some freshening up, yes.

Legally speaking.

Thank you.

Uh otherwise I would agree with uh uh President Campbell saying that I think the plans are kind of interesting.

I think they create a better living spaces, I think they create a more interesting house, it could create a better use of the site itself.

Uh and I think it hints a little bit towards densification uh because it is a taller building.

I mean three stores not a tall building.

I'm uh just mentioning it's taller than what we have.

And uh I have to say, having very carefully weighed into uh project description which left a lot of uncertainty, but that has been answered for me.

I would make a motion that we support uh the project and uh move ahead.

Second, um I think Commissioner Oh Braun, yeah.

Um I can just go after you.

Commissioner Stow.

Um can someone I don't know, like the owner or the representative explain to us in public like who owns this place at when were there renter there after you become the owner.

That's a question.

Hi, Commissioners.

Uh I didn't expect to speak today.

Um back in 2016, my sister was the one who kind of shepherd this project with my father.

Um my dad Henry.

I was too young at that time to even understand this.

I still don't really understand this to this day.

Um but I'm the one who stepped up today to shepherd this project, the second go-around with my dad.

And so from what I can recollect, I personally had a friend from high school who needed a sp a space to stay.

She currently has moved to Oklahoma.

So she stayed in this house.

Um I honestly can't tell you if there was someone there in 2018 or not.

I mean, it's a blur, but for sure this house was peacefully vacated.

Tenants knew at that point in time when we had the CUA approved that we were going to develop this place.

So they we didn't renew their lease, they moved out.

It was all agreed upon.

There was alignment.

No LSAC, no evictions.

Um to be honest with you, I don't even know.

I don't I can't tell you for sure when my father bought this.

Um but I mean I'm sure it's in public records.

So I can only speak to what's going forward.

I mean, just adding to the room here, when my sister shepherded this project ten years ago, and the PL actually went through, there was a huge internal divide in my family.

And so I've seen what a project stop like this does to a family financially, emotionally, personally.

And so I just, you know, hope you guys can allow my father to finish what he started.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

Uh I I do want to bring forward one thing that was mentioned in the staff report.

And so the this project is not subject to the changes to Section 317 G6 and the criteria for a um uh the for the demolition for the removal of the units that was passed.

I think it was just passed early 2026 from what I remember seeing that legislation.

That's correct.

The that ordinance, I want to say it was 003-26 became effective uh February 8th.

And for this project, we're looking at the controls from August 14th last year.

Okay.

Thank you.

I just wanted to get that out there because I think there's been a little confusion about which parts of the which version of the planning code under section 317 applied to the project.

Um my other just comment is uh I I did support Commissioner Moore's motion without the monitoring um component of this.

And the reason is, you know, I I think that we have processes in place.

I mean, some of it is a little bit more um sort of complaints-based, but we are going to increasingly have projects that are newer than 1979 but have rent-controlled units under SB 330 requirements and now our locally adopted version of those requirements.

Um so I I just don't see a specific need for my perspective to to apply a second layer or a different approach to that um sort of tracking and enforcement and and application of the rent control requirements to this project.

But I do want to uh acknowledge and appreciate the I think part of the concern, at least the way I I think of it, is that it's harder to know if a unit is rent controlled when it's new.

You know, it's a little bit easier when you say, oh, it has to go more units on the site, it's pretty old, it is pre-1979.

That's easy.

Um now we're in this new world.

We're gonna we're going to have more and more new projects that have rent controlled units.

So I I I do take that to heart.

Thank you.

Perhaps just to speak to that quickly, we we have also uh observed that until we're working on ensuring that um the planning information map it could does contain information about rent control for these new units going forward, because unlike as you're suggesting units going backwards, it's easier to look at the record and things fine like that.

But if it's built you know in 2027, 2028, one wouldn't know just by um the building's typology that it's subject to that.

And so it's definitely a issue or shouldn't say it's an opportunity to inform the public and the tenants as we have potentially new rent control units from the many programs that the city offers for that opportunity.

Thank you.

Commissioner Skype.

I really appreciate these dialogue, and um I'm speaking here.

I'm glad that we brought this up from based on this property project.

Um that how the public can actually find out information of who is um which unit which property has rank control units that are in place that is readily accessible today as compared to 10 years ago.

And so there's a bit more of a transparency here.

And also we need to strike a balance of not continue to cause more undue hardship to families and their finances.

So uh with that I can accept the um motion.

Um but I also want the public who come forward today, uh the neighbors and the community.

Um this is kind of where you can um look into if this property continue to uh operate the way is uh being approved to operate moving forward.

Um this is kind of where what we have for now.

But um I really do hope that um you can really build this and bring housing and um maybe a coffee shop or something, you know, really quickly on the San Bruno Avenue.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners, if there is no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion, Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Soye Commissioner Williams.

I Commissioner Braun.

I Commissioner Moore and Commissioner President Campbell.

I'll move Commissioners that motion passes unanimously six to zero.

Commissioners that will place us on the final item on your agenda today.

Number nine, case number 2022, hyphen zero one two two five four C UA hyphen zero two for the project at 2001 37th Avenue.

This is also a conditional use authorization.

Good afternoon, President Campbell.

Members of the Commission, Jeff Horn, Planning Department staff.

Item before you is a request for conditional authorization.

Hold on, Jeff.

Excuse me, folks.

If you could leave quietly, we still have another another matter.

Again, this request would be uh conditional use authorization to modify a recently approved plan unit development seeking a new modification to reduce the required amount of class one bicycle parking.

This item was continued from the May 18th hearing without being heard to provide additional time for the product sponsor to conduct outreach with surrounding community groups.

Prior to that May hearing, members of the community submitted concerns regarding the amount of class one bicycle parking proposed as part of this application.

For background, on November 2nd, 2023, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to an existing 1960s era plan unit development to allow an expansion of the St.

Ignatius College Preparatory campus.

The approved project would allow the demolition of the chapel, dining hall, administrative offices, garage, and dormitory to allow construction of an approximately 182,850 square foot building expansion.

The expansion uh would provide a new chapel, dining area, and kitchen, flexible educational spaces, and 30 new classrooms.

As part of the approval, the uh commission granted modifications to the rear yard requirements through the PUD.

Under the 2023 approval, the project was required to provide 120 Class 1 bicycle parking spaces based on the planning code requirements of four spaces for every classroom.

The project is currently under construction and the interior design of the building continues to be refined.

As a result, the project sponsor is requesting an additional modification to the plan unit development to reduce the required number of class one bicycle parking spaces.

The request is based on existing bicycle commute rates among students and faculty, as well as the amount of area uh building area needed to accommodate the originally required 120 class one bicycle parking spaces.

The application materials, the May 18th case report, and the case report published last week.

Uh the sponsor requested a modification to provide 20 Class 1 bicycle parking spaces.

However, the following following the outreach efforts uh with the community, uh including the Outer Sunset Neighborhood Neighbors Organization, the sponsor has revised its request as reflected in the revised draft motion distributed to the commission via email yesterday.

The sponsor is now proposing a total of 70 Class 1 bicycle parking spaces.

The revised number was requested by members of the community, and the department has received comments supporting the updated proposal.

In addition to the proposed 70 Class 1 bicycle parking spaces, the project will provide 30 Class II bicycle uh spaces.

Combined with the existing 15 class one and 12 class two spaces, the project will provide a total of 127 bicycle parking spaces, consisting of eight eighty-five class one and forty-two class two.

There's one additional correction that I would like to read into the record on page 17 of the draft motion under condition of approval number six bicycle parking.

The first sentence currently states that the project shall provide a combined minimum of 100 new bicycle parking spaces.

This language should be revised to be more explicit and require the exact minimum of class one bicycle spaces at 70 and class two spaces at 30.

As such, the department finds that the requested modification will support the continued operation and expansion of the school by allowing a more efficient use of building floor area for academic purposes, while maintaining adequate bicycle parking and preserving character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested PUD modification to allow 70 Class 1 bicycle parking spaces per the revised draft motion and edits uh reference today.

This concludes my presentation.

I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Hi, uh Liz Goodrow.

I work for St.

Ignatius.

I'm running the construction project.

I don't have a lot to add beyond uh we uh submitted our request for a reduction to 20 based upon the number of community members that commute uh shortly before the hearing.

Learned that the neighbors were unhappy with that number.

Thank you for your continuance.

We've worked with them this past month, and we think we've come up with a good uh solution.

70 class one spots, and we found actually a better spot.

The uh class one bicycle parking spots are originally intended to be in the lower level of our new building, and now we have found a room on the first floor of our existing building that can accommodate the bicycles.

Do you have any questions for me?

Do you have plans that you could walk us through that show the new location?

Uh I do actually.

It's pretty pretty simple.

SFCov, can we have the overhead?

Okay.

Okay.

So what you see here, uh this is the first floor.

This is the first floor, or that this is our new building.

This is the main entrance to the new building, and this is our existing building.

So to get to the original location, you would go in the new building, you'd go, you'd get on the elevator, take the elevator down to the lower level, come out and park right there.

The new plan, you can just travel along the sidewalk that's in front of the school, pop in the door, and you're right there on the first floor.

So it's better for everyone actually.

Much improved.

Yeah, it is.

Thank you.

Okay, if there are no additional questions from uh members of the commission, we should open up public comment.

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

Hello, my name is Alice Duzdiker, and I'm the vice president of Outer Sunset Neighbors and the chair of our transportation committee.

Outer Sunset Neighbors is a community group focused on improving the outer sunset.

I'm also speaking on behalf of Shannon Delp, a concerned community member who was participating in this process but had to go back to work, so couldn't stay for this item.

Uh over the last month, I have been speaking on behalf of Outer Sunset Neighbors with Liz Goodrow as a representative of St.

Ignatius.

I have appreciated the kindness and honesty of Liz and the team at SI as we work together to meet the school's priorities while also ensuring that the school will be well positioned to contribute to the city's environmental and mode shift goal for 80% of all trips to be taken by low carbon sustainable modes, such as public transit, walking, biking, and carpooling by the year 2030.

While our preference would be to meet or exceed the planning code requirement of 120 class one bike parking spots, we do appreciate that SI has engaged with us in good faith and we support the compromise we have reached for the school's updated variance request for 70 Class 1 bike parking spots at ground level.

We look forward to continuing to work with SI as the school builds on this investment and alternative transportation modes.

We believe that SI can leave further groundwork to encourage bicycling to campus by conducting a survey in the fall of how students and staff get to campus to set a baseline which can guide the school's mode shift efforts.

We also believe that dedicating staff resources to these efforts will be in set will be essential to ensuring their success.

There are other peer institutions in the city that can offer examples of what this work and dedicated staffing resources might look like.

Overall, I'm glad to see SI prioritizing biking to campus by providing 70 Class 1 ground floor bike parking spots.

I look forward to working with the team at SI, Shannon, and other invested community members to ensure that this is a meaningful investment for neighbors and the school.

Together, we can build a greener community that will contribute to the city's environmental and mode shift goals.

Thank you for your time.

Last call for public comment.

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

Thank you.

Vice President Moore.

I'm delighted to see that the community came together to the school to find a commonly supportable solution.

Congratulations.

I like to see people work it out themselves rather than us having to jump into the middle.

I thank the community for very, very carefully and eloquently monitoring the impact and indeed to transportation plan and all the kinds of things that we normally approve for everybody else are finally addressed.

So this is a very big win on all fronts.

And so moving ahead with this particular last issue resolved, uh I make a motion uh to approve this conditions.

Commissioner Braun.

I also want to uh thank uh SI and the neighborhood for for working together to try to find a mutually agreeable solution.

I would say if we this was not continued our last hearing, I probably would have tried to add quite a lot of class one bike parking spaces on the fly because 20 or reduction from 120 to 20 just did not uh seem appropriate.

And I know that there's a lot of references to the existing quantity of of uh people who are commuting to the campus by bicycle but from my perspective we just can't get to mode shift unless we have really stellar facilities available for people who are biking and and having that at their end destination.

It's it's the same thing that happens with car parking if there's no parking people aren't going to be driving as much and vice versa.

So I want to see that supply of really great bike parking in place and I think that this 70 unit 70 class one spaces is a great compromise position here understanding that it's not the school's mission to provide bike parking.

And as part of that it might just really be helpful to look at how many students, faculty and staff reside within three miles of St.

Ignatius because that's a pretty ideal biking distance.

The city has its own work to do on making sure there's great safe, comfortable bike infrastructure on the streets, especially for students but I think this is a good first step in in moving us uh forward towards more sustainable transportation solutions.

So just um yeah no other notes just thank you so much for for bringing this to this point.

Thank you.

Commissioner so I have the luxury of or um luxury privilege or opportunity to tour the campus a lot as my child was applying for high school years back.

I mean not a few years back just so I know how massive the school is and I'm also pretty excited about the once in a lifetime of expansion of the campus that will allow the wildcats to continue to thrive.

You know just exciting about having such an institutional school anchoring for the legacy of the history of San Francisco.

Many of my friends are alumni of SI so really appreciate that today you actually took an effort to reach out to the community and understand a little bit more about how we address climate resiliency and encouraging younger generation to use multimodal transportation because you guys, the wildcats are really strong in athletics and I think you have a lot of amazing athletes that can also be more extra super athletic when they go bike to school, you know so I think this is really great and it's a first really good way to accommodate and encourage a different ways to go around the city and go to school and go to work and I really appreciate that.

Even though with um addressing the you're asking today is quite lower than what code minimum require for a class one bicycle parking you're we you're requesting to reduce from 120 to 70 I think that uh Jeff our staff did a really good job to make at that at all the other total combined of parking uh bike parking it's look like it's more than 120 but I wanted to uh emphasize that the 120 is specifically a site four class one bike per classroom and you're adding 30 classroom right so it is a really huge school and I understand that right now it probably hasn't have that sort of uh the behavior change to actually use different um ways to get to school most of them are student bike driving and hopefully they're on Muni and some of them are on your shuttle bus.

So I really encourage you taking that first step to do this right now so then you can do like go wildcats on the West side you can bike to school and and and stay fit right and um I I think that um being able to work with the uh community uh advocacy group um understanding what neighborhood really needs in West is very important um you both are you're all really important anchor of the West Sci of San Francisco I do want to bring up that um many of you might not aware of that um our city is actually creating this plan called Safe Schools Connected plan that is a collaboration with the planning department with the MTA the idea is being is that having children to be able to um feel safe that they're connected from school to school from primary school to middle school to high school and um community college.

So we're looking forward to have SI be part of the game changer for that.

And that said being, I think I saw that in the CEOA application, there is a transportation development plan.

And I really want you to work with our staff and MTA to uh have that in place so then we all are synchronized in to um knowing how we work together as the demands grow or change.

And um I am in agreement with my fellow commissioners, but I also want to um add one thing to it is to implement a three-year monitoring program to continue to assess the demands of the student.

So with this approval, I wanted to amend the approval to have a three-year monitoring program to continue to reassess the demands as the school grow, because right now the kids doesn't know that they will have a place to safely park their bike, that they won't be stolen, and then pretty soon when you're finished the expansion, um, they would know that their bike would be safely secure.

But why know that it might not have so many, right?

So we'll see how if it moving forward, how how the how how things are changing and adapting it.

Also, you're in a much you're in a really educational rich district in parts of um Sunset.

It's like AP Giannini is right next to it, and the uh library is right next to it, and then the Sunset Elementary is also right nearby.

I I do want to make sure that we are um making sure that we cover all the considerations today.

So if uh colleagues, if you don't mind, indulge me to add that um monitoring program to reassess.

Is that just typically done that way?

I'm in support of seeing it, but I do not want to extra add extra complications uh to the school as well as to the staff.

Um I think it seems like uh it doesn't seem to add a ton of operational challenges for us or the school, and so I think it seems amenable.

I think this will be one of the um one that actually helped to facilitate a lot of collaborations between multi-agency department, between planning and SFMTA, and also the local communities.

And to um support our ultimate city goal of Safe Schools Connected Plan.

Just want to be clear is the goal that the monitoring commissioner so would be that they're responding to any new demands that may arise because they have this new facility that so that if it becomes very popular that they would provide more accommodations that maybe start to meet the code required like parking.

Right.

So see if Mr.

Hart has a comment possibly to help us.

Thank you.

Um Jeff Warren Plan Department staff.

Uh similar question on my end in the crafting of such a condition of approval of what would be kind of the metrics we're intending to measure so that this could should this condition of approval be added to the project.

Just daily the ridership totals or um I think um it I'm really open to what works best between uh you, the planner, and also the SFMTA uh traffic planner because it really is um I think I do believe like as an architect or just anyone like that phrase of like form follow function, we shape the the building and the facilities shape who we are, and we are encouraging different multimodal transportation moving forward for the next generations, and part of it is also adapting to our climate resiliency goal.

And so however it makes sense to be easier for you to um monitor with collaboration with MTA and also the school to track what is the user demands of um uh bicycle.

And I I don't really bike myself too much because I have um ability to run into things.

So I'm not a die-hard bicyclist.

I wanted to everyone to know.

But I do understand one of the barrier to actually ride to drive the bike to somewhere is uh we all want to have a nice bike because San Francisco is hilly, and in the West side things are far apart, right?

It's not like you bike, you have Market Street that has the green metric carpet you can just zoom by.

So you want to have nice bike, but then having a nice bike, you don't want it to get stolen, right?

So that's kind of put us in the pickle here.

Class one is the only thing that could really circumvent the worry.

And I love the wildcats.

I actually went to the Bruce Mahome game, so good for you.

Go SI, you know, like four year sweep winning.

I'm gonna hopefully continue to get invited to watch the game.

Uh so I just want to make sure that just we are we're in a happy place, and we all know that um further down the road really soon um this safe school connected plan will be happening, and we just we want SI to sell smoothly with it.

And uh whatever works best for the staff.

I actually don't have anything that I wanted to uh you know enforce here.

I just want to raise the awareness of help our community serve better and help our city serve the community better.

So, Commissioner, so just for just for the sake of clarity, the purpose of the monitoring program and report, if it were to be added to the motion, would be to allow the Commission to determine whether or not there is a greater need and the opportunity to revoke this conditional use authorization and require that the school provide additional parking.

Additional bicycle parking.

I just I'm just kind of thinking forward.

I'm confused what the end game is.

And if there is insufficient parking because there is additional demand.

I would like to suggest that we do not make it conditioned, but I would encourage the department, as we have basically transportation planners, to actually monitor trends of schools using bicycles.

And that I think would give us clues as to whether or not the surrounding infrastructure, particularly on larger schools, is sufficient to encourage and support bicycle parking as to whether or not public transportation or other means of getting there are sufficient.

But I would not just single out a single school and say you got a monitor just because they're building a new extension to the building.

And perhaps deriving from the trends, and I'm really picking up on uh Commissioner Brown's attitudes about bicycling and the importance of You have to have proper infrastructure from safe storage to properly identified bike paths, et cetera, et cetera crossings that are not dangerous to children coming with bicycles.

If we can get a handle on that, then we can be like Holland, and everybody will be bicycling, everything will be fine.

But singling out a particular school, I think is an inappropriate thing to do, except picking up on the constructive nature of uh Commissioner Sell's question.

I would suggest that we make it layering in a more informed judgment about bicycle parking and requirements for bicycle parking at schools with an understanding that standards need to be met, but relative to location and existing infrastructure.

I think that's a great suggestion.

I wanted to bring up one thing.

I do understand uh Commissioner Moore's um topic of concern, but however, I do want to bring up also just for information to all my fellow commissioners that this is not singling out one particular school.

However, you don't see others who come up here in front of us to request a reduction of class one bike parking because they voluntarily meet the class one bike parking for their new school additions.

And it is equivalent um independent school that is actually happened in San Francisco recent years that I'm really aware of.

So this is not try to single out a school, but if a school or any entity come in in front of asking for conditional use authorization, and with the knowledge of also understanding that we try to encourage most shift and the overall city um Commissioner Brown, I mean Commissioner uh Moore, due to all my full respect, your suggestions of having our staff to monitor um bike patterns and traffic patterns.

I think it's fully undertaking, and therefore under the SFMTA there is a safe school connected plan underworks.

Uh what I'm asking today is not something new to actually assess.

We don't need to, we don't we already have someone, a whole agency to assess traffic pattern for the city.

Um also school, specifically safe school.

It is actually one of my major um important piece why I serve on SFMTA board, because I want everyone to be safely get to school.

I committed myself to make sure that we deliver Muni to no kids left behind from one school to another.

We do not leave.

We actually, despite the deficit, we create more frequency to pick up all the kids during school rush hours.

So this is not creating something to like this is not something that never happened.

We already have a lot of people investigating and studying the traffic pattern for school.

What I'm asking for is to make sure that while we are getting our wildcats acclimated to use bike.

And I have a lot of good openness to how staff monitoring it.

Perhaps I could suggest if the maker of the motion secondary did want to add this uh provision, it could be a report back uh six months and one year after the facility is constructed and operational on the use of the bike parking in the similar manner of preparing for this hearing.

There was a report on the bike usage to date, and that could provide information and insight into whether there is a sufficient space or if it all spaces are filled every day, perhaps to Commissioner Moore's point that indicates a higher demand and more spaces may need to be um found.

Uh Ms.

Hannah, I think that is a uh soft and correct approach.

But I think we should also uh have the school itself respond because this is a challenge and perhaps a very well-placed challenge to the applicant relative what is your reaction to what Commissioner Sow was asking.

So are you adding that to your motion?

I'm I'm just I I just would like to hear what the applicant is.

Are they prepared, institutionally prepared to respond to to what uh Commissioner Sow is asking for?

So just to clarify, it sounds to me like you want to check in with us to see how many of the bicycle, the Class 1 bicycle spots are actually being utilized.

So I had every intention there's a camera in the room, so I'll be able to tell you exactly how many bicycles are parked in that room every day.

So I yes.

Uh we can do that.

We also were working with Outer Sunset.

I didn't mention this, but we're working with them on a bicycle program, trying to err encourage people to cycle.

We plan on like sharing it when we open the building.

Um we would be happy to report back in 18 months and let you know how many of the class one spots are actually being utilized.

Thank you.

Commissioner, so does that kind of hit a little bit of what what you were asking?

Yes.

There is indeed reporting, there is a dialogue that's probably in uh reporting back based on Commissioner uh on Ms.

Tanner's suggestion uh uh that there is a dialogue on evolving knowledge to be shared and also perhaps periodically updated to uh uh to the planning commission.

And if I may, uh Kate Connor with planning staff, just for the mechanics of how this would work, would uh memo to the commission suffice with this data?

Yeah, memo suffice.

Is that in itself does that require an additional comment or reference in the motion?

Uh Mr.

Ionan, could you weigh in on that?

Or are we clear that there's an understanding of the well that's kind of up to the maker of the motion at this point?

Do you want to include that as part of your motion as a condition of approval, or is it enough for the school to acknowledge the request and to voluntarily provide that report to us?

Director Tanner, what is you thought?

I think it's fine to have it in the motion just to note that the Commission will receive a report at periodical uh increments of time.

Yep.

Thank you.

So are we adding that as a condition of approval or are we?

That's the seconder of the motion.

I agree with that too.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I it probably also worth noting that if there becomes a high demand for bike parking, something tells me SI is going to respond to that demand based on their students and the families that attend the school.

But appreciate the self-monitoring and the self-auditing, which I'm sure will work well.

And I also agree with a lot of Commissioner Braun's comments.

I didn't love these quantities when they first came across.

I am also a biker.

So I I do believe if you build it, they will come.

I know you only have eight bikes today, but I was pleased to see the new number come through.

Would have loved the higher number as well.

So yeah, I and I love the new location.

I think the more barriers you remove, um, the less doors people have to go through, the less hallways, the less elevators, the more likely they are to use the room.

So um so I think it's wonderful.

Appreciate the new location.

And this part is a little outside of our purview, but I would recommend door actuators on the door, which is one less barrier to getting into the bike room.

Um take it or leave it.

But yeah, this has my full support.

Uh Commissioner McGary.

McGarry.

So I got two kids to Will uh will kids this week.

And basically did it last year.

Go will kids, they do great job.

Uh I also utilize the baseball fields all around SI out there.

And I am aware there is no way I'll get from the inner Richmonds and even my kids on a bike, too.

My big concern on bike is basically not around the school, it's getting to the school.

Uh I know the school basically you're going to park those bikes, and every around the bikes is gonna around the school would be monitored, people will be looking.

But it's from that point to we're getting home.

That's where the real issue is.

Uh the real my concern on it.

Uh I have no doubt that SI, if there's 70 spots full, you're going to be up to 100.

You know, I've uh it's not like many other schools around where if it's built out the infrastructure for 100, they won't let you put in 101 because you know it's there just for 100.

But I have no doubt that SI will uh will basically accommodate their students if we're over 70.

So um I just wish the infrastructure of the city allowed people to bike.

So basically it could be 170 or you know, half the school could be biking the school.

But unfortunately, it's it's just not there.

I think that's where our focus needs to be if we actually uh care about kids biking to school and back, not where they park the bike, you know.

So that's why.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners.

If there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended to include a uh monitoring component and for the school to report in six months and one year uh as to the bicycle parking usage.

On that motion, Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner So?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell.

Aye.

So move Commissioners that motion passes unanimously six to zero.

And concludes your hearing today.

Thank you.