San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Good afternoon, everyone. This meeting will come to order. Welcome to the 10/20/2025 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I am supervisor Mirna Melgar, chair of this committee, joined by vice chair supervisor Cheyenne Chen and supervisor Bilal Mahmood. The committee clerk today is John Carroll. I would also like to acknowledge Jeanette Engelauf, at SFGovTV for supporting us in broadcasting this meeting to everyone who is interested in watching it but cannot be here today. So with that, mister Clerk, do you have any announcements?

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you, madam chair. Please ensure that you've silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices you've brought with you into the chamber today. If you have any documents to be included as part of any of today's files, you can submit them to me. Do so by just leaving them at the rail, and I will pick them up. Public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda. When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak along your right hand side of this room. Alternatively, you may submit public comments in writing in either of the following ways. First, you may email your comment to me at johnperiodcarroll@sfgov.org, or you may send your written comments via US Postal Service to our office in City Hall. The address is 1 Doctor Carlton B Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102. If you submit public comment in writing, it will be forwarded to the members of this panel and also include your comments as part of the official file on which you are commenting. A few additional things. We are joined at this time by three guest supervisors bringing us to six in the chamber. So starting off from the beginning, this meeting is convened as a special quorum of the board of supervisors. However, conduct will still be conducted as if it was just a regular land use meeting. We have three voting members, and they are the regular members of this committee. A few additional things since we're at a a capacity for this room, We have overflow seating set up in Room 263 down the hall, and there is also viewing set up downstairs in the North Leichhardt. If you are here in the chamber with us, everyone who's in the chamber needs to have a seat. If you don't have a seat, please go down the hall to the overflow seating. When we do get to public comment, people can line up and we will be sure to hear from everyone. One more thing. Just a moment while I gather my thoughts. Thank you, everyone, for coming in and participating in the conversation today. We will hear from everyone. You are likely in the public gallery to hear things that you agree with or disagree with. If you do, that's fine, but do not interrupt our proceedings with applause or hissing or jeering or thumb snaps or anything. It's very challenging on this side of the rail to hear even with the public address system. Everyone will have their chance to give their public comment and come forward to the lectern when it is their time, but we need to hear from people without the interruptions from the public gallery. And madam chair, that is the end of my announcements.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you so much, mister Clerk. I also wanna thank everyone for coming and being part of, this process. I will reiterate, what mister Clerk just said. Please refrain from applause or audible expressions of support or disapproval, like hissing or anything else. If anyone uses foul languages or personal attacks, I will stop public comment. I don't think that it's helpful to get us to consensus in a democratic process. I also wanna thank all of my colleagues who are not members of the land use committee for being here today. It is an important day. All of us have put in significant amount of work with our constituent and also in the legislative process to draft amendments and to consider what is being proposed. So I just want to thank you all very much, for your hard work, on behalf of your constituents, and for being here today. And I also want to thank my colleagues in the Land, Use, and Transportation Committee, supervisors at Chen and Mahmoud, because this is not the first for us. We've been at it for a while. In fact, the board of supervisors has been at this process now for over two years since before we passed our housing element. So thank you so much for being here. And with that, mister Clerk, please call items one through four together.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the general plan to revise the urban design element, commerce and industry element, transportation element, Balboa Park Station area plan, Glen Park community plan, Market And Octavia area plan, Northeastern Waterfront Plan, Van Ness Avenue Area Plan, Western SoMa Area Plan, Western Shoreline Area Plan, Downtown Area Plan, and Land Use Index to implement the family zoning housing program, including the Housing Choice San Francisco program by adjusting guidelines regarding building heights, density, design, and other matters. It amends the city's local coastal program to implement the Housing Choice San Francisco program and other associated changes in the city's coastal zone. Agenda item number two is an ordinance amending the zoning map to implement the family zoning plan by amending the zoning use district maps to first reclassify certain properties currently zoned in various types of residential to residential transit oriented commercial RTOC. Second, reclassify properties currently zoned residential transit oriented RTO to residential transit oriented one, RTO one. Third, reclassify certain properties from residential districts other than RTO to RTO one. Fourth, reclassify certain properties currently zoned neighborhood commercial n c or public p to community business c two. And fifth, reclassify certain properties from public to mixed use or neighborhood commercial districts. The ordinance also amends the height and bulk map to first reclassify properties in the family zoning plan to r four height and bulk district. Second, change the height limits on certain lots in the R four height and bulk district. And third, designating various parcels to be included in the noncontiguous San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency site special use district, also known as the SFMTA SUD. The ordinance also amends the local coastal program to first reclassify all properties in the coastal zone to r h excuse me, to r four height and bulk district. Second, reclassify certain properties to RTOC and neighborhood commercial district. And third, to designate one parcel as part of the SFMTA SUD. Agenda item number three is an ordinance amending the planning code to first create the housing choice San Francisco program to incent housing incent housing development through a local bonus program and by adopting a housing sustainability district. Second, modify height and bulk bulk limits to provide for additional capacity in well resourced neighborhoods and allow additional height and bulk for projects using the local bonus program. Third, require only buildings taller than 85 feet in certain districts to reduce ground level wind currents. Fourth, make conforming changes in the RH residential house, RM residential mixed, and RC residential commercial district zoning tables to reflect the changes to density controls and parking requirements made in the ordinance. Fifth, create the RTOC, residential transit oriented commercial district. Sixth, implement the Municipal Transportation Commission's transit oriented communities policy by making changes to parking requirements, minimal residential densities, and minimum office intensities, and requiring maximum dwelling unit sizes. Seventh, revise off street parking and curb cut obligations citywide. Eighth, create the noncontiguous San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency site's special use district. Ninth, permit businesses displaced by new construction to relocate without a conditional use authorization and waive development impact fees for those businesses. Tenth, make technical amendments to the code to implement the above changes. Eleventh, make conforming changes to the zoning tables in various districts, including the neighborhood commercial district and mixed use districts. And twelfth, reduce usable open space and bicycle parking requirements for senior housing. The ordinance also amends the bill business and tax regulations code regarding the Board of Appeals review of permits in the Housing Choice program, housing sustainability district. The ordinance also amends the local coastal program to implement the Housing Choice San Francisco program and other associated changes in the city's coastal zone. Each of the ordinances make findings as appropriate as related to CEQA and the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code section one one point one and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code sections three zero two and three forty. Agenda item number four is a resolution transmitting to the California Coastal Commission for review and certification, an amendment to the implementation program and land use plan for the city's certified local coastal program to implement the family zoning plan. It also affirms the planning department's secret determination. Those are the four items.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you, so much, mister Carroll. I want to welcome, again, my colleagues who have joined us, in the last couple minutes. I wanna note that we have, the, presence of the entire board of supervisors with the exception of District 4, because that person please, please don't do that. With the exception of District 4, because that person has not yet been appointed, I wanna welcome president Mandelmann, representing District 8, supervisor Jackie Fielder, representing District 9, supervisor Shamone Walton represented District 10, supervisor Danny Slaughter representing District 3, and supervisor Steven Sherrill District 2, and supervisor Connie Chan representing District 1. So all of us are here because this is an important thing to all of us. And you have our attention. So with that, I want to go through some quick announcements. And I will also turn it over to deputy city attorney Brad Rossi after. We will have planning staff give their presentations first on the family zoning package and the affordable housing sites analysis and strategy. I am going to respectfully ask my colleagues to hold off on questions and comments until the end of the entire presentation. After the presentations, we will have supervisors ask questions, share comments, discuss any proposed amendments from all of them. And so that you all can hear what is being proposed and incorporated into the comments or feedback that you give us. You will have two minutes per speaker. I want to note that while amendments will be discussed, no motions will be made until after the entirety of public comment. I also want members of the public to know that after amendments are adopted, I will request that all items be continued to the meeting of Monday, November 3. To allow everyone to review any proposed changes or amendments, allow our city attorney to look at stuff and see if there are things that need to be coordinated or condensed. With that, I wanna thank, our chief economist, Ted Egan, for the, economic impact report for this legislation. It is forthcoming. His team will present that report at the next anticipated date or Monday, November 3. Deputy city attorney Russsey, would you please share your announcements?

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: Sure. Good Good afternoon, supervisors. Deputy city attorney Brad Russi. I've been asked to make a few comments on the legal context, that we're dealing with here today. Under state law, the city is required to increase its capacity to produce housing, to meet the regional housing needs assessment before 01/31/2026. And so the purpose of the legislation before you is to meet that goal. As the clerk announced, the package consists of three ordinances, a general plan amendment, a planning code amendment, and an amendment to the zoning map. With respect to the general plan amendment, general plan amendments are initiated by the planning commission, as this one was, and transmitted to the board of supervisors. Under the charter, the board has ninety days from the date of transmission to act on the general plan amendment. And if that does not happen, then the general plan amendment is deemed approved. And again, this is just one aspect of the package. The planning code amendment Can

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: you say that again, please, mister Ressy?

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: If the board does not act by taking an up or down vote on the general plan amendment within ninety days of the date that the planning commission transmitted it to the board, then that general plan amendment is deemed approved. It was transmitted to the board on September 22. The other two pieces of legislation, the planning code amendment and the zoning map, the board can amend those. And I know you all have proposed amendments on those that legislation. The general plan amendment

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. Please allow mister Russi to speak. Go ahead.

[Speaker 3.0]: As I I

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: was saying

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Say it again,

[Speaker 4.0]: mister Russi.

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: As I was saying, the planning code amendment and the zoning map amendment, the board can make can amend those pieces of legislation that have been presented to it. The general plan amendment, the board cannot make amendments to that piece of legislation. And I wanted to make one final statement. Based on the the scope and the context of the actions before you, because the proposed changes to the city's zoning will affect so many parcels throughout the city and make and will make, an impact on a significant segment of residents and property owners. California's ethics laws allow all supervisors and city staff to participate in the legislative process no matter whether you own or rent property and no matter where that property is. And we're here to answer any questions that you may have throughout the process.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you, mister Russi. Can you clarify as to the general plan amendment ninety day window? When is the end of that window?

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: My understanding is it's December 21. I think that's

[Speaker 3.0]: the day.

[Speaker 5.0]: Twenty first. Right.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you. Okay. We will now hear from planning stuff.

[Rachel Tanner, Director, Citywide (Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. It's great to be with you. Thank you, chair Malgar, for, the opening remarks. And, my name is Rachel Tanner. I am the director of the city wide division of city over the planning department. We are the long range planning division of the city. We're very, very excited to be here today. I just wanna really just come here to express my gratitude to all of you for being as engaged as you have, to all of our staff. We have a big crew. I think we're overflowing from the staff area over here because, as you know, this is a historic piece of legislation, really historic change, and it takes a lot of us working, across departments, across divisions to make this happen. So we wanna thank, all of our staff and also thank the members of the public. We know there's a lot of folks here in the chamber today and who have been working on this. Some folks for the last two and a half years. This project is many, many months, and, sometimes evenings, in the making, and we're very, very excited to be here today. We have Lisa Chen, who is our principal planner and our project manager, on this project, as well as James Pappas, who will be presenting the affordable housing sites strategy, which is in response to, supervisor Chen, your request to have this come forward at the same time as the rezoning. So we're very excited to present this to you today, and we look forward to a robust discussion. Thank you. With that, I'll hand it over to Lisa.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you. Welcome, miss Chen.

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Planning Department)]: Thank you very much, Chair Melgar and supervisors. Lisa Chen with the planning department. If I could get the slides. Thank you. And as mentioned, I'm presenting, alongside James Papas, who will be presenting our affordable housing sites work. So today's presentation will start with background on the family zoning plan. Next slide. We'll then provide an overview of the draft ordinances followed by a brief overview of the affordable housing sites analysis strategies report. Finally, we'll close with some informational resources and acknowledgments. Together, the family zoning plan and our six years of work on the housing element and rezoning represent a bold, forward looking commitment to tackling the housing affordability crisis, laying the foundation for a more inclusive and equitable San Francisco. Our housing crisis has grown steadily worse over the past twenty five years. The data is clear. Rents remain high, vacancy rates are low, and the demand for affordable housing far exceeds the supply. We continue to see a growing number of people experiencing homelessness or living with housing insecurity. These are just a few statistics to provide a snapshot, but they reflect a persistent and urgent challenge affecting every part of the city. There's a housing shortage across the country, but California and especially San Francisco has been hit hard. The state says we need about two and a half million new homes to meet demand and improve affordability. San Francisco's share is 82,000 homes, which is our regional housing needs allocation arena, the number of homes we're required to plan for. We are able to count about 60,000 homes in the pipeline, leaving us with a gap of over 36,000 homes that we need to plan for across all income levels. While we continue to see housing built throughout San Francisco, the family zoning plan is required to focus on the housing opportunity areas shown in blue, which represent over half of our city land. In these areas, restrictive and exclusionary zoning rules dating back fifty years make it too hard to build apartment buildings, four and six plexes, and other housing types that can provide more affordable options to live in. Instead, we built 90% of our new housing outside of these communities. It's clear that we have a moral obligation to plan for more housing in San Francisco, but we also have a legal obligation with dire consequences if we fail to act. If we fail to adopt a rezoning plan that meets state requirements, we could lose local control, lose control over local permitting, and the builder's remedy would kick in. This would allow developers to build projects of any height as long as they meet basic safety rules. For example, developers have proposed a 440 foot project in Menlo Park, which is six times taller than the local height limit. We could also lose access to hundreds of millions of dollars for transportation and affordable housing and could face fines and lawsuits. These are real and present threats. Here are images from actual builder's remedy projects in other cities that are in various stages of review. In these places, local government and community members have very limited discretion to influence or deny these projects. This slide shows what could happen if San Francisco loses its housing element certification. We estimate that the city could lose over a $110,000,000 per year in state grants for affordable housing, transportation, and other infrastructure. One example is the $30,000,000 grant we received for the Kelsey Housing Project, which provides affordable housing for people with disabilities. Losing our certification would put projects like these at risk. To avoid these consequences and keep our local control, we need to adopt a rezoning that meets state law. That means three things. First, we must zone to create realistic capacity to meet our deficit of 36,000 units. Second, we need to refocus the rezoning in the housing opportunity areas. And third, we need to identify sites that are good candidates for low income housing and make them eligible for ministerial review. With that scope in mind, over the past three years, we've made a big effort to meet with people across the city to discuss their hopes and concerns about adding new housing. Some of these meetings have been as small as a few neighbors gathered together in someone's living room. Others have been large town halls and open houses. We've also had 19 public hearings at various commissions and at the board of supervisors. The map before you today reflects three years of collaboration and compromise with members of the public, the planning commission, board of supervisors, and mayor's office. Though it has evolved over time, it is grounded in a few core principles. First, the proposal meets state laws and avoids the builder's remedy. Second, the proposal maintains local control and accounts for the state density bonus by offering a local program that encourages projects to follow our height limits and planning code. Next, it puts taller buildings near transit and service services, primarily mid rise buildings of six and eight stories, but with some taller heights. And finally, it allows for small apartment buildings everywhere else, so property owners can easily add more homes within their existing 40 foot height limit. This map shows the base height limits to clarify how we are accounting for the state density bonus. On major corridors, projects have two choices. They can either use the base height shown here and add the state density bonus, or they can just use the taller local program heights shown on the previous slide. In residential areas, the state density bonus doesn't apply. Projects can either build what's allowed today under to the current zoning, or they can use our local program to remove density limits and get form based zoning, building more units within their bulbous envelope. These diagrams step through the different parts of the plan. So here are those gentle density areas which make up over three quarters of properties. Again, these areas do not get height increases but can add more units within their 40 foot height limit under the local program, and they cannot use the state density bonus. The commercial transition areas are similar, but they get an additional one story or 10 feet using the local program. Here are the midrise corridors where buildings of up to six and eight stories will be allowed. These are modest but meaningful increases. About half of the properties shown here will just get one or two stories above today's zoning, and the other half would get three or four additional stories. Projects here can either choose our local program or state program. Finally, a small portion of sites are planned for high rise development and will get five or more stories of additional height. These projects also get to choose either the local program or state programs. The proposed rezoning is designed to meet state requirements to plan for a minimum of 36,000 new units. State law and our housing element require us to use various methods to show that these homes can realistically be built on suitable and available sites. In other words, we have to provide evidence that the changes are actually likely to produce new housing. This table shows three methods that we're using to estimate housing capacity. These are based on best practices from San Francisco and other places, and we just posted a fact sheet with more detail on our website over the weekend. Importantly, HCD issued a preliminary approval letter on September 9 verifying that the proposed rezoning creates enough capacity to meet state requirements. They also confirmed that we should use all three of the methods shown here and warn that if we reduce housing capacity in one area, we'll need to increase it elsewhere. Otherwise, we risk falling short of our target and triggering the builder's remedy. Another recent development has been the adoption of senate bill 79 at the state level, which shares similar goals as the family zoning plan and establishes minimum heights and densities in cities with strong public transit like San Francisco. SB 79 requires heights of five to nine stories and a half mile radius along major transit routes shown here. In many locations, this is actually taller than what the family zoning plan has proposed, particularly in the residential areas where we've proposed to keep the existing four story height limit. Notably, many properties in San Francisco are temporarily exempt from the law until 2032, specifically lots that already allow 50% or more of SB 70 nine's densities, as well as lots in low resource census tracts. SB 79 also allows communities to create their own alternative plan instead of using the height changes under SB 79, as long as the plan results in at least the same amount of total housing capacity. The planning department conducted a preliminary analysis and found that the family zoning plan, if adopted in its current form, would most likely meet the criteria to qualify as an alternative plan and would would exempt us from most or all of SB 79. We're conducting further analysis and are also awaiting guidance from state and regional agencies. This slide briefly summarizes the environmental review for the family zoning plan. In November 2022, the city certified the environmental impact report for the housing element as required by CEQA. It looked at the impacts of planning for 150,000 new homes by 2050, including zoning changes. The EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts, like wind, shadow, and historic preservation. Some of these impacts were found to be unavoidable, even with mitigation. In September 2025, the city issued an addendum to the EIR. It explained why a new or updated EIR isn't needed for the family rezoning plan. The department found that the rezoning would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts beyond those already disclosed in the EIR. Finally, on October 16, the department submitted two memos to the board. One confirms that the substitute legislation from some from September 30 does not require further environmental review. The other responds to commitment to comments on the addendum. This is not required by CEQA, but is offered for transparency. The next slide step briefly through the package of ordinances that are before you today for consideration of adoption. The first ordinance would amend the general plan, including various elements and area plans. The purpose is to remove outdated maps and update the language to better support housing development. The zoning map ordinance amends our zoning map and our height and bulk map. First, it reclassifies some parcels to various other districts to allow more housing, including mixed use, neighborhood commercial, and a new RTOC, or residential transit oriented commercial zoning district. The ordinance also changes height limits on about 20% of parcels, as I noted. And it creates a new r four height and bulk district. Parcels in this district become eligible for the new local program, and they receive both a base height and a local program height. The ordinance also adds various SFMTA parcels to a non contiguous special use district to allow housing to be developed on those sites. It's worth noting that any specific development projects for any SFMTA sites will still require separate approval by the board of supervisors. Finally, it makes conforming amendments to the properties in the local coastal zone. The third ordinance updates the planning, business, and tax codes to set the main rules and processes that will govern new development. It outlines how the local program will work, including its review processes and incentives. It also sets the rules for the new RTOC zoning district as well as for the SFMTA special use district. The ordinance also includes policies to support senior housing by offering more flexibility for these types of projects. It helps small businesses that may be displaced by new housing by waiving conditional use hearings and impact fees and by also requiring early notification to the tenant and office of small business. The plan also promotes efficient land uses near transit by setting minimum housing and office densities and by limiting parking based on how close a site is to transit. The the final amendments you see here focus on improving processes and cleaning up the code. They create a new housing sustainability district to give qualifying projects a faster ministerial review option. They also update height and bulk rules, make wind review more consistent across zoning districts, and make other code cleanup changes. Over the past year, we focused particular attention on refining our local program called the Housing Choice SF program. It's optional, but we've had many conversations with market rate and affordable housing developers, and we think we've found a good balance of providing flexibility, but with guardrails. Projects in our local program will follow our height limits, design standards, and planning code. And in return, they get a menu of flexible options on various topics. Many of these items align with what's already allowed under the state density bonus, but we've also added some other options that aren't available under state programs, like the inclusionary housing flexibility. The local program is also designed to incentivize various uses that we would like to see based on community and policymaker feedback. These include square footage bonuses and height bonuses for supporting small businesses, historic preservation, and family friendly housing. Finally, the last ordinance under your consideration is a resolution to adopt amendments to the local coastal plan and refer the legislation to the Coastal Commission for a public hearing and certification. I'll now pass it over to James Pappas.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you, Ms. Chen. Welcome, Mr. Pappas.

[James Pappas, Planning Department]: Thank you. Thanks, Lisa. Good afternoon, supervisors, that is related to the family zoning plan, but also distinct from it. And we'll explain more shortly. We'll begin by reviewing the project's purpose, then discuss our analysis of the affordable housing pipeline and parcel suitability for sites for affordable housing, as well as policy and financial research. Finally, we'll highlight strategies that have emerged from this research. So the affordable housing sites analysis and strategies, or ASOS, as we've been calling it, is a collaborative effort, between the planning department and the mayor's office of housing and community development to support the city's housing element goals of producing 32,000 affordable units for lower income households and advancing fair housing. The assess is meant to address three main issues. Managing the current affordable housing pipeline, spurring production and equitable geographic distribution of affordable housing, and identifying and acquiring new development sites to grow the pipeline over time. It's important to highlight that lack of sufficient funding remains the largest barrier to building affordable housing. San Francisco has done more than most cities to fund affordable housing, including voter approval of three general obligation bonds over the last ten years, as well as budget set asides by the board of supervisors and the mayor. This increase in funding allowed the city to double affordable housing production and preservation. However, due to the scale of the city's affordable housing needs, more funding is necessary. The affordable housing leadership council report, which was released last year, includes a range of recommend recommendations from affordable housing experts to help increase funding availability, support innovation, and lower costs. The report includes strategies that the Board of Supervisors has also called for study of, including infrastructure finance districts and other funding tools. One important thing to note is that property taxes and other funding supported by new development are the primary local sources to fund affordable housing. This includes general obligation bonds, infrastructure finance districts, and property tax set asides like the housing trust fund and the ERAF funds. We began our work on the process by analyzing the city's existing affordable housing pipeline. There are over 12,000 units of 100% affordable housing, both new construction and preservation, across 59 sites that are in preconstruction, primarily awaiting funding from either local, state, or federal sources. At current rates of construction, it could take more than ten years to build out this pipeline. There are another 2301100% affordable units under construction currently, thanks to the funding we were just talking about. In addition, more than 2,500 inclusionary affordable units and more than 120 mixed income projects are also in the pipeline, many delayed due to financial feasibility challenges. The affordable housing pipeline mirrors broader housing development patterns, with most projects in the city's East Side, mostly in our equity communities, where multifamily housing has been more widely allowed. The pipeline analysis highlights the need for funding and the equity challenges that must be addressed to meet our housing goals. Our parcel suitability analysis found that potential sites for 100% affordable housing exist throughout the city. Using geographic information systems analysis and criteria from local, state, and federal policies, we assess site size and development potential and filtered out parcels with existing housing or other constraints on affordable housing development. Criteria included site size of at least 8,000 square feet with capacity to close to 100 units or more, which tends to be more efficient for funding and financing, as well as construction and operations of 100% affordable housing. Under today's zoning, that is before rezoning, the analysis identified over 1,200 stand alone sites of at least 8,000 square feet with capacity for more than 148,000 units combined. Another 2,200 contiguous parcels that could be combined to create sites of 8,000 square feet or more have capacity for another 98,000 units, though site assembly can be challenging. The analysis indicates that land availability may not be the most significant limiting factor in expanding the city's affordable housing supply relative to funding need and escalating construction costs. However, viable sites, especially public and religious sites, are unevenly distributed around the city, indicating the need for varying acquisition strategies in different areas as we try to expand affordable housing production citywide. To further contextualize the affordable housing sites analysis and strategies, I want to describe how it relates to the family zoning plan. The rezoning is required under state law to meet our housing needs at all income levels, including low, moderate, and above moderate incomes. Thank you. By adding housing capacity, particularly in the well resourced neighborhoods. Within the rezoned areas, the city has identified proposed low income sites, which are eligible for ministerial approval if they provide at least 20% affordable units on-site. The intent of state law is not to zone these sites exclusively for affordable housing. It is meant to provide a variety of sites that allow multifamily development to ensure sufficient capacity for the low income portion of the RHNA. State law defines low income sites broadly, zoned for at least 16 units per site and at a density of 30 units per acre. But this doesn't always align with the practical needs for 100% affordable housing in San Francisco, which are typically larger and denser than the state definition, as I just described, describing the parcel suitability analysis. While there is overlap, not all low income sites identified in the family zoning plan are viable for 100% affordable projects. Notably, by allowing greater heights and densities throughout the West Side, the rezoning will also enable additional sites to meet MOCD's criteria for 100% affordable development. It'll also generate resources for affordable housing, either by providing inclusionary units on-site or by generating in lieu fees and generating property tax revenue, which, as we noted earlier, is the largest funding source for 100% affordable projects. In addition to the pipeline and parcel analysis, planning worked with consultants on in-depth financial and policy research. Planning also convened focus groups with affordable housing practitioners incorporating their insights. Some relevant findings include relevant findings include construction costs have been 60% or more of total development costs and have escalated rapidly over the last five years. In contrast, land costs have averaged about 10% of total development costs, and land prices per unit have been relatively stable in different economic conditions. Rezoning appears to have limited impact on land cost per unit based on the analysis of the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan. In addition, based on the limited sample of recent site acquisitions for affordable housing, land prices, appear comparable in areas that have been rezoned to those that have not yet been rezoned. So, we have combined the analysis and research that's been part of this project into a range of recommended strategies, broken into five topics. First of all, best practices for pipeline management, in, of the affordable housing pipeline management, include ongoing funding, of course, to build the pipeline and aligning new site acquisition with overall funding availability. Expanding funding would mean, the need to strategically acquire additional sites. The city will need to support site acquisition and affordable housing in higher resource areas, including areas covered by the family zoning plan to meet fair housing goals while continuing to invest in equity communities, which, where needs remain acute for affordable housing. A step forward could be to aim for at least one affordable housing project under development in each supervisorial district at any given time. Public land can continue to be an important resource for affordable housing in balance with the operational and financial needs of public agencies. And religious and nonprofit land owners also have significant potential development sites. However, they often need technical assistance and capacity building, as well as funding to unlock these sites. The city can expand the tools it uses to make market acquisitions more effective, including transfer tax incentives, use of options to purchase, as well as continuing partnerships with community development finance institutions and nonprofit organizations for nimble acquisition. Finally, supporting missing middle housing types through policy and finance innovation could help provide more affordable housing on smaller residential parcels with little or no public subsidy. And with that, thank you, for the chance to present this summary of the ASOS work. I'm happy to answer any additional questions you may have. And, with that, I'll pass it back to Lisa.

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Planning Department)]: Thank you, James. Before we close, we wanted to highlight some public resources that we've put on our website over the past few weeks. Some of these are meant to address misinformation that our team has witnessed at outreach events. One resource is a fact sheet on tenant protections. We've heard claims that the rezoning will weaken our protections and lead to widespread demolition of rent controlled housing, and that's simply not true. The fact is we already have strong rules in place. Any demolition of rent controlled units requires a conditional use hearing at the planning commission, and the commission has the authority to approve or deny those proposals. The new tenant protections ordinance introduced by supervisor Cheyenne Chen would strengthen these rules further. The reality is that these rules do make demolitions extremely rare. Roughly 18 units per year are demolished, mostly single family homes. That's less than point 0001% of our housing stock. Second, we have heard concerns about the impacts of new development on small businesses, and we have a fact sheet on small business strategies with data from areas where we've rezoned, as well as the range of strategies that we've been working on in collaboration with stakeholders. In places like Market Street and Ocean Avenue, we found that most new housing is built on vacant or underused lots, not on sites with active storefronts. This generally matches what we see in real projects. Developers usually choose larger sites without existing businesses because they're easier and less risky to build on. We've also shared some new resources explaining how the rezoning supports affordable housing, as James also, presented on, including our racial and social equity analysis of the plan. Research shows that rezoning can help improve affordability over time, and it also allows for more diverse housing types, which is important because two thirds of our units in the rezone area are single family homes. The plan will bring more affordable housing in several ways, through on-site BMR units, affordable housing fees, and by opening up more sites for 100% affordable projects. It also helps to create more naturally affordable homes, like condos, which can be as much as 30 to 40% cheaper than single family homes. By building more of these projects at scale, we can start to create more options that are more attainable for people like teachers, nurses, and nonprofit workers who may not qualify for traditional affordable housing. It's also important to highlight that new housing brings a range of other benefits to San Francisco neighborhoods. Beyond addressing our housing needs, it supports small businesses by increasing foot traffic, generating more revenue for public services and infrastructure, and contributing to our climate resilience by promoting sustainable infill development. To wrap up, we wanna share a few visualizations available on our website that illustrate how neighborhoods might evolve as we welcome new homes. These aren't actual development projects, but they're meant to give a sense of scale. For example, this is a view of Geary Boulevard at 3rd Avenue with 14 story buildings. This is Noriega at 25th Avenue, showing an eight story building. This is Lombard at Buchanan Street, again showing eight story buildings. This is Lombard with six story buildings over at Richardson Street near the Presidio. This shows Ocean Avenue near City College with new eight story buildings close to recently built four and five story buildings. This shows Devisadero Street at Bush with a 14 story building. This one is a composite image, so it doesn't it's not a real place, but it reflects typical conditions in residential neighborhoods across the plan. It shows what a four story, gentle density building could look like surrounded by existing three story structures. We've been especially mindful of the city's natural topography and iconic views, particularly from parks and public spaces. In many cases, we've adjusted building heights in response to feedback to preserve these vistas. This image, for example, shows the view from the Lyon Street steps looking out over the marina. Here are a couple views from Francisco Park. This image is from the Larkin Street steps adjacent to the park. And this shows the view from the lawn itself. And finally, this shows the view from Coit Tower looking over Fisherman's Wharf. As we wrap up, I wanna take a moment to thank the incredible team of staff who made this work possible. Many have gone gone above and beyond, as mentioned, working nights and weekends to make the family zoning plan as thoughtful and robust as it can be. This includes dedicated staff across the planning department, city attorney's office, the mayor's office, MOCD, SFMTA, office of small business, and many others. We're also grateful to the board of supervisors for your guidance over the past three years in shaping the plan, and we wanna thank the many community members and organizations who came to the hearings, hosted, and attended outreach events, and shared your questions, concerns, and ideas. This concludes our staff presentation, and we're happy to answer any questions.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you so much, miss Chen, mister Pappas, and miss Tanner for that presentation. It is now time for my colleagues to provide any comments, ask any questions, speak about your amendments, although we will not be making any motions until after public comment. Because all of us are here, I would ask that if you have more than three questions for staff, you allow another colleague to also give their comments before coming back to you. I promise you, I will come back to you. So with that, I will call on, supervisor Mahmoud first.

[Bilal Mahmood, Member, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you, chair, and thank you planning for all your work over the last several years to initiate this plan. And I wanna start by affirmatively affirming my support for the family zoning plan. I'm supporting it because I believe in a San Francisco that is affordable and accessible to our children, our family, our seniors, and our workers. For too long, the issue of housing affordability and access has been a top issue for a majority of our residents. And our city's strategy of saying no to new housing in most areas hasn't worked. That's what this board reaffirmed when passing the housing element a few years ago. By incentivizing medium density housing construction on and near commercial and transit corridors across the city, and creating a local density bonus program that will help replenish our affordable housing funding mechanisms, we are setting ourselves on a path to a San Francisco for everyone. The scale of development under this plan will not threaten character of our city. It will strengthen San Francisco and its future. Thanks to the work of the planning department and my colleagues on the board, I am happy that we will continue to strengthen protections for tenants and small businesses. I understand that these state requirements are frustrating for some. I would prefer for the city to be able to fully chart its own course, but these requirements are there for a reason. We have not met the needs for housing production over the course of the past few decades, and that has led to an unaffordable San Francisco housing market that we know today. We're a growing and economically successful city, but new residents have to compete with existing residents for a limited pool of aging housing stock, all while the funding for affordable housing that comes from new construction has all but dried up. Getting into the particulars of the proposal, I appreciate the approach of the family zoning plan that focuses on growth on the areas of the city that have seen little to no housing over the past few decades. The zoning map changes are not as ambitious as many fear. In most areas, just encouraging and managing growth that's already allowed under the state density bonus. The map was thoughtfully made, stepping up heights to major transit and commercial corridors across north and west sides of the city. Most neighborhoods will see buildings topping out at six to eight stories, a type of building already common in many neighborhoods. The local density bonus program at the heart of the family zoning plan will help encourage denser buildings while ensuring those buildings meet objective design standards and provide a family friendly mix of units. Unlike in the state program, the local program allows developments to support affordable housing by paying a fee instead of building on-site. This will help unstick our affordable housing pipeline, funding MOACD's efforts supporting new subsidized affordable projects across the city. I also appreciate the way planning laid out that is communicating these changes, leading not with base heights, but with the local program density bonus heights. These heights are similar to the heights achievable under the state program. So neighbors are less likely to be caught off guard by projects that are higher than the base height allowed. Projects that may be happening anyways. As of the member of the land use committee, my priority is that we pass a plan that the California Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD, agrees to implement as part of our housing element, which will achieve the goals we have set out in the housing element and serves as an alternative plan under s b 79. The results of years of hard work and outreach are now hitting a deadline. We heard from the city attorney's office just earlier ago that we have a deadline of December 21. So I'm gonna tell all my colleagues now, as we go over the course of today's hearing, I will not be supporting any amendments that would require the plan to be referred back to the planning commission. We owe it to our constituents to move this process along expeditiously and not risk miss missing the state deadline. If we do, we lose millions in affordable housing funding, and we lose the right to control our own destiny as a city. I ask my colleagues to be prepared to let us know whether or not any amendments that you are proposing would require this item to be re referred. I'll remind colleagues that this legislation can be submitted separately to complement this ordinance following their own legislative timelines, as supervisor Melgaard and supervisor Chen have already done. I look forward to hearing from the public today and over the next month for a lively conversation about how we can make this plan the best for San Francisco. And with that, I wanted to ask a couple questions of the planning department, to elucidate on some of the plan. We talked a little bit about an overview of where the base heights are and the upstone heights. Can you explain where the base heights are actually increasing as part of this plan?

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Planning Department)]: Thank you, supervisor. Lisa Chen with the planning department. So the the answer is that it depends on the location. Right? So as we already noted, everything pretty much everything off of the corridors, you're we're keeping the existing four story height limit, or 40 feet. And so the base height will remain 40 feet, and that's also the local program height. On many of the corridors, they're either six or eight stories. A lot of those corridors are currently 40 feet today. And they would stay 40 feet with their base height. And essentially what we're doing is we're adding the local program option at 65 feet, which is two stories. For those, corridors that are 40 feet today, but we're proposing them at 85 feet, we would add 10 feet to their to their base height. And then again, that base height, you can either use the state density bonus or go to the local program. For high high the higher rise, the, the, 10 stories and above heights that are on our plan, Those vary in terms of how much we're raising their base heights.

[Speaker 10.0]: Thank you.

[Bilal Mahmood, Member, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: We've discussed HCD a couple times. I believe they're following this process closely. What have they said about this plan? And to reiterate, what have they said about any potential amendments?

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Planning Department)]: Yes. So, thank you, supervisor. We, we posted the letter on our website, and it was it actually came out right before the planning commission adoption hearing on the eleventh. So in their review, you know, we sent them the full ordinances and all the maps and our technical analysis. They reviewed it in total, and essentially came to a preliminary approval. They said that, you know, looking at all of the criteria under, state law, including the guidance around, rezoning required under the housing element, we are meeting the statutory requirements. And they were also looking, as I mentioned, at the three different methods. They said that works. You know, keep all three of those methods going forward. And they also, provided, you know, cautionary advice, essentially, saying that if we make future amendments, that would reduce the capacity. We need to make up for it somewhere else.

[Bilal Mahmood, Member, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Are there any type of amendments that they've said they will not accept?

[Rachel Tanner, Director, Citywide (Planning Department)]: It's a great question, supervisor. I think they are HTD tends to have a a practice of looking at what we provide them and then providing specific guidance based on what we we share. And so they have not forecasted, you know, this type of amendment or that type of amendment will not be accepted. But, really, it is about can we maintain our compliance with literally, they have a checklist of just, like, all the things that they have to check for every city in the state. And, like, will we move the needle on any of those? We don't want any of our yeses to become noes. And so that's the the screen that we use when we look at your amendments that are proposed by supervisors to say, you know, would this move us to a no on any of those marks?

[Bilal Mahmood, Member, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you. That's all my questions for now.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you so much, supervisor Mahmoud. Supervisor Chen.

[Chyanne Chen, Vice Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you, chair Merkel. I want to first acknowledge the tremendous amount of work that the planning department staff and the mayor's office has put in to develop this legislation. The legislation itself is over 500 pages, so it speaks for itself. I do have a number of concerns, not just what is before us, but what is missing from this legislation. I believe the path to meeting our state housing obligation is not simply a math problem. We must also deliver on the needs of our local tenants, families, workers, and communities. If we rezone without affordability strategy, anti displacement protections, and other equity safeguards. We run the risks of not actually solving the housing affordability crisis, and even worse, filling for displacement. Earlier this year, I author a resolution that was unanimously adopted by our board, calling for the affordable housing site strategy to be integrated into the mayor's rezoning proposal. I'm very pleased to see that we had the presentation today, and that the planning department has done considerable work in creating this report. And thank you for all your hard work. I've been able to review the report, and preview the report. This report, it's a separate standalone document that is separate from the mayor's family zoning legislation before us. It lays out a lot of challenges and raised many unanswered questions about implementations. That said, this report cannot be a substitute for the absence of any new affordable housing investments in in the mayor's rezoning legislation, or that the affordable housing standards and incentives in the legislation are not insufficient to meet our affordable housing goals. If we are to meet the needs of our workforce, from our lowest income worker to our middle income households, we need stronger affordable housing investments and solutions. I have submitted a budget and legislative analysis request to examine how the city is making good on its commitment to fund affordable housing and achieve of our affordable housing goals. In the coming months, I will look into all my colleagues and to the mayors for your collaboration and support to implement recommendations for this report. Separately, I have introduced a residential tenant protection ordinance, which is a comprehensive piece of legislation that established common sense standards for developers, and common sense protections for tenants when project sponsors cease to demolish existing homes to build new housing. I want to thank my cosponsors, supervisors Fielder, Walton, Chen, Dorsey, Salter, and Cheryl, for their early support. The residential tenant protection legislation goes some of the way, but not all the way, to reducing the vulnerability introduced by the family zoning legislation and the host of streamlining laws laws and development incentives in the state law. I look forward to a more robust discussion when this item comes before this committee in the coming weeks. Today, I also would like to offer three different amendments to the family zoning legislation. First, I want to make sure that the family zoning plans lives up to its name, including truly family sized housing. The mayor's family zoning legislation struck out the standard for family sized units that the board of supervisors adopted. The proposed amendment would simply restore the standards for family sized units that was struck out in the family zoning legislation. This standard is already in our planning code sections two hundred and seven point six and two hundred and seven point seven. The standard was established following a planning department study on housing for families with children. It provides a menu of options for a minimum number of touring units in a project that contain at least two and all three bedrooms for project sponsors to comply with. This standard was adopted by unanimously vote by the board of supervisors in 2017. Just because economic conditions, interest rates, and construction clauses are not favorable for development projects, it does not mean we should be compromising to enable family size housing outcomes. Second, I would second, I want to ensure that the neighborhood areas that have historically borne the burden of displacement pressures, and where higher concentrations of vulnerable residents resigned, not to subject to the rezoning. These are the neighborhood areas that the planning department and our housing elements have defined as priority equity geographies. The 2022 update of housing elements identifies neighborhood areas in the city that qualify as priority equity geographies based on the Department of House Department of Public Health's community health needs assessment. These are areas which have been subject to rezoning in the past, and continue to be eligible for state streamlining incentives and density bonuses. So development wouldn't stop in these areas. The planning department has consistently affirmed that, per the department of housing and community development guidance, the rezoning should apply to the higher resource, higher opportunity areas of the city. The department of housing and community development signed off on our housing element, which adopted the priority equity geography framework. Including the priority equity geographies in the rezoning goes against the commitments our city made in the housing elements, where instead we are tested to with centering anti displacement and community stabilization strategies, and enable and enhance public investments. Third, I want to make sure that we are adhering to our policy goals in the housing elements when it comes to development on our public lands. Affordable housing on public land is a clear policy priority in the affordable housing site strategy report. The city made a commitment to produce up to 2,000 affordable units on public lands during the current housing cycle, and I propose to create additional tools to make meaningful progress toward this goal. In line with the resolution that this board of supervisors passed earlier this year on the SFMTA joint development policy, I proposed an amendment to insert additional finding and pre application requirements regarding 100 affordable housing alternatives, when the SFMTA pursues joint development opportunities in the San Francisco MTA Special Use District. These amendments have been approved to form by the city attorney, and have been circulated today. And I also intend to introduce an additional amendment to be, additional amendment to the pre application requirement, which I understand from the city attorney's office will be ready for November 3 hearing. So please stay tuned for additional amendments. And I really look forward to the public comments today and appreciate the community analysis and engagement on this very impactful policy item. Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you so much, supervisor Chen. President Mandelmann.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President]: Thank you, chair Melgar. Thank you, committee members. I apologize for pointing you to this committee to have to sort through all of this, but thank you for doing the hard work. I have a bunch of thank yous as well. I do wanna thank Rachel Tanner and the planning department for their tolerance over many, many meetings with me and their engagement over, I think it's now years rather than months, on on this plan. I wanna thank the mayor and his team, especially over the last few months for the conversations we've been having about some of my concerns over the plan. And I wanna thank all of the advocates, pro housing, pro neighborhood, pro pro preservation, all the folks, who care about the city and who care about, about what we do here. Of course, neighborhood leadership in my district, but beyond. And I especially wanna thank the historic preservation community for the conversations I've had with you. I see one of at least one of the historic preservation commissioners, in the in the audience. And I I think that, you know, I have learned a lot. We've all learned a lot through this through this process. And I wanna thank my staff, Calvin Ho and Melanie Mathewson, who've been helping me think about this. So I will start by saying, and Sharon Melgar, thank you for, just, you know, a ton of work, not just on family zoning, but going back years to to to our our streamlining legislation in 2023 and all the all the work that has happened to, get through the housing element and implement the housing element and to your staff. Okay. So I think there are many things to like about this plan. The thing I like the most about this plan is that it meets our obligations under state law, and that's an important thing to do for because because it's because you have to. And, also, we've seen the parade of horribles from planning about, you know, about potential builders' remedy. But, also, you know, I don't think San Francisco needs to be locked in litigation with the state for the next however many years it takes. Whoever wins that fight, I would prefer to avoid it. The good the other truly good thing about this plan is it does something which we very much need, and that it creates capacity for more housing at all levels, and that's important. And it does it in many places and, actually, I think, for the most part, in ways that I quite like. Modest increases in height in neighborhoods throughout the zone, emphasis on height along transit corridors and areas that seem to have the infrastructure to be able to absorb more height. I like it because I live in a city, I grew up in a city, and I believe in density. And I think more people living in San Francisco is a good thing, and I think you can get better, more interesting neighborhoods if you add density correctly. And to that end, it does something I very much like and encourage the planning department to do, which is density decontrol. We did, fourplex, several years ago as an initial step in the direction of allowing more units within the box. And I do think, particularly where we are now, but just in general, the better way to regulate development is to say, this is about the size of the thing that we would like, and then you figure out how many more, how how many units you, developer, are interested in putting into that into that box. So I have some caveats to that enthusiasm for, for density decontrol. But in general, the concept, I think, is, you know, is is right. Thanks to a lot of work in the planning department and from from use Chair Melgar and from supervisor Chen and others, there are important protections here for and the mayor. There are important protections for rent controlled housing, and I think that is important. And I guess the last thing that I feel about this plan is that it is in the neighborhood of Passable. This is not the upzoning that I would do, from my perspective as a district aide supervisor. I, of course, think that my my district is, is getting more than its fair share, and that we ought to be doing more on the West Side and more in the southern part of the city. But, no single supervisor is the czar here. We this is a compromise, and, you know, we have to get something that we can all sort of hold hands on and and and pass. So there's a lot to like in this plan, and I want and, again, thanks to everybody. I have a couple big concerns, and they are the same concerns, basically, I think, that I had about the housing constraints legislation back in 2023. Back in 2023, I was concerned about how the state density bonus was gonna play out, with our, with with our constraints legislation, and I was concerned about the impacts that the constraints legislation that the relaxation of constraints would have would have on our preservation of historic resources. And I still have those concerns, and they are accelerated and exacerbated by this plan. This plan, although I love the density you know, density decontrol in concept, the reality of the way density decontrol works is that it opens the door in more parts of the city to state density bonus projects. And state density bonus projects are, in my view, highly problematic. I think that when we tell people we're giving them six to eight story buildings, potentially, over time, going into the future, and that could be a huge fight because not everybody thinks we should have six to eight story buildings. It's important that it be six to eight story buildings and not 12 to 24 story buildings. And I think we've seen enough examples in the last few years of projects coming in. They're not quite builder's remedy projects, but they're getting in the neighborhood, and they're doing it without builder's remedy. They're doing it under state bon on state density bonus. They are eroding the confidence of our public. They build a backlash to density. The state should fix this problem. I think there are people in the pro housing world who recognize that state density bonus is is a weakness, and does undermine public confidence in the overall project of allowing more density and more development. But here we are, and I am concerned that we're opening the door to more of this in San Francisco. The other thing that I'm very concerned about is that this plan undervalues and underprotects historic resources. It's not so much the what the plan does, but its relationship to the raft of state laws and, frankly, local changes we've made that have eliminated the discretion that we long used to protect our historic resources. So ten years ago, if a developer came in with a proposal to substantially alter or demolish a historic resource, there would be not only the ability in the planning department to try to shape that development or say no to it, there would be all of these bodies with San Franciscans reviewing these projects and making changes. In a lot of ways, that was a problem because it created the environment in which, developers had didn't have certainty. We were depressing, the production of housing, and we I know and agree we need to get away from that. But now we've the pendulum has flipped to the complete opposite where there is, in many circumstances, no discretion to protect a historic resource, if it's especially if it has not already been landmarked. And I think that's a real pro problem, especially as we increase the capacity and, therefore, the pressure on, parcels that may include historic resources. Now, again, I've I've had good conversations with the mayor's office and the planning department, and we know part of what we need to do is to accelerate the process of identifying and designating Article 10 landmarks and historic districts. And I'm feel like we are getting closer to agreement on what that's gonna look like going forward, and maybe we can, you know, streamline the, process for for ident for, for designating landmarks and districts. But that is hard, time consuming, process intensive. And even if we pick up the pace significantly, which I hope we will, it is gonna be years or even decades until we have all the landmarks and contributors designated that I think that we're gonna we, not I am not the determiner of any of this, but that that ought to be, that ought to be protected. And it also leaves the problem of the abundant historic resources that don't merit landmarking. Most something like 10 to 15% of San Francisco buildings we think are historic resources. A small fraction of those are gonna be appropriate for landmarking or or adding into a historic district as contributors. Most won't. And yet, what's left for the ones that are not going forward, unless state law changes, which I very much hope it does, there's no ability, at any level, not any of those bodies, but not even a planner in the planning department, to try to shape the that development to include, to include the the historic resource. So that strikes me as a problem. And based on those couple of concerns, I am asking this committee to consider a couple of very modest amendments to this legislation. One would ex and I've circulated those. I've handed them out. The first would simply exclude the article 10 landmarks and contributors from the upzoning that we have already identified. Planning, at some point, may be able to let us know how many parcels we think that might be. Can't be that many. We got 300 and something landmarks citywide. I imagine they're more concentrated in the East Side than on the West Side. We do have more than 10 districts, and so there are more buildings that would be contributors, but we gotta be in the hundreds. I doubt that we're in the thousands of parcels there. So I don't think it's gonna blow a giant hole through our production capacity to just take the pressure or reduce the pressure on those parcels. The other thing that I think we ought to do and what I that I would ask this committee to think about, is to prohibit lot mergers where there's a historic district on one of the lots a historic district a historic resource on one of the lots being merged, unless the project will preserve the historic resource. Again, I think this is super modest, super reasonable. The problem with this super modest and super reasonable, carve out is that I believe it is the only amendment that may be proposed today that may need to get re referred to the planning commission. And I very much hope, as a collegial courtesy, the members of this committee would think about sending this back to allow it. We don't know how long we're gonna spend on this, at the board. We don't know how long these items this item will be at this committee. It may not it may be that I can't catch up, that my super modest, super reasonable amendment can't catch up with the reg the rest of the legislation, but I'd I'd like to give my baby a chance to live. So, colleagues, if you would consider doing me that, favor and, sending that, over to the planning commission for them to think about and get back to us if they can. I think, colleagues, that we can grow and produce the housing that we need or at least create the capacity to produce the housing we need and still preserve our heritage. I think it's very important that we do that. I think the great cities in the world have done that. And I think we can do a little bit of that with a little bit of changing to this legislation. On the December 21 deadline, I would just note I don't know that there's anything in any reason in particular that we couldn't keep thinking about the other pieces of legislation that need to get adopted after the twenty first on so there may be some room, although I don't think we're gonna be pressing those deadlines at all, actually. And then a last note on the on the slide about demolitions, and not to nitpick, but as the supervisor for District 8, there's demolitions and there's demolitions. And one of the things that we may see and that I think we're gonna have to think a lot about over the coming years is the ways in which developers can do demolitions without calling them demolitions. And the more you regulate demolition, the more pressure you even more incentive there is for people to do things that preserve that interior wall, you know, do something that makes it not a demolition, but protects them from having to comply with the rules and requirements. And we've seen plenty of that in District 8. I fear we'll see see more, and I do think we're gonna have to tackle that problem. Thank you, colleagues.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. Supervisor Sherrill.

[Steven Sherrill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Thank you, Chair Melgar, for giving me the opportunity to speak today. Thank you to the planning staff, and also to the city attorneys who've worked so hard, on all this. And most importantly, thank you to all of you who came to participate in this this important discussion, about our future. Yeah, it's about the future of housing, but it's about the future of San Francisco. This discussion challenges us to be forward thinking, to be thoughtful, to be incredibly meticulous. It challenges us to reflect. And not just on our legal obligations, but also on our moral obligation to make this city have more opportunity, be more accessible, more affordable to workers and to families. And we'll hear today. All of these questions merit intense, truly intense debate. And all of you are here today because of that. So I want to express my appreciation to everyone who's come to City Hall today to be part of this really, really fundamental conversation. Thank you all for being here. Now, the future of San Francisco is definitely about aesthetics, which is why landmarks, historical resources are so important. It's why I've begun a process to give each neighborhood its own object objective design standards. But the future is also about people. It's about teachers, firefighters, police officers, artists, nurses, and much more. We need to expand opportunities for mixed income housing here in San Francisco. Today, I'd also like to extend my gratitude to my colleagues and especially the committee members led by chair Melgar, who are stewarding key additions to the ordinances on today's agenda. I want to explicitly lend my support to you, Chair Melgar, for the amendments that further protect multifamily rent controlled units. Those are incredibly important protections, and they build critically upon supervisor Chen's trailing legislation to codify essential tenant rights that help protect our most vulnerable residents. I'm very proud to be supportive of both of those changes and want to thank you both for pushing them forward, today and and in the future. I also want to thank supervisor Sauter for introducing key amendments that will require new construction to build commercial spaces that better meet the character and needs of our neighborhood commercial corridors. But why am I here today? I'm here today because I want to ask for two amendments. One is a policy change to board file number 250,701. And one is a map change to board file number 250,700. Now, for the policy change, I am very excited to join supervisor Sauter to sponsor an amendment that adds to section 206.10E4 of board file number 250,701. Now, this subsection encourages family sized units, specifically three and four bedroom homes My amendments, our amendments, I'm sorry, which have been circulated to your offices will add to this section by including two bedroom units above the minimum requirements as part of these incentive programs. Point blank, family zoning needs to be focused on families. We need to be to to do all that we can to build family sized homes. If we're going to be homes, we need to make sure that families are included here. We have the lowest number of children per capita of any major city in The United States. We are the fastest aging city in the country. And the number one issue for families is housing affordability. All of those trends must change. So by enabling buildings to better accommodate multi bedroom units, we invite more families who are investing their lives into the city, raising the next generation of San Franciscans. And then for map changes, I'm asking to change three key areas through an added subsection to board file number 250,700, which have also been circulated to your offices. These changes are focused on community resources. First, the Ghirardelli Square block, national historic landmark, and adjacent multiuse parcels along Northpointe. The Marina Safeway block, a critical community grocery store, and a block roll on Geary Boulevard that houses a senior living facility and a really critical dialysis facility as well. My commitment since I took office has been representing my constituents as best as possible during this rezoning process. We've had months of town halls, neighborhood association meetings, community roundtables, coffees with concerned citizens, and many, many more. Over the course of the map changes in this year, we've seen more map changes in District 2 than in any other district in all the other districts combined, I think. And to that, I wanna credit the residents who have engaged so, so thoughtfully. And now I'm asking for amendments to these three locations that will thoughtfully adjust local program height limits on these select parcels. In doing so, I hope to make it explicit to District 2 residents that I hear you. I'm working hard to ensure that we both fulfill our legal obligations. And it is very clear what those legal obligations are. And it is very clear what those penalties are. And we must preserve local jurisdiction over city planning. And we must prioritize community resources as best we can. But the other thing I think should be clear to everyone, rezoning is just one step in the future of housing in San Francisco. We must lower construction costs. We must increase funding for affordable housing. Rezoning is about opportunity. It's about opportunity for mixed income housing, for affordable housing, for market rate housing. It is about opportunity for families and workers to thrive in San Francisco. So much more will be needed to ensure that we have a family that is truly accessible, truly affordable, and attractive to all, especially who make the workers who make this city run. Chair Melgar, supervisors Mahmoud and Chen, thank you for leading us forward in this incredibly difficult and challenging process, and thankful thank you for thoughtfully moving us forward. I know my colleague, supervisor Sauter, here will collaborate with me to sponsor forward thinking legislation just like this. And I really want to thank you for your collaboration. We continue to be here at the table to make it easier for San Franciscans to live here, to build families here, to grow old here, to thrive here. So, colleagues, thank you. And I hope to have your support for my amendments.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you. Supervisor Sauter.

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: Thank you, chair Melgaard. And I wanna first begin by thanking the members of this committee. You have put in an incredible amount of work, and you will continue to do even more work, to improve this plan. And I think it is improving. I think we're getting there. I wanna thank, of course, Planning for their tireless work, years on this plan, all of their outreach to the community, and also thank everyone who's here today. It's, it's a lot to, digest this plan, to follow all the changes, and, we look forward to hearing from you. And I wanna also recognize, a lot of the people who aren't here. It is 3PM on a Monday, and there are a lot of people who cannot be here. There are a lot of people who wanna live in San Francisco and can't afford to come here. There are a lot of people who have been priced out or forced out of San Francisco and who are not here. So I wanna remember those voices as well as we make these amendments and improvements. I wanna spend my time today, speaking specifically on two amendments that our office has been working hard on. And the first, as you heard supervisor Cheryl detail, is an amendment to incentivize more homes for growing families in San Francisco. Our amendment will expand a multi bedroom unit incentive program to now provide a square footage bonus for additional two bedroom homes provided in new buildings. This is an amendment which I believe will create more pathways to encourage the production of new homes that are sized for families in San Francisco. You know, throughout this process, I've heard loud and clear that the family zoning plan needs to include more family sized homes for it to truly live up to its name. We've seen far too many families leave our city due to both price and availability of homes. Today's amendment, I believe, will be a major step forward to creating more two bedroom homes that will allow families to be able to continue calling San Francisco home. This amendment is informed by our own experiences as supervisor Cheryl and I are both currently raising young families in San Francisco. We know how special and how challenging this can be. And we believe that we can allow more families to start, grow, and thrive in San Francisco through this amendment. I wanna thank Michelle Andrews in my office and Lorenzo Rosas in the District 2 office for their work on this. I also wanna speak to the other amendment which I'll be offering today, which, as a former small business owner in District 3, is really important to me. It's an amendment a set of amendments that will support small businesses while also encouraging new homes. These amendments have been crafted in partnership with the San Francisco Council of District Merchants Association, the largest citywide merchant organization. And they are the direct result of feedback from many small businesses across the city after a lot of engagement through this plan. Colleagues, you have the detailed amendments, and those will be posted soon. So specifically, I wanna speak more to the outcomes of these amendments, which are a number of square footage bonus programs and expansions which will, result in similar protections and incentives to all small businesses, whether they be food use or non food use. Because our small business community is diverse and serves the needs of all residents, so our program should reflect this. Our amendments also encourage active ground floor contributing uses so that we see new homes paired with busy small businesses, not empty storefronts. They promote design and architectural features that are consistent with existing small businesses and their neighborhood character in quarters across the city. And finally, our amendments will help preserve historic storefronts, which is a designation referring to spaces in compliance with objective standards pertaining to historic buildings while allowing new homes to be built above. I hope you agree that we can and must build more homes while creating and preserving spaces for small businesses to thrive in our neighborhoods. And I believe these amendments achieve both of those important goals. I wanna thank Michelle Andrews in my office, as well as, again, SFCDMA, the San Francisco Council of District Merchants Association, and Mayor Leary's office for their work on these amendments. And I hope they will be adopted. Thanks.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you, supervisor Sauter. Supervisor Chan.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, Chair Malgar, and thank you, committee members. I first wanna thank Chair Malgar for your efforts in organizing the agenda for today's hearing and allowing us the opportunity for a robust policy discussion on the mayor's proposed upzoning plan and our proposed amendments. It is our full attention to meet the state housing mandate, and I believe that San Francisco can both meet this goal and develop without displacement. Since this summer, I have not only been studying the mayor's proposed upzoning plan, my team and I also have been in conversation with many stakeholders and community members in Richmond and citywide. We have heard from many San Franciscans who are questioning whether they will be part of our city's future or whether they will be left in the past because of this proposed upzoning plan. Together with stakeholders, we have gone to great lengths to study the housing elements, site inventory, and rezoning program previously submitted by the city and approved by California Department of Housing and Community Development, California HCD. We used approved guidelines to evaluate the mayor's proposed upzoning plan, and have found that the mayor's proposed plan is a significant departure from what was already approved. With a great increase of upzoning and density to sites that have existing dwelling units. This ignores the overarching principle already agreed upon by both our local and state governments that change that the city needs must not harm people, as clearly stated on page 36 in the site inventory and rezoning program document. As a result, the amendments we proposed before the land use committee today will remarkably re improve this plan and add a balanced approach to encourage housing production and meet the housing state housing mandate without incentivizing displacement. Based on the model used for the existing site inventory in the site inventory and rezoning program, again, a document approved by California HCD, there is a list of characteristics used to determine nonvacant sites to be excluded for rezoning units potential. With this model, determining site inventory and excluding specific nonvacant sites, the city can still meet the mandate of San Francisco's regional housing needs allocation and affirmatively furthering fair housing laws to accommodate about 36,282 new units in well resourced neighborhoods. In fact, as indicated in the very same document on page 42, sites with existing residential uses of any amount that have not otherwise been wholly excluded from the rezoning capacity assessment were deemed to have very low reasonable likelihood of redevelopment, and as a result, had their net capacity reduced downward, generally by 98%, leaving only 2% of the theoretical capacity represented in the rezoning capacity. So with that in mind, we're proposing language ranging from furthering demolition controls to protect tenants, implementing exit studies and impact fees, to ensure adequate infrastructure investments, especially given the fact that the city is facing existing funding challenges to build out the emergency water firefighting system for well resourced neighborhoods, a deficit in public transit, and increased risk of tenants and small business displacement. Another one is placing a shot clock to require developers to build within thirty months to boost housing production in the near future to meet the state mandated timeline of 2031. Another one is limiting form based density to the local density bonus program to provide meaningful incentives to build family housing with two to three bedrooms requirements. And strengthening historic preservation to protect the unique characters of our neighborhoods and history of San Francisco. In the end, when proposed amendments are overlaid each other, they meet one policy goal, that the displacement of tenants and small business should not, should not be the cause of doing business for developers. Instead, we can meet our housing mandates and provide incentives for developers to drive housing developments at vacant sites. We have been in discussion with mayor Lurie and his team almost weekly since the end of summer. Our conversation has been productive. And I want to especially thank mayor's deputy chief of staff, Ally Bondi, for her efforts. We have been sharing with her our amendments and continuing our conversations. As we all know, to build housing we need that people can afford, we need both land and money. And the housing that San Francisco needs the most is housing that everyone can afford. In fact, it is my intention to request the drafting introduction of an affordable housing special use district at a later time, to identify all public land, including SF municipal transportation authority owned land, private land of 8,000 square feet or larger and merger lots. As well as vacant and blighted lot. And rezone them specifically for housing with a different sets of local density bonus. We also must identify funding to build. And to this end, I will continue to push forward conversation for a regional housing bond in 2028. I appreciate all the months of dialogues and the incredible amount of work that has gone into this upzoning plan. And I know that it is our intent as a city to meet our housing needs without harming San Franciscans. I believe the amendments I have before you today will do just that. We can develop without displacement. So thank you again, chair Malgar and the entire lanes committee, for doing your due diligence of evaluating the plan accordingly and review our proposed amendments. I look forward to having your support, and I'm gonna briefly quickly just point out to you that we do have our amendments, in a summary. Of course, we also have the, extended version, which is inclusive, and throughout the entire documents. But I I just wanna highlight quickly that we are making amendments for both, item three, filed two five zero seven zero one, as well as item two, file two five zero seven hundred, which is the zoning map. But I do wanna flag for you that the amendments that we're proposing today, particularly in, file number two five zero seven zero one, That's some of these language. That's including protection for historical resource or about the fact that do not demolish, remove, or convert another, use any existing dwelling units or residential flats. These language already exist in the third version that the mayor introduced, and they are only were in the housing they're in the housing sustainability district. And what we have done is using that very same language and that to make sure that it's also for the local program and the housing choice program. And in fact, the the term specifically referencing historic resource is recommended by historic preservation planning staff and help us really, be, consistent in the reference of what we're trying to, define in terms of, the protection. And and, again, I I wanna reiterate, I support and thank you, chair Malgar, for your amendments today, and thank you, supervisor Chen, as well. And what I look forward to, hoping after the public comments, I will be here. But to say that, I look forward to seeing if there is conversation that there could be a consideration that if if these amendments still require more evaluation and more review and that we're not readily to adopt them, but would like to see, Perhaps there could be opportunity to duplicate a file and adopt these amendments and allow sort of us to sit with them. But even with that adopt with the duplicated file, I I would love to incorporate what supervisor Malgaard is proposing today and what supervisor Chen is proposing today. We have extended I I wanna say we we have a letter submitted to the planning commission on September 11, and and I was present to have somewhat of a I I wouldn't say an in-depth discussion. It wasn't ten hours long. I did not stay for ten hours, but, you know, along with the public comments. But I think there's some conversation with the planning commission that I I think that covers all the amendments before you today. And I'm really grateful. I'm grateful for the conversations and dialogue. So thank you.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you so much, supervisor Chen. And thank you for your constant engagement in this issue. Yeah. You and I were the only ones who spoke at the planning commission, so I really appreciate your time and effort. Supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you, chair chair Melgar, for inviting all of, our colleagues here today. And thank you to the planning staff and my colleagues and also the community members for all of your work, contributions, and feedback to the consequential rezoning legislation before this committee. I wanted to be here to ask some questions and remind everyone of the goals that this board unanimously approved with our 2022 housing element, which involved a multiyear effort by planning, working collaboratively with community groups across the city. Our housing element follows a critical framework that emphasizes the, quote, equitable distribution of growth and prioritize protection of our priority equity geographies. Our priority equity geographies include many lower income BIPOC neighborhoods that are already upzoned and have built the vast majority of the city's market rate housing with resulting impacts. For the Mission District, which I represent, which is one of several priority equity geographies, that has meant the loss of around 12,000 Latinos, a vast increase in households making over a 150% of the area median income, and a 55% increase in the Latino homeless population between our last point in time counts, amongst other key data points gathered by community and our planning department and published in the latest MAP 2020 annual report. It is imperative that this family zoning plan follows the equitable distribution of growth outlined in our housing element. And for me, this means protecting our priority equity geographies and our critical stock of rent controlled housing. I'm looking forward to the upcoming discussion of supervisor Chen's tenant protection ordinance. Thank you to supervisor Chen for your ongoing work on the TPO, and urge our mayor and city attorney to pursue the most meaningful tenant protections citywide to protect all tenants from the increasing risks of speculation, demolition, and displacement due to increasing state density laws and mandates. I do have a few questions for the planning department today. First off, the amended final environmental impact report forecasts an additional 2,700 units for the Mission Planning District under the family zoning plan than previously expected under the housing element, FEIR. The cultural districts and communities in my district were very involved in the housing element. For the planning department, did you complete outreach on these changes, including the forecast of 2,700 more units in the Mission Planning District, which includes the American Indian culture district and is impacted by these changes?

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Planning Department)]: Thank you, supervisor. Lisa Chen with the planning department. So we have been doing outreach with the cultural districts. So we've been to their convenings, that are, basically, they're brought together by MOCD, who oversees the cultural district's program. So we have shared the rezoning with them, at various points. The Mission Planning District, I should note, that's, in the EIR. It actually includes parts of, areas that aren't in your district as well. So it it goes up to kind of the hub area plan, up to Market Street. And and so that's parts of District 6 and District 8, I believe. And so that actually is the source of most of those units that, you had asked us about, that, you know, the the difference between the EIR, and this proposal. Because as, the prop the proposal evolved, we did add additional height in that hub planning area that had been part of a previous planning effort, that was, conducted with the planning department. So we, you know, we did have, you know, representatives of the American Indian, cultural district at that convening. And but, you know, there weren't any specific questions about that part of the plan.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you. My next question you know, I'm concerned extremely concerned about the demolition of rent controlled buildings. And I'm grateful to the amendments of my colleagues to address this issue. On the topic of, Chair Melgar's recently announced amendment to exclude rent controlled buildings with three or more units from the local program and thank you to Chair Melgar for your work on this amendment. How and and why does planning believe that HCD will likely accept excluding rent controlled buildings with three units or more, but not buildings with one or two rent controlled units?

[Rachel Tanner, Director, Citywide (Planning Department)]: Thank you for the question, supervisor Fielder. It's certainly a good question. So one of the reasons that we're concerned about pushing that level higher is just getting to the the number of units that we need. And so as we look and analyze, different proposals that have come forward, and we'll have more work to do after today, analyzing additional proposals. When we look at the number of units, in buildings, and, again, we don't have a definitive list of 100% we can know these are rent controlled properties, but we can use certain, characteristics as proxies. So that could be the fact that it's a multifamily property, obviously, the age at which that building was built. But there could be properties that might be subject to rent control that we're not aware of, or that the the record is not clear about the data. But looking at the data that we do have, and we look at three unit buildings that have three or more units, we're able to sustain, saying those are only, not gonna be eligible for the local program heights and densities, that are included there. When we add more units, we begin to really potentially, challenge our compliance in terms of the scale of units that we need to be able to have available for HCD. So it's certainly something we can discuss with them, but that's our assessment at this point.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Okay. And then, my last question for now and, chair, I would love to come back to be able to ask more. Planning has stated that demolition is rare due to our existing protections. But have you completed an analysis of how new state density bonus laws, s b four two three, and additional state mandates that weren't in effect in previous years will impact speculation and demolition moving forward?

[Rachel Tanner, Director, Citywide (Planning Department)]: So one of the things about a lot of those laws is they are impact in place right now, in San Francisco. And some of them have been in place since 2017. And so we have had several years of having these state laws in effect in San Francisco. And so that's what gives us confidence that the demolition protections that we have in place right now, that are currently protecting the entire city, right now, today, are very, very solid. We've been very happy to work with supervisor Chen to, bring forward the tenant protection ordinance that she's authored to strengthen those. But whether it's through protections that limit, and kinda have constraints on when and how folks can be evicted from their housing, as well as the protections for actually demolishing the unit, we feel confident we protect both the humans and the people, as well as the housing stock through the the current controls.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Just to be clear, my question was also about s b four two three, which went into effect last year.

[Rachel Tanner, Director, Citywide (Planning Department)]: Yes. And so we have we have looked at everything, again, currently under what what is currently allowed. And that law has been in effect for a little while. We do see projects coming through. We have not seen any change in the number of units that are proposed for demolition, due to that that law being in effect. And so we feel pretty confident about our protections that we have.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Okay. I'll have a couple more questions, but I would like to to cede over to chair.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you, supervisor, Fielder, for your good questions. I, wanted to, first of all, thank, the staff at the planning department for, many long nights, and a lot of work and patience and love, for the people of San Francisco in engaging all the questions, all the feelings, and, our process. I think it's really important, and you've done great work. I wanna thank all of the folks from the community who are here today and have engaged in this process through the long haul. It has taken a lot of care for the community, for people to stay engaged, read everything, and come during public comment. A team that has gotten no praise yet, but I think, you know, deserves so much is our city attorney land use team. So Audrey Pearson, Austin Yang, and Brad Russi, and all the other folks in the land use team who have had to wade through so much state legislation in addition to, all the legislation that we are producing and the mayor has been producing and the planning department has been producing. You guys are experts, and you do it with grace despite, getting lots of feelings from all of us sometimes. But I really thank you, and appreciate you very much. With that, I have been the chair of the Land Use and Transportation Committee now. It's my fifth year. So I have tried to usher this process, you know, fairly, and also to do it with an eye towards compliance with the state. I think we live in the best city in the country. And, also, we are part of the state of California. So despite us thinking we're so unique, there are challenges that we have that are not unique to us. The state of California has a housing crisis. We are the job center, for, the San Francisco Bay Area. Five years ago, our economist Ted Egan, presented a report to the planning commission, well, six years ago now, on which I sat, before becoming supervisor, that had us, producing, about eight jobs for every one housing unit that we produce, going back fifteen years prior to that. So, you know, this deficit of housing units has been in the making for a couple decades. And when we rezoned the Eastern neighborhoods to supervisor Fielder's comments, when we rezoned the Eastern neighborhoods in the nineties, we concentrated all new development to those Eastern neighborhoods and led to a disparity of where in talking to my constituents in District 7 over the past year and a half, there are a lot of feelings and a lot of differences of opinions. If I was gonna shortcut what I'm hearing from folks, you know, my district includes a lot of the single family zone district that are older, more historic, as well as, much younger districts with lots of renters, like Park Merced, Inner Sunset, Sunnyside. It includes San Francisco State University, City College of San Francisco, and UCSF Parnassus. And I would say that younger generations have very different views and expectation, than my generation or older generations. And that is part of how the process is supposed to be. New generations of San Franciscans have different aspirations, different needs, and also different worries. Ten, fifteen years ago, we were not talking about climate change. We were not talking about greenhouse gas emissions, or we did not have, you know, climate action goals, that were adopted by the city that focused us on building housing near transportation and being less dependent on cars to get around, to get us to schools, and to get us to jobs. Those are changes that have happened in our society that younger generations just take more seriously. At the same time, you know, I'm a mother of three girls who all went to school in District 7. I am very proud of them. They, did great. My, youngest is still, at Lowell High School. She walks to school. And I will say, it was a great place to raise kids. It's fantastic. On the West Side, we have better outcomes for every social determinant of health. We have better public schools. We have more open space and parks. And we have produced very little housing. So I am keenly aware that families, need a place to go where they will thrive. And I think the West Side is a great place to do that. And I'm also aware of a lot of neighbors whose kids moved out thirty years ago, and no longer need four bedrooms. But if they wanna stay in the communities that they know and love, near their church or synagogue or places where they have friends, there's very little inventory where they can go. So I think that this plan does a good job of balancing all of those needs and providing more choices instead of mandates. And I think that that is the way to go. Provide incentives for the behavior that we wanna see, rather than, mandates which then, you know, close in on people. That being said, I'm not completely happy with some of these things, and I do think that we can do a better job. I'm very grateful to, the mayor and the planning department for their work on including more, folks in tenant protections. It is a math issue that, you know, larger units, supervisor Fielder, to your question, if you have three or more units, you have, you know, three or more households versus one household in a single family home. So we're getting more protections for one parcel, which is the second part of that formula, in likelihood of being developed. And I think that that is a good balance of of, you know, being able to meet our obligations, at the same time protecting as many people as we can. Not that we can't do any Not that we can't do any better, and I think that this legislative process will get us, you know, where we need to go. So that being said, I do think that, the way that we fund affordable housing in this town is kinda wack. We do one time money. When somebody builds a building or when we float a bond, we don't have a way to be sustainable in terms of production, both in land and in money. And I am eager to get us closer to that because, we we need it. And, particularly, we need that on the West Side. I do want to provide more supports to small businesses, particularly mom and pop businesses on the commercial corridors. It is difficult to open a business in San Francisco. You'll have to jump through a lot of hoops. And I wanna make sure that we protect folks, because I know that when we have more residents on Ocean Avenue, on Westport, on Irving, those businesses will do better. If you look at Ocean Avenue closer to City College, where we've added apartments, those businesses, the Whole Foods, the Phil's, you know, Pac One, those businesses are doing better. And the closer that you move towards at nineteenth Avenue and there's less traffic and less density, there's not as many customers. So if we can help small businesses weather the construction, weather the change, and help with

[Speaker 3.0]: relocation, or to make up for the loss in

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: foot traffic, I think you know, get to that better world. And, you know, lastly, I do, appreciate, again, the staff at planning and the mayor's office for all of the work that you've done with my colleagues. I think everyone looking at, you know, this legislation as district supervisors, every district is different. The population is very different in every part of the of our city. And so everybody has brought something that is really valuable and worth considering, and that's what the legislative process is all about. So, I'm really grateful, that all my colleagues have engaged. I do have a couple of amendments that I am, introducing today. The first one, has already been agreed to by the mayor and, have has been vetted, and we've, worked with the planning staff. And that is amending section two zero six point one, the housing choice program. And section three forty four, the housing choice housing sustainability special use district. So that tourist hotel conversions are not included in the program. I think, there would be unintended consequences of streamlining the conversion of hotels to residential if we do not keep our current process, and we think about the existing workforce, and the revitalization of our local economy. This adds a new requirement, which is before you. Nine. Secondly, we have heard extensively about the concern for rent controlled units in the rezoned areas, and the need to preserve as many of them as possible. I'm also proposing to exclude rent controlled buildings of three or more units from the eligibility criteria of the housing choice program by adding requirement 10. So we will discuss all of this after public comment. But I wanted to put that out there. And with that, I am gonna, go back to supervisor Mahmoud for further comments, and then again to supervisor Fielder. Go ahead, supervisor.

[Bilal Mahmood, Member, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you, chair. I actually had some follow-up questions for the planning department on some of the questions related to rent controlled units. Can you walk through at least historically, over the last ten years, with the existing incentives that are in place, how many rent controlled units have been demolished last ten, fifteen, twenty years, however long the data you have?

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Planning Department)]: Sure, supervisor. So, this is in our fact sheet that we have on our website available right now. So I mentioned a figure earlier of 18 units per year. About 11 units of that is actually single family homes, so the remainder is two, is seven units per year. And that's just multifamily housing. Excuse me. We don't we're not actually specifying whether that's rent controlled. It's just any building that has two plus units.

[Bilal Mahmood, Member, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Got it. And if a building is to be redeveloped that is rent controlled, what is the normal process it has to go through, even if this legislation passes?

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Planning Department)]: Sure. So the, as mentioned, any proposal to demolish multifamily housing, would be going through the planning commission. So, and they would have to do a conditional use authorization hearing. They'd have to make findings. They would be reviewing all aspects of the project. The relocation as proposal as part of the project. Also, right now, we have, under SB three thirty, we have requirements around replacement of the units, as well as, a right to return for any low income tenants. So all of that would be reviewed as part of that planning commission case. You know, there there have been some changes to through the constraints reduction, legislation, which was adopted about two years ago, that have very, very a very, very high bar, to, avoid the conditional use authorization. But, we think that that impacts a, very small number of units. We we actually don't know, in part because we don't actually have a data set of, rent controlled, buildings.

[Bilal Mahmood, Member, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: So is it correct to say that, as a result of a lot of those protections and those that planning process, very few developments actually do request to demolish rent controlled units because of that process?

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Planning Department)]: That's correct. Did you have something to

[Rachel Tanner, Director, Citywide (Planning Department)]: One other thing we just wanted to add is a little bit in response to Supervisor Fielder's question, but I think in the same vein, which there are provisions in various state laws that also prohibit those laws from being enacted on properties that have a rent or price controlled building there. And that includes s b four twenty three. So that bill allows certain types of streamlining of your process, but you can't combine that with the state density bonus and use it on a rent controlled property.

[Bilal Mahmood, Member, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: And lastly, just to clarify for the record, you're saying that even in the eventuality that a lot is developed that have rent controlled units, it has to be replaced, as I understand it, one for one. For one rent controlled unit was demolished, another one in controlled unit has to be displaced, and then there's a right of return for low income residents. Correct?

[Rachel Tanner, Director, Citywide (Planning Department)]: That's more or less accurate. There's a few more details, but we'll probably get more into that when supervisor, Chen's legislation comes here. But replacement units either need to be rent controlled, or they are below market rate units that are affordable, to the households that, are the lower income households.

[Speaker 17.0]: Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you. Supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you so much, chair. My next question I mean, there was a clear version of this plan, a different path that this plan could have taken that could have left untouched rent controlled buildings. If planning is the concern if the concern is about compliance by excluding more parcels with fewer than three rent controlled units, Couldn't we make up for the deficit by including more parcels from RH zones and well resource areas?

[Rachel Tanner, Director, Citywide (Planning Department)]: I think there's two there's two parts to that question, or two answers rather. So I think the first one is around this idea that we have knowledge and can kind of just take out of rezoning. Or rather I should say, maybe the first thing is, every parcel has zoning. Right? So it either has today's zoning or has proposed rezoning, but all the parcels have zoning. So the question here is whether or not we're changing the zoning rules for certain parcels, and whether or not a certain characteristic qualifies that parcel to have zoning changed, or to have the zoning that it currently has. Right? So everything will have zoning. I think there's an idea. I know it's disappointing for folks that we have this list of all the properties where rent control is in place. And that's simply not not what we have. We don't have that type of list or that type of way of doing it. So So what we're proposing, and and can think supervisor Melgar is proposing, is by thinking about the the property and the zoning, but then also thinking about what are the processes by which property owners can take action on that property. So that's just to say, you know, we could say this property has this zoning, but because this property is rent controlled, it can or cannot take part of certain processes, like the conditional use authorization process that it would need to go through. So that's kind of just a kind of the the level and kind of the landscape that we're in. And so I hear your question, supervisor, to say, well, if we can do it for this many, couldn't we do it for this many more? And then we could rebalance. And so, theoretically, like, yes, we could understand what we think are the rent controlled buildings, how many units do we think that is, how many units are we forecasting, and we could make up that difference, kind of on that quantitative scale. It still leaves the challenge of just knowing which properties have the rent control, on them, and which properties don't. So hopefully, that's not a too confusing answer to your question.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you. Definitely looking forward to more conversations around the tenant protection ordinance. And then finally, one last question. The neighborhoods that are impacted by the family zoning plan have received assurances from the mayor that they will not be impacted by SB 79 in the upcoming RHNA cycle. And communities in the Southeast and my district remain concerned without similar insurances. When will planning complete the analysis on SB 79 and present the analysis to the board and the larger community?

[Joshua Switzky, Planning Department]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Joshua Switzky with planning staff. We have been very, diligently and actively, analyzing SB 79, since its passage. It is a a a very complex bill, to analyze. We are fairly confident, as you've just stated, that with the passage of the family zoning plan as it is currently proposed, the vast majority of parcels in the city would be excluded in the near term from the implementation, or the applicability of SB79. That includes both parcels within the family zoning plan area, as well as a lot of parcels in the Southeast of the city that are, in what are called low resource tracts, according to the, according to the state. There's a small number of parcels that might fall within those cracks, some, some of them in in in D 9, some of them in D 11. There are relatively few. They're actually on one of the maps in the presentation. Despite that, there's an alternative path for broader compliance, which the bill calls the alternative plan. And so what we can do under the alternative plan is add up the zone capacity of multiple station areas or the entire city and compare that to what is allowed under SB 79. And if we have equivalent capacity or more, then we can get a sort of a broad, sort of in lieu exemption to that. That's a very complicated analysis. We are pretty optimistic. We've run initial numbers, that with the family zoning plan as it is, the city at large would have equivalent or better capacity than under SB 79. There are some more nuances to some of those analyses around individual stations, and we're working very, very hard. Hopefully within the next few weeks, we'll have more conclusive results to share at a detailed level. Actually, just today, I was at a meeting with all the big cities across the state who are all doing the same analysis, with Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, etcetera. There are some technical issues that need some clarifications from the state in terms of some interpretation. So a final definitive answer may take some time, but we're probably leading the way in terms of all cities in the state in terms of analyzing this. So hopefully, within the next few weeks, we'll have a more comprehensive answer to bring forward.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Will you be able to provide the analysis by the November November 3? The third?

[Joshua Switzky, Planning Department]: Yeah. We can come with clearer maps and, and and some more numbers. Yep.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you.

[Rachel Tanner, Director, Citywide (Planning Department)]: And maybe I could just just summarize. That was a great response from missus Witsky. Just that we're very, very confident that with the family zoning plan combined with even existing zoning rules that we have in most of the city, we will be able to to have our way, and satisfy s b 79, but do it in a way that kind of comports with our local zoning. So we will finalize that, but we're very optimistic at this point. And that includes District 9, as Josh said, and other districts that are outside of the family zoning plan area.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you. Those are all my questions.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you. Supervisor Chan.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you. Thank you, chair Malgar. And I this is questions, for planning staff and trying to understand if both for the site sustainability analysis, the parcel sustainability analysis, it seems like, as indicated, the proposed family zoning plan was not evaluated in this analysis. Is that correct?

[James Pappas, Planning Department]: Yes. That is correct.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: And and why is that?

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Well, I

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: think I know the answer to it, but but I would like for you to answer on record.

[James Pappas, Planning Department]: Sure. We began this work a year ago. And obviously, the rezoning, proposal has been under development, so we weren't able to assess it as part of this work.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: And and it seems so help me understand, though, while it was not analyzed. But the plan that we I should say, the analysis, which is the site inventory that we, as a city, submitted prior to the proposed family zoning plan, was approved by California HCD.

[Rachel Tanner, Director, Citywide (Planning Department)]: So I think, if I may, supervisor, I think there's maybe two questions. There's the sites analysis, which has looked at, parcels across the city to assess them based on the characteristics that we use to fund our affordable housing developments, and say what sites, could be used. As mister Pappas was saying, because of the timing, we wanted to have a stable set of characteristics to analyze. And so they took a point in time and analyzed that. And the plan has changed, as we all know, quite a lot since October, when their their study began, and they needed something stable to look at. The good news, what that means is that there's actually more sites for affordable housing, right, through the family zoning plan, by adding additional height and density, sites that might qualify for affordable housing. That is separate and distinct from the sites inventory that was conducted for the housing element adoption and approval by HCD. So those two sets of analyses are are not related at the technical level, in the sense that the sites analysis and inventory was different than the affordable housing sites analysis that mister Pappas and his team conducted. Hope that that helps.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Oh, of course. I mean, I think the the question then my next question is both the parcel sustainability analysis for the affordable housing, as well as the site inventory and the rezoning program, again, that one is already approved by, California HCD. It seems like there is a list of characteristic for exclusion for nonvacant sites. Is that correct?

[Speaker 20.0]: Yes. That's correct.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: And then it seems like the parcel sustainability analysis for the affordable housing one, specifically for the exclusion list that shows for parcel excluding in the calculation that we meet the state mandate, include existing housing. And similarly, the previous site inventory that we submitted also included to exclude the parcel with residential condominium and a whole list of other sites, that including parcel with likely residential rental buildings subject to rent stabilization, using as a proxy, or technically rent control units. And these were actually listed to be excluded in our calculation to meet the state mandate. Is that correct?

[Speaker 20.0]: I think that's correct.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Great. So, I mean, I think colleagues thank you. I think colleagues, like, my my point thank you so much to the planning staff for confirming that, you know, both in the site inventory and rezoning program that were already submitted to HCD and approved by California HCD has a whole list of, you know, sites that was excluded to say without these sites, you can still meet the state mandate, housing mandate of 36,282 brand new units. And so it is the reason why I'm saying that, the amendments that, again, we proposed today is modest and is consistent to what's already proposed, submitted, and in fact approved by California HCD. I I hope to have your support. It it is really listed. Again, it's there's a it's appendix b in in within the plan that's proposed, and that is the parcel exclusion for existing housing and also rent control housing in its all entirety. So I I hope to have your support. Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you, supervisor Chan. Supervisor Mahmood, and after this, we are gonna go to public comment. Okay? Thank you.

[Bilal Mahmood, Member, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: One last question as the topic of HCDs requirements came up for the planning department. HCD, in their letter, has noted that they are recommending, from my interpretation, correct me if I'm wrong, that any additional rules, regulations, restrictions, land use control procedures should not reduce the financial feasibility or undealy impact housing supply cost or approval certainty. Can you explain in layman's terms what that means in the context of any amendments we're proposing today and your assessment of HCD's concern in assessing that?

[Rachel Tanner, Director, Citywide (Planning Department)]: Thank you, supervisor Mahmood. That's a great question. I take their comment to mean kind of a couple of things, which is that they look both at kind of the amount of housing that can be provided and where it can be provided and make sure that that complies. But they also do pay a lot of attention to our processes and our procedures, And not just saying, oh, it's this much housing on this piece of property, but what are the design controls? What are the processes that we'll use? What are the fees, if we have any fees, or other things that we assess? And so as we add more layers of any of those things, it needs to be balanced out in another layer. Or perhaps it may even be a constraint that is deemed, you know, just too too constraining. And therefore, they're saying, well, you're adding this constraint. How do we know you're gonna get this housing developed? Because without this constraint, we've seen the housing production be what it is. With the constraint, show us how you think you're gonna have more housing get built with a with a new constraint in place.

[Bilal Mahmood, Member, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: So just to clarify, you're saying that if an amendment is introduced that undealy impacts supply cost, unless it's balanced out in another way, they may reject it.

[Rachel Tanner, Director, Citywide (Planning Department)]: Likely. Definitely. That's definitely likely. And even if we try to balance it, they may say, oh, this balancing doesn't add up, you know, in our equation.

[Bilal Mahmood, Member, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Understood. Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you, so much, everybody. So, mister Clerk, we will go to public comment now. I do, understand that we have a special accommodations request from somebody who brought their own interpreter. If they are here today, please come up first because you did ask for a request, and then we will go to mister Wooding, who I know is waiting, or anybody else who has physical or, disabilities that need to go first and then everyone else. But do we had a request from Gen Fujioka. Is that re that request or here? Okay. I guess not. So, we will go to mister Wooding then. And go ahead. Take it away, mister Clark. I'm sorry.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you, everyone. Just to make it formal, land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to all four of today's agenda items. Everyone is already lined up to speak. We're all professionals. Let's hear first from mister Wooding. Please begin.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: But but please do not stand in front of the door. That is a fire hazard. So if you, are wanting to provide public comment, just wait until the line thins out a little bit before standing up. You can't stand in front of the door. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Please begin.

[Speaker 21.0]: Yes. Good afternoon, committee members and supervisors. My name is George Whiting. I am in opposition to the proposed upzoning family zoning plan, unless some of the amendments we've talked about today are accepted. First off, I want to thank Myrna Melgar and Supervisor Chen for their amendments. I think they're great amendments. And they're very feasible. I want to thank Planning for their very hard work. I think it's very intelligent work as well. So to get down to it, I only have two points to make today. First off, the plan originally was supposed to get 40% affordable housing for San Francisco. And I doubt this plan will get 20%. The cost of land will become way too high. And developers will not be building low income housing. On top of that, usually low income housing is subsidized. But the mayor's office of housing and community development is flat broke. So that's number one. There'll be no subsidies. Number two, we need to remove density decontrol. To me, that's madness. You can have an eight story building and have fifteen three hundred foot buildings, 300 units in it, or it could be completely empty. And there's no affordability.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Speaker's time is concluded. Thank you,

[Speaker 21.0]: mister Boirey,

[Speaker 3.0]: and for

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: sharing your comments with the committee. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: We had a special accommodations request, so if we could, please have that person come up now. Okay. Go ahead.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: If the interpreter wanted to grab the other microphone, we can coordinate that way. Thank you.

[Speaker 3.0]: Okay.

[Speaker 22.0]: Thank you. Hello, everyone. I'm Yihong Wong. I'm the president of the Commute Tenant Association. We are here today to honor one of our retired honor board member, miss Li Lan Ginji. Some of you may still remember her. Miss Li and her family lived in the apartment on Jackson Street over thirty years. In 2012, an investor brought their building and begin to evict all the tenant using Alice app. Miss Lee bravely spoke out and refused to move. CTA and many community men were joining her protest after a long fight in October 2013. Twelve years ago, the eviction went through, but mislead protests encouraged help to bring more attention to the injustice Alice act.

[Speaker 23.0]: For

[Speaker 22.0]: a year after the her eviction, miss Li made many attempt to find affordable housing for her family, but all her effort was unsuccessful because their income was too low. Later, CTA proposed program like SOS senior housing society and proposition g in 2014. But this solution came too late. Miss Lee and her friend never got the chance to move in the move into affordable housing. Now the city introducing a zoning plan. However, it does not include protection against the Alice app without stronger protection. The same kind of charity that happened to miss Lee family will happen again, forcing low income family and senior out of their home without proper relocation. As the city push for more housing development, we also call for more new unit to affordable so that a new income low income resident can benefit too. Today, I wanna refrain that the community tenant association have always stood for Singh's mission to advocate tenants' right and to increase affordable housing. That has never changed, and it will never will. We hope the city will finally take action to support San Francisco low income resident. Thank you all.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please. Let's get the interpretation of the speaker's comments, please.

[Speaker 24.0]: Good afternoon, city supervisors. My name is Su An Lau. Uh-huh. I live in a multistory senior housing complex, and I'm thrilled to live in a high rise building. Some people are afraid of high rise apartment buildings. I want to share with you how wonderful this living environment is for me and for all the residents of my building. We're right next to churches, parks, restaurants, and schools. Residents of the surrounding single family homes and small businesses never have any complaints. We understand that sometimes speculation can fuel fear, but in reality, we have real evidence, including my own, that shows there's nothing to fear about high rise buildings. Therefore, like many of us who already live in multi story buildings in San Francisco, we strongly support this family upzoning plan to build more needed housing for the city's future. Thank you.

[Speaker 3.0]: K. Thank

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 3.0]: K.

[Speaker 24.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Bingsong Guan. Please vote in favor of the family upzoning plan. For decades, I've moved around extensively in San Francisco, living in Esaros and in so called illegal in law units, all due to the city's housing shortage. Most houses and apartments today were built many years ago, some even over a century old. In the past, homemakers needed large kitchens and big backyards for gardening, and large families with many children needed multiple bedrooms. But these living space designs are outdated and no longer meet the needs of modern families. Dual income couples no longer need large kitchens and dining tables, retirees are too frail to do gardening, and families are raising fewer children. Even someone as family oriented as me who came from China understands that we need to reevaluate the need to allow design of smaller apartment units. That's why when I speak with many friends and neighbors, they all agree that the density bonus plan than Alo.

[Speaker 22.0]: Thank you.

[Speaker 3.0]: Thank you

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 24.0]: San Francisco city supervisors, my name is Peilan Wu. Many people like me, including those living in the Sunset District, are Asian Pacific immigrants.

[Lisa Chen, Principal Planner (Planning Department)]: We are

[Speaker 24.0]: accustomed to living in apartment buildings dozens of stories high. Density and height are not issues for us, so we support this plan to upgrade family housing. However, transportation is crucial for residents. For seniors like me with limited mobility, convenient public transportation is more important than living in a high rise or crowded area. I suggest that after the family zoning plan is approved, public transportation must be considered when approving new units. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 24.0]: Good afternoon, city supervisors. My name is Wei Zhu Ma. I'm a member of the Sunset Chinese Cultural District. We held an in-depth discussion in Chinese at the June regarding our housing needs. We support the family zoning plan. Some of us with large families believe that while we support the construction of multi bedroom units, we should also consider the different dietary needs of the elderly and infants. Therefore, we encourage zoning plans to include community centers with dining for the elderly and childcare centers with nutritional meals for children, providing services for residents of different ages. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 24.0]: Good afternoon, city supervisors. My name is Cho Yinsa too. I live in a rent controlled apartment, and I hope my children and grandchildren can live close by within the city of San Francisco. Just like so many hardworking immigrant families, my children receive good education, and they work hard. They earn adequate income to afford market rate housing. However, San Francisco has faced a shortage of new housing for generations to come. Many Chinese immigrant families like mine want to live in San Francisco with their children and grandchildren close by. We don't want our children and grandchildren to move to the East Bay, the South Bay, or even further out of state. Therefore, while having a certain percentage of below market rate housing is important, we also want to accelerate the construction of housing for residents of all income levels so that families of all income levels and generations can live close together. Please approve the family zoning plan. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Please pull down your mic so we can hear you. Thank you.

[Speaker 24.0]: Good afternoon, city supervisors. My name is Sun Tai Yi. I'm a member of the Sunset Chinese Cultural District. I'm a tenant. We support the family zoning plan and the motion to preserve rent regulated units from demolition.

[Speaker 25.0]: Most of

[Speaker 24.0]: us who live in these units are retired seniors who don't have the option of relocating to higher rent housing. I hope you'll vote in favor. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. To have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 24.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Jin Huang. I'm a member of the Sunset Chinese Cultural District. We support the family zoning plan, but we're also concerned about public safety. Previously, our Sunset District in San Francisco had a relatively low population density, so public safety was relatively peaceful. However, with the gradual increase in high rise buildings and the resulting population growth, we've had to increase our police presence accordingly. These accompanying changes are very important to residents. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 24.0]: Good afternoon, San Francisco City Supervisors. My name is Fang Dang. I support the passage of the family zoning plan. I am a member of the Sunset Chinese Cultural District. I have witnessed firsthand that whenever large apartment buildings are built in San Francisco, historic businesses and community centers are demolished and replaced with more expensive shops and businesses, such as gyms and cafes, that are less suitable for elderly Chinese residents. This situation is deeply concerning, and we urge you to seriously consider supporting this motion to protect small businesses that serve the community. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 26.0]: Please begin.

[Speaker 24.0]: Hello, city supervisors. My name is Toekook Wong. I'm a tenant and we support the family zoning plan. My building is 15 stories high, and many elderly residents have mobility issues and rely on reliable, uninterrupted elevators to access our units. After this family upzoning plan is approved and implemented, please ensure that the high rise p building's elevators will not stop or malfunction due to power outages. Thank you.

[Chyanne Chen, Vice Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 3.0]: Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: And I think this is the last, Chinese speaker who needs translation. Yes. Thank you.

[Speaker 24.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Chin Ying Li. I'm a member of the Sunset Chinese Cultural District, and we support the family zoning plan. I previously applied for and received housing in San Francisco, but many Chinese families like mine rely on Chinese supermarkets and bakeries for daily necessities. If a new housing unit isn't near convenient Chinese stores, no matter how clean and comfortable the apartment is, we won't be able to move in. Therefore, when you approve the family zoning plan, please consider whether there are enough nearby stores to serve residents. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 27.0]: Hello. My name's Kent. It's an honor to speak in front of you. You know, when I first had my first adult place as a baby gay in this city, we were we lived in a house full of freaks. We had somebody lived in the front room. Somebody lived in the dining room. Somebody lived in the basement slash garage. And my, partner and I at the time lived in the proper bedroom. All of those people came to San Francisco to find a home. They just couldn't afford a proper one. To the tempest tossed, this city has always lifted a lamp beside its golden door. And with this family zoning plan, finally, we can not only welcome the huddled masses, but we can give them the dignity that we deserve to be able to afford a place to live. This city does a fabulous job of welcoming freaks like me and making us feel at home. And now with this family zoning plan, we can actually afford one. Thank you to the board of supervisors. Thank you to this committee. Thank you to mayor Lurie. Please approve the family zoning plan if we do. And this city adopts abundant housing. The future of San Francisco burns so bright, it burns my eyes. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 28.0]: Good afternoon. I'm Georgia Shutish. I have four points. Point one, planning code section three seventeen b two a needs to be clarified. DBI should not be able to overrule the planning department and the planning commission. There's no definition of demolition in the building code. Remember, 125 Crown Terrace And 950 Lombard. Please eliminate proposed planning code section three seventeen c 12. Residential flats, which are two units under rent control, need commission oversight to avoid any de facto demolitions or mergers. Flats are family housing for family zoning. And any kind of interior demolition should be limited to no more than 15% to avoid defacto demolition or renovictions, while allowing for kitchen and bath upgrades. Three, rear yards need to be protected. I think that it would be great to go back to the 45% line as you've had historically, and there's a prototype that I've given to the planning department where you can build a four unit building on a typical lot in San Francisco that would provide this prototype of a three bedroom, two bath flat with a dining room, living room, and kitchen, while maintaining the 45% rear yard. Ample rear yards provide sustainability for climate change. They capture carbon with both tree canopy and even with plants and soil. And finally, please protect a rated structures in the city as they are existing housing and historic resources and potential potential landmarks. And I'll just show you a picture of a flat where the tenants were evicted overhead really quick.

[Speaker 3.0]: It says

[Speaker 28.0]: don't disturb the tenants. Well, they were disturbed. They're no longer there, and that was basically merged into single family home at over $4,000,000. So that's why you need to control interior demolition of flats, 15. Thank you very much. Good luck.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 29.0]: Hello. My name is Lisa Luje. I've been a resident of San Francisco for more than thirty years, where I've raised two girls and numerous rescue pets. I'm here because I'm concerned about the rezoning of 300 Lake Street, the site, the former site of Saint Anne's Little Sisters for the Poor in the inner Richmond. While the densification of the site is both laudable and inevitable, the proposed height limit of 85 feet is simply excessive. 85 feet is completely out of scale of anything in the neighborhood. There is not a single building above 40 feet on the entire length, 30 or so blocks of Lake Street, nor on the corresponding blocks of California Street. The proposal more than doubles current heights. It adds a full four stories, not not two, and not a modest increase. It is a huge parcel. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity to add more housing in what is a diverse and thriving neighborhood, yet it needs to be done carefully and in a way that respects the special character of the neighborhood and protects the current residents. So far, we have not received from the planning commission detailed expectations for what can and cannot be built and how neighbors will be affected. For example, what will the setbacks be? Will the mid block where will the mid block spaces be, and will they be protected? There's a significant a significant cross slope on the site. How will this affect the impact of the buildings? Before I am in favor of additional housing. But before approving such a significant change, the community deserves clarity and detailed study of these matters. Thank you

[Speaker 30.0]: very much.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 31.0]: Hi. I'm I'm Gary. I'm glad to hear about the amendments addressing, the rent control buildings. I wanna chime in with supervisor Mandelmann's concern about the preservation of historic buildings. I live on Church Street in a building from the eighteen seventies, which has no legal preservation status as a historic building. Under the upzoning plan, Church Street would be upzoned to 65 feet since it's a transit corridor. My house is near the corner of 18th, which would be up zoned to 50 feet. At 3841 18th is another Victorian building known as the Blue House. This was made famous by a French song written in the sixties when the building was a commune. Groups of French tourists often pass my house on their way to see the Blue House. The building has a plaque donated by the French consulate. Like my house, what it does not have is any sort of preservation status. Church Street, 18th Street, Haight Street, and Debose Avenue are all transit corridors earmarked for upzoning and full of classic San Francisco architecture with no preservation status. To focus solely on the tourism angle of this, in 2023, tourism brought in over $8,000,000,000 and supported 20 62,000 jobs. The upzoning plan envisions a city of boxes and towers because that's what greater height and density mandates, as vividly shown in the earlier visualizations. Tourists do not come to San Francisco to see boxes and towers. They come here to see the Blue House and other examples of our rich architectural heritage. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 32.0]: Hi. Thank you, supervisors, and thank you, planning department. Today was really helpful and, educational, so so appreciate that. I am, my name is Jennifer Gosselin. I'm a thirty year resident of San Francisco in District 1, where my husband, who's a teacher, and I have raised our two children. I fully support, increasing housing in San Francisco. I understand the status of the, sorry, the state mandate, and I appreciate the work and the thoughtfulness that has gone into the overall approach, and all of the, amendments that are, that are taking place. I just wanna say that at the outset. That said, I am here today, to surface specific concerns around the rezoning of the parcel at 300 Lake Street. It was upzoned from RH 2 to RTOC, and now appropriately amended to RM 1, similar to adjacent parcels, which is great. What has not been addressed is why the height is set at 85 feet. This is not a transit corridor. There's lots of great stuff that's been built on Geary, which is a transit corridor, or that's planned on California, also a transit corridor. What is baffling is how we get 85 feet on Lake Street, while there are parts of Sacramento Street that are capped at 65. So and that is a commercial zone. So that that is the piece that I it's inconsistent, and would love to see that, reviewed, or just looked at a little more carefully. As the previous speaker mentioned, Lake Street 300 Lake Street is a unique property. It's a six acre lot, in which lots of great work can be done, but that's no reason to take it straight up to 85 feet, in the middle of what was otherwise a residential neighborhood. Things that are also not clear is whether the local program density bonus provisions would take that 85 foot height up another two stories, which again is gonna be larger than what's on Lombard or on Gary. So thank

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: you for the consideration. For your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 33.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Christopher Peterson. I'm the president of the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters. We support the family zoning plan. By virtue of its mild climate, extensive transit network, its major employment centers, and its walkability, San Francisco is probably the most environmentally appropriate location for multifamily housing in the entire state. San Francisco's failure to allow enough multifamily housing in recent decades, especially in its northern and western neighborhoods, has led to sky high housing prices, and forced many who work in the city to endure punishing and environmentally destructive commutes. The family zoning plan, by encouraging more multifamily housing near major transit corridors and commercial districts, is crucial to addressing both the housing crisis and the climate crisis. The league understands, that the plan raises concerns regarding potential impacts on rent controlled housing, small businesses, and historic resources. The league supports addressing those concerns, but urges the, board to ensure that measures to address those concerns do not water down the plans focused on encouraging significantly more multifamily housing near transit corridors, employment centers, and commercial districts. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 34.0]: Hello. I got a little graphic here on my phone here, if you guys wanna put that up. Okay. That's, again, that's not working so well. Anyway, I have a property at 2755 Sutter Street, which we've owned for about almost ten years. And noticed on the current map that our property has not been upzoned, despite we're less than a quarter mile from Gary BRT. And I've looked at other properties that are along that Presidio Street corridor, and some of the properties have not been upzoned despite being surrounded by, six story upzoned buildings. So I, you know, do urge the planning department to, to take a close look at where they've done the upzoning and to include those parcels. Because if we include all the parcels that are near, near the transit, we'll be more in compliance with SB 75, and then we'll have more, you know, extra parcels, to address, supervisor Felder's comment, that we could maybe protect some ring controlled one and two units. So I hope that the planning department looks at everything and, again, increases the amount of parcels that are within the SB 79 as that state law, and then take back some of the other parcels. Now, there's also another study that's been done saying that we need to look at the rent control and make sure the rent control is mean tested. And if you do that, that would probably free up tens of thousands of units that are currently being occupied by people who are more than capable of you know, affording market rate housing. Some of these people own multiple units in San Francisco and throughout, you know, California, and they're using the rent controlled housing as a second home.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for sharing

[Speaker 35.0]: your comments

[Speaker 23.0]: with me.

[Speaker 34.0]: Hopefully, we can, you know

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President]: We have

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: to move on to the next speaker. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 36.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Alex Landsberg. Quick thing. You know, when I first started looking at this plan about two months ago I know people have been looking at it for a lot longer, I kind of thought it was gonna be a nothing burger. What happened was I dug in, and what it turns out to be is that, in many ways, this is a bait and switch. When YIMBYs first started talking about housing, they talked about turning expensive single family homes into apartments into affordable apartments. Well, it turns out what this plan really does is focuses its attention on affordable apartments that turn them into larger and more expensive ones. So there's three things that I think that need to be addressed here. One. We need a real, affordable housing plan. That means, a real social housing plan that means taking advantage of the Prop I real estate transfer tax, which wasn't mentioned, amazingly. Means using the WAMI, the workforce housing affordable middle income bond that you, the board, supported. And really fully utilizing the public bank as it stands up. Two, there are 18,000 units, even with your amendment, Supervisor Melgar, that are subject to basically having their heights doubled. Two unit buildings where their heights would be doubled. No matter how much tenant protection you have, when a landlord can see the profit on the other side of screwing their tenants, they'll take it, and they'll and they'll, and they'll go through the process. And number three, you know, there's all this talk about density decontrol as being as being the vehicle to provide more apartments in these low, low flung areas. Unfortunately, it doesn't take the development economics seriously. We're talking about maybe four or five units on these buildings, six units, with a

[Speaker 3.0]: price

[Speaker 36.0]: of admission of about $2,000,000 for these lots, they're not gonna get built. What's gonna happen is that the the focus from developers is going to go on multifamily properties, which are selling for 1 quarter per unit cost of a of a single family. That sounds included.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 37.0]: Hello. I'm Julie Fisher. I'm an IHSS, a caregiver here in the city and county of San Francisco. And I'm so appreciative of every single phrase I hear that talks about preserving rent control. I take care of my partner, Lester, who's a survivor of a brain aneurysm. We've been in this recovery for seven years. It's important to us that we stay here in the not just the Bay Area, but San Francisco where we have a rent control unit, where we're near the medical sort resources that help him and so many of the clients IHSS helps. In home providers like me who take care of older people and people with disabilities, both us and the clients will be hard hit with rent increases or displacement. So every time I hear somebody, the committee, whoever, request, more protection for rent control and tenant, stabilization. I'm very thankful. While our wages in IHSS are better than most, we are still not anywhere close to a living wage. Displacements would be very bad. It would break up the trust and and care that, the IHSS caregivers offer to their clients. And that is a two way street. We need to find people we can work with. So having the city preserve this, rent controls and other guidelines so that we can welcome, families to a 100% affordable housing. One thing that's changed in my neighborhood, District 1, is families with children have moved into very pricey homes. But the renters, that's not the case. So please help us welcome more families. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 38.0]: Good morning, supervisors. It's an honor to be here in your presence. My name is Baxanette King. I am a ICE worker. I've been in my apartment, my home, my house now for, what, twenty one years. I moved in there. It was only $1,800 a month. Today, it's 3,800 a month, and my brother only make, what, $1,206 from SSI due to the fact that I make, like, $3,000. Our our light bill's a 500. Water bill is 400. So I'm begging for the home no rent control here. That's why I'm standing here a month for IH workers, over 30,000 of us here that serve the Bay Area. We are not able to stay in our place scared of being evicted. My even though I get government assistance housing, but that does not. And what government assistance housing does, the market still charge can go up even though you have housing, you know, strapped on it. But with Section eight, they still have to pay the market going on the house. So a lot of a lot of us don't have some of us do not have SDR or HUD housing effort to help us, to help them. So this is where we're standing that's where I am standing here speaking for the rest that cannot do not have a voice. I've lived on the Section 8 for the last thirty years. I've worked in this city over thirty four years on all different levels of maintaining. But my if I leave out of here now, my brother, he's mentally challenged. He have no voice. I retire next month at at 65 years old. He would be, what, 63 and no help for him. He don't have a voice. He will know how to come out here and stand and speak to each one of you. But how's the state would take him and put him in a home. And everything that I done worked for just go down the drain. So I'm honored and I'm pressured thanking you all for being here, but please take consideration of people that's retiring on disability and even on GA. It's not enough money. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 3.0]: Thank you

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: for your comments.

[Speaker 39.0]: It's a pleasure.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 40.0]: Good afternoon. I'm Bob Harrah representing the Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association. We have serious concerns with the rezoning plan, especially the insidious effects associated with density decontrol near the waterfront when it's paired with the state density bonus plan. Embarcadero is one of the nation's most scenic waterfronts. We support the existing 40 foot height limit along the waterfront because it protects the expansive views and the feeling of openness that the Embarcadero provides to both residents and tourists and other visitors. And while there have been several positive changes to the plan along the waterfront, it would still allow construction of a 12 story tower on a key block on the Embarcadero facing Pier 39. The block is bounded by the Embarcadero, Grant Beach, and Northpointe Streets. Allowing a sterile impersonal tower on that block threatens the unique attractiveness of the Embarcadero Promenade. Thus, BCNA is making a very targeted request to the committee. Please remove that block from the family zoning plan and permanently exclude housing from that block altogether for the future. Removing that block will help maintain the human scale, an important feature attracting tourists to the waterfront. And tourists brought to San Francisco last year $9,000,000,000 for the economy. Maintaining the human scale is also what San Franciscans have favored consistently since, the past sixty years. As recently as last spring, the port found, quote, the Embarcadero Promenade is viewed as a critical asset, and there's a strong desire to preserve and enhance it. Finally, on one other topic, we would be BCNA would be quite concerned by any amendment to the map that impacts Sansom Street parcels in the historical district. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 41.0]: Hello, and thanks. I'm Sam Woodworth. I'm a homeowner in North Beach. I'm here to oppose the Soquel family zoning plan in its current form because it still fails to address affordability and will destroy much of what makes San Francisco unique and iconic. Now, I know you'll hear from others today about how this plan is not actually a plan, but more of a numerical response to a problematic state mandate. How there's no construction sequencing, no comprehensive three d visualization, no infrastructure plan, no transportation plan, and no open space plan. You'll probably hear how data show that zoning plays a minimal role in unaffordability, that it's the rapid expansion of wealth that drives the crisis. In fact, this plan rests on trickle down economics, handing the city to private developers in hopes of crumbs of affordability. But I want to talk about what this plan does to the city's neighborhoods, and in particular, our magnificent waterfront, which defines the city. Fisherman's Wharf, never studied for upzoning, was quietly added to the map this spring by the new District three supervisor. The plan now calls for a wall of, in my view, oppressive, street deadening, shadow casting, wind generating towers three blocks deep and up to 10 blocks wide along the waterfront. I've submitted renderings, and I wish I'd brought them, I didn't know we could have that, showing how these towers would erase treasured public vistas from Telegraph and Russian hills, views beloved by millions of visitors and San Franciscans alike. From the waterfront itself, such as Pier 39, the stunning view of the city cascading over the hills would be obliterated. Now I I respectfully say that no one should vote for this plan without first walking those streets and seeing what would be forever lost. This is taken from the people of San Francisco and handed to luxury developers for sale to the highest bidder. Fisherman's Wharf must be removed from the upstanding map. Now, right in the same area, we have a model for what can be done, a 341 unit, 100% affordable development just blocks from the water that includes the neighborhood's Trader Joe's and blends beautifully into its surroundings. This is North Beach Place. There's a moral imperative to provide this kind of housing for working people. There is no moral imperative to provide overscale luxury waterfront condos that wreck San Francisco's neighborhoods. Thank you so much.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 42.0]: Good afternoon.

[Speaker 43.0]: My name is Rajan. I'm speaking on behalf of the Bellard Tower HOA in District 3. We all know that the city has a affordable housing crisis, and allowing height increases for buildings on the North Slope of Russian Hill facing the bay will be highly profitable to developers, but it will not produce affordable housing that we desperately need. Permitting height increases broadly across the city will spur development only where it's most profitable, and this will lead to more luxury high rise apartment buildings and the displacement of long time renters and small businesses. Development should be focused. For example, a huge expanse of the sunset has great public transportation infrastructure and acres of two story homes that are prime area for five to six story affordable housing residential buildings. In any case, the city needs to simplify the permit process. Right now, all across the city, we see viable areas that are ready for development such as, you know, Union At Washington Square, Polk Street, and the car wash on the Bizzadero. Obviously, I'm here today to protest specifically the changes proposed for the North Slope Of Russian Hill because it will affect the residents that live there. But we are also protesting because however profitable to developers, it will do nothing to alleviate the city's affordable housing problems for ordinary middle class residents, and that is inexcusable.

[Speaker 3.0]: Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 44.0]: Hello, supervisors. My name is Carmen Lee. I'm an auto equipment operator at UCSF and a proud union member of AFSCME thirty two ninety nine. My father was also a proud union member of the Teamsters. He was a United States steel worker, a US steel worker. I'm also a 60 year native resident of San Francisco, and I've lived in affordable housing for over twenty years now. I do work that was once considered good middle a good middle class job, but with the high cost of living, I'm barely getting by, and I'm considered the working poor. In the past two months, my or in the next two months, my electricity bill will double. I where I used to bring home six bags of groceries, but due to inflation, I only bring home three. I try to live consciously and sustainably, but I have had to give that up to get by. I'm constantly deciding between paying my bills, buying food, or keeping my son's car insured. I'm one paycheck away from being houseless again, and I know I'm not the only one. Life in San Francisco is expensive for working people like myself. Workers need tenant and worker protections. Hundreds of union members live in rent controlled housing in San Francisco, the same housing that this plan could impact. Without protections, this plan opens the door to displacement and evictions of workers like myself. We're already facing severe understaffing in health care and currently fighting for the fair contract we deserve. I don't wanna worry about whether I have a place to live in the same city I serve. We are not just members on a spreadsheet spreadsheet to speculate and profit over. We are your neighbors, health care providers, and part of the community. Please stand with working families like mine and support protections to keep us in our homes. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 45.0]: Good afternoon, chair, members of the committee, and supervisor Chan. My name is Rosa Shields. I'm the political director of the San Francisco Labor Council. As I'm sure many of you know, we've been sounding the drumbeat of housing affordability for years, and most recently, even louder in the months since this plan has been introduced. We will continue amplifying that message today so that working families and working people, the ones who are left at least, can afford to stay in San Francisco. Rent control is the only way many working families, whether they are home health care workers you just heard from, city workers, teachers, janitors, construction workers, nurses, or truly anyone can afford to live in this city. These are the folks who make this city run. That's why the San Francisco Labor Council is focused on ensuring that existing stock of rent controlled housing, like the building I live in on Gary Boulevard in District 1, is not demolished. And the working families who live there in one bedroom apartments already are not evicted or displaced. I I also would just like to note that rent control and below market rate are not the same thing, and we need to explicitly protect rent control. We also must ensure that the people who build the housing can afford to live in these units. So that's why we must include high road labor standards in this plan. Additionally, land that the city owns should include a 100% affordable housing projects only. This city runs because of working people who pay into the tax base and contribute their labor. So any developments would protect and prioritize these workers. Thank you.

[Speaker 3.0]: Thank you

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 46.0]: Good afternoon, land use committee and chair Melgar. My name is Alexandria Zhang, and I'm speaking on behalf of the SF Labor Council through the CORO fellowship, and I live in San Francisco. As a young person, it's important to me to protect rent control and affordable housing so that my peers can look forward to an equitable future in the city. I joined the fellowship because I care about community and public policy, and I want to ensure that long time members of the community can afford to stay in their homes. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 47.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Catherine Howard, longtime San Francisco resident. I'd like to speak to historic preservation and the loss of valuable cultural resources that may result from this very demolition friendly upzoning plan. To preserve our significant buildings, I ask that you recommend that all category A and category A eligible buildings be exempted from the upzoning. Category a buildings are listed as a historic resource under the historic preservation program, or designated as having high contextual importance under the citywide design standards. Now why has San Francisco gone to the effort and expense of evaluating and protecting these resources? It is because these buildings are an integral part of the fabric that makes San Francisco a beautiful, vibrant, and inviting city. San Francisco is not a museum being preserved in amber, as one critic of preservation mistakenly stated. Protecting these buildings shows respect for the past and educates future generations about the daily lives and contributions of those who came before them. Our historic features are an integral part of the daily life of our city. They are also a major reason that tourists and convention goers alike visit our city and spend their money here. Preserving them is a matter not only of aesthetics, but also a practicality. To prevent the irreplaceable loss of these significant features of our city, please exempt all category a and category a eligible buildings from upzoning, And I'm submitting a summary of my comments for the public record. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 48.0]: Sorry. Come on. Good afternoon, supervisors. I'm a resident of North Beach, and I'm against the upzoning plan because it's an overreaching response to state law. It doesn't provide enough protections for residential and small business tenants or for historic resources. The amendments before you today to focus on vacant lots and to exclude all rent controlled units are great. We can't throw 20,000 rent controlled tenants under in, under three unit buildings under the bus. We also need to support small businesses by excluding at least legacy businesses. A small fund for re re relocating these businesses will not save many of them. If the planning department thinks that the plan will rarely lead to the eviction of residential and small business tenants anyway, why not make this official policy in the plan? Building expensive one bedroom units will not help affordability, nor will it help families. Including priority equity geographies in the upzoning plan also shows a lack of commitment for the city's affordability goals. Please be bold and use your power to strengthen protections for tenants, small businesses, and the historic resources that are the heart of our communities. Thank you for your time.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 49.0]: Good afternoon, Chair Melgar, members of the Land Use and Transportation Committee. My name is Jackson Nupiers, and I'm here on behalf of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber supports the family zoning plan because it's a practical step forward, making San Francisco more family friendly and affordable. Families are increasingly priced out of the very neighborhoods where they work and send their kids to school. By increasing density near transit, parks, childcare, and schools, the family zoning plan helps keep talent in the city and shorten commutes. The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce believes that the family zoning plan, in conjunction with Chair Melgar's small business rezone and construction relief fund legislation, represents a balanced and forward looking approach to growth, one that makes it easier to build family housing while protecting the small businesses that sustain San Francisco's neighborhoods and local economy. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 50.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Brendan Green. I represent IBW Local six. We're the electrical workers here in San Francisco. Any type of building here, we love to do, but we also want to make sure we have, high labor standards on all these jobs. We want to make sure that we preserve the existing housing stock that's under rent control. And we also want to make sure this is, housing that's built, along the transit corridors, and it's done reasonably. Thank you very much.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 23.0]: Hello, supervisors. David Wu with Soma Filipinas, the Filipino Cultural Heritage District in the South Of Market. We are opposed to the upzoning plan, and we continue to advocate instead for prioritizing the development of 100% affordable housing, preserving and protecting existing housing, protecting existing residents and small businesses from displacement, and engaging in community based planning. West SoMa was added into the upzoning plan basically overnight. And like the rest of the plan, there was no community process or discussion. The upzoning in SoMa is nearly all just base height increases, which is a blatant giveaway to developer developers who will use the state density bonus. The upzoning plan will lead to the displacement of residents and small businesses, harming the South Of Market and neighborhoods across the city. In SoMa, due to the desire to expand the financial district, build luxury housing, and grow the tech boom facilitated by upzoning and tax breaks, the South Of Market is now one of the most expensive and unequal neighborhoods in the city. Market driven planning leads to inequality, and market rate housing will never lower prices. This plan also undermines the city's cultural district program and the Soma Filipinas CHESS report, which was developed in partnership with the city and unanimously approved. The upzoning focuses on providing opportunities for private interests to speculate and make continually increased profits at the direct expense of the people that live and work here. We need to instead refocus on protecting our communities locally and engaging in community based planning. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 51.0]: Hello. My name is Richard Frankel. I'm representing West Side Family Democratic Club. We represent 200 over 200 families in the West Side Of San Francisco, and we strongly support the family zoning. I've lived in San Francisco my entire adult life, raised my kids here, they were born here. And we're excited to see opportunities for our families, not just to be able to stay here and for our kids to be able to find housing, but for new families to come to San Francisco and to join us in this wonderful city. We also, firmly believe that adding more people and more housing will not just, benefit them and allow and, but will also allow small businesses to have more customers and thrive in our neighborhoods, we think that

[Speaker 52.0]: would be that would be

[Speaker 51.0]: a great thing as well. We also wanna encourage the supervisors, not to, but not to add additional amendments and changes and burdens of complexity to an already extremely complicated family zoning plan and pass it as it is. That we we think that this process needs to move along efficiently, And we'd hate to see things get bogged down in even more complexity. And finally, I just wanna add that, having lived here for forty years, I've seen San Francisco conduct the experiment of what is it like to massively constrain housing in a wonderful place with amazing businesses. And what that leads to is continuously rising rents. Let's try a new experiment where we build lots of housing and, show the whole Bay Area how we can drive rents down. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 53.0]: Yes. Good afternoon, supervisors. I'm Stan Hayes from the Telegraph Hill Dwellers. To be clear, we support truly affordable housing that fits in with the scale and character of its neighborhood. But here we are, on the verge of adopting the mayor's up zoning plan, a plan that won't build housing affordable to most San Franciscans, a plan that won't work but can't be undone, a plan whose 82,000 units housing target is far too high, a plan that denies neighbors their voice, a plan that threatens small businesses and renters, a plan that risks our historic resources and neighborhoods. And at a very basic level, the plan just isn't fair. It forces some neighborhoods to bear far more than their fair share. For example, Northeast San Francisco, including North Beach, Telegraph Hill, and the Northern Waterfront, is already one of the very densest parts of San Francisco. And yet despite that, the mayor's plan adds 5,200 more units than in the housing element. That's a 650% increase. You can see that on these bar charts. If you can put that up, please. The data are from table three of the housing element EIR addendum. The yellow bars are for the Northeast Planning District. The yellow bar on the left shows 5,200 more upzoning units added by the mayor's plan. The yellow bar on the right shows the resulting 650% increase in upzoning units, more than sevenfold, more than in any other district. This is grossly unfair, especially since many of these areas were not even included in the housing element, the housing element EIR, or any of the multiple upzoning maps until the mayor's plan. At a minimum, please remove North Beach, Telegraph Hill, and the Northern Waterfront from the mayor's plan, and put them back where they were in the housing element.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 39.0]: Good afternoon, and thank you all for your work and for the tenor of this meeting. It's refreshing in our country today. I am such a proud San Franciscan. My name is Eileen Purcell, and I'm a member of the San Francisco Central Labor Council Executive Board, where I represent IBEW Local twelve forty five, the people who keep the lights on in San Francisco. We have 30,000 members from Bakersfield to Reno. We have 600 to 800 members here in San Francisco, but only a 166 of them can afford to live in the city, and that is with excellent union wages. I'm also a native San Franciscan. I was born and raised here. I grew up in the Haight Ash Berry, the youngest of nine. I have raised my three children with my husband in the Castro District for over thirty four years. Our adult kids and their partners and our five grandchildren live in the Bay Area, but none of them can afford to live in the city. They are teachers, one is a lawyer, and one is a social service provider. They would love nothing better than to live very close to their grandparents so we could do more childcare, and we would relish that. Affordability is the heart and soul of this issue for me, in keeping with everything we love about San Francisco as well. And so, we urge you to consider all amendments on the table that can enhance the incredible work that's been done, but preserve rent control, protections, labor standards, which means it's a union city. This is a union city. And on anything that is public property, a 100% affordable, but truly affordable. Thank you so much.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 54.0]: Good afternoon. My name is Leslie Simon. I've lived in San Francisco for nearly fifty years. This is a tale of two children, my children, middle aged professionals who were born and raised in San Francisco, graduated from public schools. They are sending their children, my grandchildren, to public schools. One of them, a well paid professional, managed to buy a small house in Peralta fifteen years ago. The other child, a not so well paid professional, whose job is to counsel traumatized pregnant youth at a public school, fifteen years ago, that adult child found a rent controlled apartment. She and her family would be forced out of the city if they lost that rent controlled apartment. Though I appreciate supervisor Melgar's amendment, this upzoning plan would still not be friendly enough to rent controlled property. As so many have said, we cannot build our way out of this housing crisis. Protect current affordable housing. Create a 100% affordable housing as other speakers have urged. Protect rent controlled housing. Do not demolish it. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 55.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Paul Wormer. One of the things I have paid close attention to is the city's residential nexus and the demand market rate housing creates for below market rate housing. Housing affordable to the distribution of people in San Francisco who are not in the top 10 or 15%. As I look at the housing choice language in the legislation, I don't see anything that requires inclusionary housing in the housing choice. I just see language that says you have to add some more units to the property. The incentive to build very large 4,000 foot units on four or five or six floors overlooking the park, overlooking the Presidio as that Lake Street property sits at an 85 foot height. It's a tremendous incentive to do a series of sub 10 unit developments, catering to the clients of the mayor's brother-in-law, who's can't find enough mansions for his clients. And this is not the way we get affordable housing. There is nothing in this plan in spite of the comments, from the mayor and planning. There's nothing in that plan that shows how it will provide affordability other than the faith that people will build more because they can. No. People build more because they make a profit. And nothing in this plan shows how that will be addressed. But lots of opportunities to build less than nine units and make a good profit and create demand for workers to support the residents who can't find affordable housing here. That, to me, is a problem. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 56.0]: Can you put the overhead on? On the overhead. My name is Jessica Visnes. I'm a District 2 resident. I'm speaking today not in opposition to adding additional housing to District 2, but in opposition to the plan as currently written. I'm asking you to modify the plan in response to neighborhood concerns before it's too late. The current plan is a massive change to the zoning in District 2. Among other things, it includes 14 story towers on Lombard, a street that's been zoned for four stories for decades. Other parts of Lombard are now zoned for eight stories, doubling in zoned heights. These are not incremental changes. I brought along before and after depictions that supervisor Cheryl's office asked to be made of what 14 story towers would look like at the corner of Franklin And Vallejo, a corner I walk by frequently, and that's on the overhead. I'm submitting these depictions along with my comments. I've been paying close attention to the arguments I've heard at many town halls. I've also been trying to gather information from supervisor Cheryl's office, from senator Wiener's office, and from others since I've been hearing conflicting information. Here's just one example of the information I've heard that doesn't make sense to me. From the planning department, we can't count the units on Treasure Island in our count to satisfy the state's requirement because they'll take too long to build. From supervisor Cheryl, don't worry about the up of zoning on Lombard. It's probably gonna take ten years before we see any changes. If it's gonna take that long, why do the buildings on Lombard add to the count, but not the ones on Treasure Island? I've listened to many viewpoints and also listened to the planning commissioners when they voted on this plan at the September meeting. The statements by the commissioners who voted against it made sense to me. The presentations I've heard from Lori Brooke from Neighborhoods United at many town halls made sense to me. This legislation is moving full steam ahead, but the arguments that seem to me to be logical don't seem to be getting through, although they did to three of the seven planning commissioners who voted no in September.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 57.0]: Hi. I'm a longtime resident in District 7, a renter, and I oppose the, family zoning scam. I wanna thank, supervisors Melgar, Chen, and Chan. I support sup supervisor Melgar's amendment, though I urge you all to protect all tenants, as well as our beloved small businesses and historic landmarks. This terrible legislation has a goal of I don't even know how many units because I hear 36,000. I hear 82,000. I don't even know what the number is, but they are theoretical units. And they are also applied to new units. Therefore, if my building of 23 units gets torn down to build 24 units, I guess that's 24 units toward their goal, not one. This is YIMBY math. More about displacement and replacement, not about increasing supply, and as these lobbyists claim, and certainly not about creating affordability. The mythical commuter into SF that proponents of this legislation keep trotting out is more likely a working class person already displaced by speculation who will never afford to come back under this plan of even more speculation. At a time when health care costs under Trump are rising and tech workers, once who made a lot of money, are being laid off, this is not a time for mass displacement. Please oppose this altogether.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 58.0]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Justin Dozle. I'm a small business owner and the president of Small Business Forward, a small business advocacy organization. I'm here to oppose the family zoning plan as it stands, which will necessarily incentivize real estate speculation and lead to the displacement of vital small businesses. I strongly support the amendments proposed that will require speculative developers to mitigate the damage done to our small business community. I also strongly support the amendments which would exempt rent controlled housing citywide from demolition. Speculation which will result from this plan will have a disastrous effect on affordability in our city as developers will be incentivized to create market rate housing that majority of small business workers and owners cannot afford. I am a renter. My employees are renters. And without a robust stock of affordable, rent controlled housing, small business workers will continue to be excluded from living in the communities that they serve. I'm also a counselor at a tenants' rights organization, and I speak weekly to tenants who are under threat of being displaced and evicted through no fault of their own. It is not only false, it is patently ridiculous to assert that demolished rent controlled housing will be one to one replaced with rent controlled affordable housing. When market forces are allowed to freely dictate what is built and maintained, displacement of working class people will necessarily follow. Therefore, I strongly urge you to adopt the amendments proposed to strengthen protections for small businesses and rent controlled housing throughout San Francisco. We can meet our very real housing needs while still protecting our most vulnerable residents and businesses. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 59.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Quintin Mecky with the Council of Community Housing Organizations. I've heard it said a few times here at the hearing that we need to build housing at all income levels, and I wanna correct that record. On the slide that planning presented, 20,000 of the 36,000 units required for the upzoning capacity need to be for low income households. That's 57%. As it currently stands in the plan as it's drafted, there is no plausible pathway to achieving that number of low income units at all. And as your staff and the planning staff, and I commend them for these slides, talked about financing, land acquisition, There are no provisions in the plan as it currently stands that allow affordable housing developers to access land, to access financing. And this is the problem. We have not a policy issue. This is a moral one. It's not about income levels for everybody. It's about serving those low income residents that deserve housing that live here now. This constant question of people wanna live here and they can't. There are people who don't have housing here now, and those are low income residents. We need an affordable housing SUD on the first part. We need public land for public good. Don't just send us a list of possible sites. Actually commit to giving those sites to affordable housing, to a 100% affordable housing. On the financing part, I've heard it also mentioned that we need a regional housing measure. We are part of the coalitions in that conversation. 2028 is too late. We need a local funding measure in 2026 to unlock the pipeline. Those are 17,000 affordable housing units that are Sydney waiting for financing. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 60.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Ruhamah Toretta, and I am here today on behalf of the NorCal Carpenters Union, representing thousands of carpenters who work and live in San Francisco. We're here today to support the advancement of the family zoning plan. In the midst of the housing crisis, we need transformational housing policy. Too many of our members who build this city can no longer afford to live here. The family zoning plan is a step toward changing that by ensuring that the working people who build and help make the city run have an opportunity to live here too. This this plan means the opportunity for more housing for more people. It provides a framework for growth, one that connects housing to high quality jobs that offer fair wages, benefits, and investment in apprenticeship programs. Importantly, this plan also allows the city to shape its own future without state takeover. We are ready to continue this work to deliver the homes that San Francisco needs now. We look forward to working with staff to make it happen. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 26.0]: Hello, everyone. My name is John Espinosa, Somerto agent. I work in the real estate industry as well as study urban planning at UC Berkeley. I'm here to speak in support of this program because California just needs more housing to address the situation. And I don't think that it should be just San Francisco's responsibility to do it. It should be the entire state. We should be pushing the South Bay, East Bay, and the Peninsula and North Bay to be addressing this, as well as Southern California. My parents purchased a single family residence before I was born. And through upzoning, they were able to turn it into a triplex. Over the years, they have been granted the opportunity, as well as the American dream, to continue investing. And because of upzoning, my now widowed legally blind mother is able to sustain herself and also offer below market rate rents at the property that she owns. I think this pro this plan is not perfect, but it's a lot better than doing absolutely nothing, which a lot of cities have been doing for some time. So thank you for hearing me.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 61.0]: Good afternoon. Steven Torres, a worker and renter. Good afternoon, Chairperson Malaga, committee members. Before you is the disingenuously named family zoning plan. The name is disingenuous because as countless public testimonies and data have detailed, this plan does nothing to actually ensure housing for families. It does little but ensure that developers can now access thousands of residential and commercial parcels with almost no regulation, and property owners can sell their property for several times its current value. It is also likely to make thousands of San Franciscans homeless, hundreds of small businesses close, and irrevocably change our city, all without adequate funding or infrastructure in the face of serious challenges ranging from transportation to natural disasters to climate change. I strongly urge you to pursue the amendments that have been proposed. One recurring claim is that nothing can be done, as our elected representatives in Sacramento are holding a gun to our heads with punitive measures and defunding as threats against San Franciscans. I caution against this messaging, as it may signal unintended complicity and a lack of fortitude. If our local leaders claim to be powerless to stop this kind of deregulation and removal of protections for the people of San Francisco, what can we expect as even more edicts and pariling San Franciscans are handed down from Sacramento or even Washington? To dismiss this and to imply that housing deregulation is hardly the same, I would ask our leaders to consider what it's like to be evicted, to be an elder who dies on the street, or to have a family business close and lose one's livelihood. To imply that compliance with the law, state or otherwise, regardless of how it targets our most vulnerable, sets a dangerous precedent. I implore you to use the same bravery and conviction we do when others bully and threaten San Francisco, and apply it to the legislative coercion being employed by leadership in Sacramento, people who purport to represent us just as you do. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 62.0]: Hello, supervisors. Melgar and Chen and Mahmood, thank you so much for having us today. My name is Caroline Bosch. I live in Jordan Park. I'm in support of the family zoning plan. In my neighborhood, Gary Boulevard is a huge missed opportunity with a ton of commercial spaces that are underpaying property taxes and thus denying important funding for our public services. I also live in rent control housing, and that provides stability for me and my family with two young children. I appreciate that I've learned so much about rent control, demolition control during this process, and how it will continue to exist, and how it will be continued to be strengthened. We heard earlier that missing middle financing innovation is an important part of getting that housing built that needs to be built. As an affordable housing finance professional, I'm afraid that the amendments discussed today may inadvertently stop us from doing just that. My husband is an immigrant from Istanbul. In 1999, there was a devastating earthquake that left the city traumatized in their aging, unsafe housing stock. As a result, many of my family members there have fully embraced a structure called Khensal Dunushum, where owners can seismically retrofit and modernize their homes at no cost through partnerships with small contractors. The structures this structure is embraced across the Eastern Mediterranean. It's called Antipiroki in Greek and and across other places. And and if we are to find innovative

[Speaker 63.0]: or or it's it's used

[Speaker 62.0]: in places where they need to find creative solutions to finance for earthquake safety and adding new housing. If we adopt some of the amendments suggested today, we will not be able to finance in this way. We want housing to be built through our small business contractor communities. So please let's not inadvertently make changes so that we cannot seismically retrofit our homes with by adding new units to them. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 10.0]: Hi. Good evening. My name is Dan Rosenfeld. I'm in District 9. And, I first moved to San Francisco in 1989, you know, not wanting to miss the earthquake. And, when I first came here, it was a really exciting place. There was a lot of art, a lot of music. It was a place with working class people, some people who are better off. And it was just a really exciting place for people who were escaping

[Speaker 64.0]: a lot of people to to

[Speaker 10.0]: a place where they finally felt comfortable. And I still miss I still love San Francisco, but I miss that. And I think that, a large a part of the reason why we've gotten to that point is because we've made it impossible to live here. It's just way, way, way too expensive. So I strongly support the family zoning plan, and I'm really hoping that you guys won't overcomplicate things and just get the job done. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you. Next speaker.

[Speaker 65.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Eileen Hurst. I'm a resident of District 3 on Russian Hill. I went to the presentation by planning staff at the district three democratic club some time ago. There was planning staff and there was a a housing developer there. And, you know, there was understandable pushback. Staff did a great job of explaining the plan. At the end of the meeting, they said something that I found really curious. We were assured this is capacity only. Almost none of this stuff is gonna get built, and I'm paraphrasing. Well, forgive me, but I thought that the point here was to get housing built. Why was the effort not focused on identifying developable parcels, partnering with affordable housing developers, and getting housing built? We need family appropriate, affordable housing. The mayor's very excited that the, we have a big new academy class for the police department and the sheriff's department has one well as well. There's no place for those folks to live. If they are waiting until we have this trickle down from private developers, maybe there'll be some affordable housing by the time those guys retire. That's too late. We need it now. I urge you to reconsider this whole plan and think about the vacant lots that are already ready to be developed. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you. Next speaker.

[Speaker 66.0]: I hope somebody's recording. Eileen. I second you, Eileen. Kathleen Courtney, Russian Hill Community Association, District 33 points. Number one, alleys. My thanks to, supervisor and his staff for providing me information. My concern is the 10 to 30 feet wide alleys that are allowing six story buildings. Appreciate that code section two forty one point one has a lot of information. We still are asking you to ensure there is no off-site parking for these alleys. The alleys should be for pedestrian. Second, I'd like to congratulate supervisor Mandelmann for starting the historic landmarking status for 16 buildings in the Castro. Why can't we do the same thing with category a buildings in the city that he's doing? Lastly, I applaud supervisor Melgar for her very cogent statement that we're we're we have new new people, new ideas, we're moving forward, we're looking to build the city of the future. The problem is you're adversely affecting my living right now. I'm gonna be here for at least twenty or thirty more years, hopefully. The restaurants and the merchants in my area are not. Thank you very much.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 67.0]: Good evening. My name is Madison Steinke. I'm a San Francisco resident, renter, and worker standing in support of Rep SF and Small Business Forward. I love this city, and I wanna stay here as long as I possibly can. Whether or not I can afford housing will ultimately determine how long I can call San Francisco home. As such, I'm here in opposition of the proposed upzoning plan. SF needs more affordable housing for working class people. This plan will make rent more expensive, increase displacement of tenants and small businesses, and make it impossible to develop the affordable housing we desperately need. As a resident of the sunset, I worry that the proposed zoning changes will completely change the landscape of the local businesses of my neighborhood and potentially price me out of my home. I'm also very concerned with the potential demolition of rent controlled units in the city. We should be protecting tenants' rights and expanding affordable housing, not gutting the affordable housing currently available to San Francisco residents. All rent controlled units need to be excluded from the plan. I want to see the city build housing that is accessible for families and working class people. We need a plan that expands affordable housing, a plan that specifically funds and subsidizing subsidizes housing rather than leaving it to chance. As a purse as a young person, I am hopeful that we can build solutions that allow working class people to live and thrive here. Please support the proposed amendments proposed by supervisors Chan and Chen. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 68.0]: Hi. My name is Gwen McLaughlin. I'm a born and raised San Francisco resident, and I'm here today with Small Business Forward, a small business advocacy group. I'm gonna be reading a statement from a small business owner that was here today waiting in line for several hours to make this public comment himself. He had to go back to his store to keep working, but his building was just bought by a real estate developer, and he's facing eviction and fears his business will be forced to permanently close. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Sean Kim, owner of Joe's Ice Cream, a San Francisco less legacy business since 2017. I am here today to express my strong support for supervisor Connie Chan's amendments to protect legacy businesses from displacement. The planning department argues that financial

[Speaker 3.0]: assistance and grants are enough to protect

[Speaker 68.0]: legacy businesses, but the legacy businesses, but that's simply not true. When upzoning gives developers massive value to their land, but there's no requirement to support or preserve the existing long standing small businesses that served our neighborhoods. Financial aid programs cannot cover what it actually costs to survive displacement, moving out, temporary build outs, months or years of lost revenue, and then rebuilding again to move back. Even the city couldn't afford to pay for that level of disruptions for hundreds of legacy businesses. A CUA requirement is not a punishment. It simply creates a point of dialogue and accountability. It gives both sides an opportunity to sit down, negotiate, negotiate their timelines, and find a way for a legacy business to return or to be supported during redevelopment. Without that, these decisions happen quietly, behind closed doors, and small businesses like mine lose any voice in the process. Upzoning without protection gives everything to developers, but nothing to small businesses. That is why supervisor Connie Chan's amendment is so important. It creates fairness, accountability, and a way for our community to stay

[Speaker 3.0]: in touch.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Concluded. Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 69.0]: I have, a couple of exhibits on the overhead. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Hans Baldoff. I live at 165 Edgewood Avenue. And, I'm very fortunate to have grown up here in San Francisco, and have had an architecture firm here in San Francisco. I'm also honored to be on the Historic Preservation Commission. And I'm gonna focus my remarks, today on issues of preservation. But I wanna say that being here today was wonderful, because I realize what a heavy lift you guys have to actually really improve this plan. And I think that we are at a very important crossroads in San Francisco. This is the biggest change in San Francisco since redevelopment. It's a very, very big deal. And, looking at it from the lens of historic preservation, many people in the preservation community wanted all A buildings exempted. We were told by the department that even though they represent under 10% of the buildings in the plan, They represent 27% of the capacity of the plan. 27% of the capacity means that there's a complete bullseye on all of these historic buildings. And these, you can ask them. And I really think, and I've talked to Supervisor Mandelmann about this, that very discrete areas in each of your districts need to be thought about as historic districts, and excluded from this plan, or we're going to lose the character of San Francisco. Last Wednesday, the map that I'm showing you was presented as part of the Russian, American Russian history context statement of San Francisco. And you can see the highlighted area. And you can see on Geary Boulevard, how many important category a buildings are gonna be taken out.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Sharing your comments with the committee. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 20.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors, committee members, and staff members. My name is Sarah Cruz. I am a constituent in District 1. I moved here during the pandemic when the price of rent went down and, I love this city. I used to live in Portland, Oregon, which was once one of the most affordable cities in America. Today, it is one of the most unaffordable cities because they passed they had low they did not have adequate protections for tenants. They did not have regulations on building and the zoning laws that they passed has made it one of the most unaffordable. The homelessness, population has increased 65% since the year 2015. They passed up zoning. It has made it more unaffordable. It has not helped their housing situation. A number of, YIMBYs I know are here and organization. I have looked into their statistics. They based this argument on supply and demand, which is based on 1950s economics. I think we all know in this room that the economic situation we are living in today is not that of the 1950s. There is huge economic disparity between working class people and billionaire class people. In San Francisco, there is one billionaire for every 11,000 residents. We need affordable housing. We do not need housing for all levels. That will simply increase the rates and make the city more unaffordable. It is absolutely imperative that you include supervisor Chan and supervisors Chen's amendment to this proposal. I do not support this proposal. I know it. And not to even mention the ways that, the current transit system cannot support 30,000, 50,000 more people. Muni faced huge cuts in June. And if anybody rides Muni to work, you know how packed it is. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 70.0]: Thank you, supervisors, and thank you especially for the amendments to a family zoning plan that's not about families. And as Commissioner Moore stated at the Planning Commission hearing on nineeleven, isn't even a plan by planning standards. It feels more like a pla a press release turned policy, consistent with personalities pushing this non plan, marketers turned legislators, billionaires who use money like a carpenter uses cock, and luxury real estate lobbyists. I'm Ramon Schmalz. I'm a twenty year resident of North Beach and a working artist, and I like quoting Leonard Cohen. Everybody knows this deal is rotten, and we're bereaved and furious that our district three supervisor straightaway began selling our most precious public assets to private developers while lining up our lives to be demoed and displaced. And everybody who knows land use policy knows this will happen. The working class and artists will not survive this degree of upzoning. Ask the mission. 12,000 Latinos displaced. So, please adopt all of supervisors Chen and Chan's amendments today, down the road, including zero evictions of demolitions of rent control departments. 20,000 demo duplexes is immoral. Affordable housing first, not build it later elsewhere, and serious small business protections with one on one, one by one replacement. And please, for the love of your own legacies, protect our waterfront from the mid rise development plan. This non plan will absolutely crush our public waterfront vistas, the reason so many people visit us in the first place. Everybody knows the scene will be dead without them and our artists, and it will be forever named after those who made it so. And you don't want your name on that, do you? Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you. Just wanna remind the public to please address the committee as a whole and not a particular supervisor. Thank you.

[Speaker 5.0]: Good afternoon, and thank you, supervisors. My name is Apollo, and I'm a working musician living in North Beach. I'm that guy that developers sound so excited about, a new San Franciscan. Before that, I lived in Los Angeles, New York City, and Minneapolis. I love them all, but nothing compares to the human scale community, open air sunshine, and free public views on the waterfront from everywhere in my neighborhood, and not just from an imaginary apartment on the top of Coit Tower. I've lived and toured through enough cities over the years to know upzoning kills creative communities. It's true in Austin, which has become unaffordable for artists and the working class. Same with Vancouver, BC, and Portland. In fact, there's no example of a city where upzoning did anything but displace thousands, raise rents, and flatten culture. Nothing in the proposed one big builders bill, as you call it, family zoning plan, will make it easier for actual working families or artists like me to live in my neighborhood. It's mostly luxury or market great studios and one bedrooms. So please approve all of supervisor Chen's and Chen's amendments, especially the protection of all rent controlled units. I'm in a Victorian triplex, so for the moment, I can stay under the mayor's amendment. But our neighbors, actual families in rent controlled duplexes nearby can get evicted. That's wrong. And that alone will displace thousands. Please contact them and the last of the rent control communities together. And please honor all their amendments for real affordable housing and small business protections, and be remembered as a heroic legacy legislator. Please spare our waterfront from upzoning. As you say, this is all part of a process, so process this, walling off the waterfront is a disgrace no one wants, but everyone will remember. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 71.0]: Thank you very much, supervisors, for allowing me to speak today. My name is Holden Weisman. I'm the director of of policy and advocacy at Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco. On behalf of Habitat Greater San Francisco, I'd like to offer our continued support for the family zoning plan. We believe this plan will open future opportunities for us to continue to build 100% permanently affordable homes for ownership across the city, and as the necessary step to meet the housing our housing needs. We are not offering our support, to displace anyone. We support this plan so we can help ensure all San Franciscans have the opportunity to lay down roots, no matter the specific neighborhood they choose to live in. Low income home buyers should not be relegated to the same few neighborhoods where we've deemed affordable housing to be okay. Affordable homeownership should be an opportunity everywhere, and this plan will bring us a step closer to that goal. The next step is to echo the sentiments of many of our supervisors today, and that's make sure that we have enough funding to build this kind of affordable, housing, both for rentals and for home ownership. We wanna make sure that we emphasize that here, that we are not only talking about rentals. When we say affordable housing, we also very much mean home ownership. We appreciate past support for that you've given to Habitat for Humanity, but we definitely need to be able to look out for the kind of funding that will ensure our ability to produce in the future. Habitat thanks you, and we look forward to continuing to work with you all to add more affordable homes and homeowners in San Francisco. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 72.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Laurie Lederman. I live in the Inner Sunset. I'm glad to hear many of the amendments and concerns raised by supervisors today. However, fundamentally, this is a demolition plan, and demolition means displacement. An apparent but unspoken goal is replacement, with higher income residents and increased property tax revenues. The developers will never stop asking for concessions, and Sacramento will do their bidding. But the developers have not held up their end of the bargain, witnessed 72,000 permitted units not built. Relocation for displaced residents is a myth. We have seen the evidence with a large percentage of our own unhoused population being formally housed San Franciscans. This plan also directly targets small businesses on commercial corridors. These are vital contributors to community, to walkability, and to many livelihoods. It is far too expensive for most small businesses to relocate, and the neighborhoods will lose vital local services. Density decontrol on this scale without a commitment to expanded muni services and vital updated water sewer infrastructure is a recipe for disaster. It is critical that repurpose repurposing public land be restricted to the development of 100% affordable housing. This board adopted a housing element that recognized the importance of equity in planning. Without real protection for all rent control tenants and a commitment to prioritize a 100% affordable housing, this legislation would toss that equity out of a 16 story market rate window. Please amend on behalf of all San Franciscans and not developer profit. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 64.0]: So I guess that's good evening.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Please pull that mic right up to your Yes.

[Speaker 53.0]: Good evening.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Mouth. There we go. Paul.

[Speaker 64.0]: My name is Lance Carnes. I live in Telegraph Field, District 3. And we have a very conscientious neighborhood who called at least three community meetings at Club Fugazi on Green Street. And each time we had a panel or different different visitors. Once we had planner Tanner join us, who was unable to answer some of our questions, oddly enough. And another time we had our supervisor Danny Soter join us, who was also a little bit reluctant to say anything. But, you know, I'm a mathematician by education, and I can't understand this plan. You look at the maps. You look at the things. It's it's it's it's absolutely

[Speaker 40.0]: impossible. So,

[Speaker 64.0]: the other thing was, in our neighborhood, we've had a project going on for probably, going on forty years, historic statement of the neighborhood, which included about 700 parcels. And we tried to get that accepted by the state and national historic registries. And both times, we had meetings scheduled, and then suddenly, they got mysteriously canceled. And my feeling is it might have something to do with, you know, if we had historic buildings, they couldn't be replaced so easily. So anyway, I think this is way too complicated of a plan for an individual citizen to understand and see the consequences of. And I would encourage you to tone it down to where we can say, okay, well, this is what's going to happen. So thanks so much, and good work, everyone, who put in time on this.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 25.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Thanks for many hours worth of listening. Cynthia Gomez, you're not here local to the Hotel Workers Union. So we are very grateful to supervisor Melgar, your staff, and the work of everyone else for your amendments to make sure that hotel conversions do not qualify for the Housing Choice SF program. And we ask for everyone's support for those amendments. Without them, the HCSF program would have incentivized the whole scale conversion of hotels to housing in the plan area without opportunity for public notice, review, or appeal. This includes Fisherman's Wharf, which is one of the most well known tourism districts in the world, a crucial part of the city's tourism industry, and a district whose hotels employ about 1,000 of local tours, 15,000 union members. So I haven't yet seen the text. I know how diligent the staff is. I know how many commas and clauses have had to be added. So we'll look forward to seeing the actual language, once it's there. To give a flag or a preview, it involves amendments to section 206.10B, section nine, and three forty four D, section 13. Both stating that projects can't convert in whole or in part a tourist hotel, and qualify for the streamline program. So again, thank you for all of your work. It's crucially and critically important for Local two, and for this city's tourism industry, that we not incentivize this whole scale conversion. And it's important to take the time we need to get it right. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 4.0]: Hi. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Steph, and I'm a staff at the Chinese Progressive Association, which organizes Chinese immigrant families in San Francisco. I also live in the Excelsior District, District 11, a neighborhood where many working class immigrant families call home. And I'm here today because I care that these working class immigrant communities gets a say in the zoning plan. And so many of our youth are in school today. So I'm also here to express their concerns and their stories. And as someone who grew up and moved around a lot in the city, I feel very strongly that our voices are heard. It was rent control, tenant protection, and affordable housing that allowed for me and my family to actually stay in the city. And so more family size housing is crucial in making this possible. And you know what's actually interesting, in case you all care to know? 70% of API voters that we spoke with over the summer in District 341011 say that what they want is housing that is truly affordable for all. And so a plan that centers family and youth voices and not profit to real estate and housing developers. So what does it say about our city when you do not prioritize housing stability and tenant protections to the families that actually make San Francisco? There needs to be protection for run control homes and true affordable housing to ensure that families can actually stay in the city. And so we support supervisor Connie Chan and supervisor supervisor Che supervisor Cheyenne Chen's amendment to the upcoming plan to prioritize a livable San Francisco. And so the mayor's zoning plan threatens tenants and small businesses pits neighborhoods against each other and disregards decades of community based policies making that had built San Francisco through a resilient, vibrant city. And so we urge this commune committee, please, to move the proposed amendments forward.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Speaker's time has concluded. Thank you for your comments. Thanks. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 73.0]: Hello. My name is Jess, and I'm a staff at the Chinese Progressive Association. And I'm here today to share on behalf of one of our high school youth members, Tina, who couldn't be here today because the timing of these hearings overlapped with school. Hi, supervisors. My name is Tina, and I'm a youth leader from the Chinese Progressive Association. I'm also currently a senior attending a high school in District 11, and I've lived most of my life in the outer sunset in District 4. Even though I'm not in here in person here today, I still wanted to make my voice heard so that my community can have a say in the zoning plan. It does not create more housing access for our families or opportunities for their voices to be heard. Instead, it will increase the displacement of working class families and immigrants. I know this because my family used to live in a cramped and tiny unit on Irving Street, a time where we had to collect bottles and cans to get by. Upzoning without strong tenant protections or a centered focus on real affordability for everyone will lead to working class families being priced out of their communities as land values rise. We need more affordable housing, but that can't come at the cost of our communities. Our city needs to protect and prioritize the voice of tenants, of work of youth and working families. Our city needs truly affordable family sized housing for working class families, and our city does not need the unaffordable market rate units that this family upzoning plan will introduce. We are demanding that the city disallow demolition of all rent controlled buildings citywide regardless of their building size and that there be hearings on the opposing plan with the board of supervisors sitting as a committee of the whole to allow members of the public, like youth who cannot miss school to be here, to take the opportunity to speak in front of the full board on these citywide changes. The mayor's zoning plan threatens tenants and working people who keep the city running. So we urge this committee to move forward the proposed men amendments that would focus on protecting tenants and rent controlled housing citywide, supporting small businesses, and prioritizing on truly for affordable housing for families, seniors, and working people. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 74.0]: Hello, supervisors. My name is Emily Mok. I was raised in SFUSD schools. I've lived in Districts 45, And 1. 12 of my cousins and aunts and uncles lived in a two bedroom apartment on Vallejo Street while working in garment factories. I'm now a homeowner in District 4. I'm also the lead youth organizer at the Chinese Progressive Association, where I work with teens who primarily attend SFUSD high schools. CPA is also a member of REP, Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition. Last week, youth members of CPA were on the DAHLIA portal, where we're looking up affordable housing. We inputted a household income of $40,000 a year for a family of four, which is, by the way, a relatively high income for many of our families. There were two developments that popped up, and they had very few options for two to three bedroom units. But they had but the options that were available were at AMI rates and rents that their families could not afford. So imagine their discontent to see that this zoning plan prioritizes studios and one bedroom units. Imagine their discontent to see that a plan that purports to be for SF families isn't prioritizing housing at lower AMI rates for low income and very low income families. Imagine their outrage that this so called family plan incentivizes the demolition of a 100,000 rent controlled units. We don't have a housing supply problem in San Francisco. Our problem is relying on the private sector to secure a minuscule amount of affordable housing that isn't truly affordable. If the city wants to meet its mandate, it should be prioritizing a 100% deeply affordable housing on city land and taking all measures to prevent demolition and displacement. That's why we support supervisor Chan and supervisor Chen's proposed amendments in introducing tenant protections and protections for rent controlled housing citywide, supporting small businesses, and prioritizing truly affordable housing. I urge this committee to move these critical amendments forward. Despite being called the SF Family Zoning Plan, it does not have the interest nor the input of youth or families in mind.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: To have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 75.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Michelle, and I am a staff member of the Chinese Progressive Association, which organizes Chinese immigrant families in San Francisco. I'm here today because the youth I get the privilege to work with deserve a fair shot at staying in the city they call home ten years from now. We all understand how deeply and widely felt the issue of housing is. During our summer canvas, we found that 70% of the API voters we spoke to want truly affordable housing, and that means housing that they can actually see and apply for. Upon closer examination, this zoning plan does not plan for adequate affordable housing and a plan to finance it for working class families. And we've seen a similar story throughout the history of this city. It's a plan that promises to revitalize the city when in actuality, it will increase the displacement of regular people as our wealth inequality gap increases. Mayor Lohrey and the planning department are adamant that if we do not pass this plan, we will lose our agency to control housing development in our own city. But which policy or politician put us in that position in the first place, and what is their motivation? We know that Scott Wiener and his UMP agenda are to blame. And what's underneath that? Money. Real estate and developer money that is motivated by profit, not for the values that we actually want to center in our city, which is affordability, inclusivity, and diversity for San Franciscans. So to the mayor, I say don't use youth and families as a cover for your plan while planning for their displacement in the demolition of our homes and communities. We support the proposed amendments put forward by supervisors Chan and Chen that would focus on protecting tenants, small businesses, and rent controlled housing citywide. I want people to be able to stay in this city, and this zoning plan will not ensure that. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 76.0]: Good evening, supervisors. My name is Rishav Varrout. I'm a resident of District 9, and I'm a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, San Francisco chapter. As this legislation currently stands, I oppose it. But I do I am in favor of supervisor Melgar's amendments as well as supervisor Chan and Chan's amendments. Currently, we need to preserve 100% of our very limited rent control housing stock. This rent controlled housing provides stability for thousands of working class San Franciscans across the city. As this plan currently stands, it just increases capacity. It doesn't actually cause this housing to be built. And rather it doesn't incentivize development, it incentivizes speculation by increasing the land values. We need an actual plan for affordable housing. We can't rely on the market to make housing affordable. The push and pull to provide guardrails that we see, guardrails against demolition, inclusion inclusionary zoning, impact fees, all of these things are emblematic of why we can't rely on the market because they care more about profit and not about people. We need there was a recent report, a commission by former supervisor Dean Preston, that showed that mixed income European style social housing is in fact feasible in San Francisco with the with the financing provided by a public bank. We should be looking at these non market solutions to make housing truly affordable for San Franciscans and not just hope that the market can take us out of this. Thanks.

[Speaker 3.0]: Thank you

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 77.0]: Thank you, committee, for having us. My name is Jeff. I'm an organizer with the Chinese Progressive Association who has organized Chinese immigrant working families in San Francisco for fifty three years. I myself am also live in a rent controlled building in the sunset. I'm here today because I wanna urge this committee to reject the mayor's displacement plan, which the mayor claims is a family zoning plan. Working families across San Francisco, whether they rent or they own a home or operate a small business, should get to have a say in this plan. Over the summer, just like my colleagues have shared earlier, the Chinese Progressive Association has spoke with Asian American voters across Districts 341011, most of whom are working age and multigenerational households. And over 70% of them agreed that actually SF needs housing that would be truly affordable for their multigenerational families. For many immigrant families in San Francisco, wages have not kept up with the increasing cost of living, making it harder and harder for immigrant families to afford their rent or their mortgage. This plan by the mayor does not guarantee that San Franciscans will get to live in an actually affordable quality housing that will let us stay in the city. Yes. San Francisco relies on working families to stay in the city to work and keep the city running and to pay into its economy, frequenting the local businesses that make San Francisco great. We need affordable housing that strengthens, not erases our communities. So we support supervisor Connie Chan's and supervisor Cheyenne Chan's proposed critical amendments to strengthen tenant protections, support small businesses, create family sized housing, and prioritize truly affordable housing for the most low income people. We want a plan that ensures that San Franciscan families can afford to live and stay in San Francisco, a plan that ensures that our children get to stay in the city that they are growing up in. The mayor's zoning plan threatens tenants and small businesses and pits our neighborhoods against each other and disregards actually decades of community based policy making that has made San Francisco the resilient, vibrant city that San Franciscans are proud of.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments.

[Speaker 26.0]: Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 78.0]: Hello. I'm Joanna Guttman. I am here on behalf of the Sierra Club San Francisco Group. We have 5,500 dues paying members here in the city, and I'm a member of our group executive committee. The Sierra Club supports the family zoning plan. Infill housing is good for people and planet. It is resource efficient, reduces sprawl into our natural and working lands, cuts greenhouse gas emissions and toxic particulate pollution, supports people getting around by walking, biking, and public transit, and allows more people of all incomes to live near work and amenities in San Francisco's climate resilient environment. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 79.0]: Good afternoon. My name is Wes Paish, and I'm a resident of District 6 and also a member of the Sierra Club. I'm speaking today in support of the family zoning plan. I work a day job in the tech industry, and I spend my weekends giving historical tours of my neighborhood South Of Market. I care deeply about San Francisco's history, which inspired me to publish a seventy minute documentary about the history of our neighborhood and the legacy of city housing policy on various communities there. Over the past few months, I've listened to many skeptics presenting a false dichotomy between building more housing and historical preservation. Coming from a neighborhood with a great diversity of buildings ranging from eighteen seventy to today, I can speak to the historical and architectural wealth of South Of Market. If I want a visitor to appreciate the full history of San Francisco, I won't tell them to go to the North to North Beach, or to Richmond, or the Sunset, where you'll find monotonous mile after monotonous mile of buildings almost entirely built in the early and mid twentieth century. These West Side neighborhoods tell a flat story of city history that doesn't physically reflect the generations of changes the city has gone through. Caring about and preserving local history doesn't mean merely freezing the housing stock to include only housing built within a narrow band of decades a hundred years ago. It means allowing layers of architectural history to form on top of each other. The family zoning plan finally allows that process to begin again on the city's West Side. What I wish South Of Market had was more of the fine grained narrow towers characteristic of cities around the world and characteristic of American cities before the twentieth century. In order to make the best use of the family zoning plan, the city should seriously consider and pass single stair reform, allowing tall buildings to be built with a single staircase. A builder shouldn't have to aggregate multiple lots in order to financially justify building new housing. We need housing, we need a lot of it, and we need it quickly. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 63.0]: Good good afternoon, Land Use Committee supervisors. My name is Jacinda McCann, and I'm a twenty six year resident of San Francisco and live in District 3. I'm speaking in support of the family zoning plan. My husband died last October after a twenty one year battle with Parkinson's. I relied on dedicated and hardworking caregivers to help me twenty four seven in the last few years. Our caregivers who became like family lived under the constant threat of having to leave the city due to rent increases, and therefore jeopardize her ability to continue to work in this critically needed area in the city. As you can imagine, this was an added stress in an already very stressful situation. I wanna make the following three points. One, higher density housing, especially affordable housing, brings benefits to both our neighborhoods and the city. More residents living in appropriate locations in a neighborhood enables local commerce to thrive and support organizations to be more effective, and enables people to live closer to work. Two, our existing urban infrastructure is already scaled to support an increase in housing density, and there are numerous opportunity sites across all neighborhoods including District 3. Number three, the distribution of higher density housing in suitable locations along transit corridors such as Lombard, California, and Geary, where there are already a number of successful examples of five to six story residential buildings, is an effective way to align where people live and how they efficiently move around the city on public transportation. Please move ahead with this much needed family zoning plan, and plea please preserve a path for financing for affordable housing. This is after all a rezoning plan, not detailed design, and site specific concerns can be commented on at the appropriate stage in the design process. Thank you for your hard work.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 80.0]: Good afternoon. My name is Jacob Talbot. I'm a resident of District 9 in the Mission. I love San Francisco and feel lucky to call it home. I'm especially fortunate to call the Mission Home, one of the few neighborhoods that has added thousands of homes in recent decades. I'm proud of that progress, but it's not enough. If we want our kids, teachers, our nurses, and the people who make this city work to live here, we need to build more housing. That's why I support the family zoning plan. It's a sensible, timely step that lets us build more homes of different sizes and price points in more parts of the city. By allowing more density near transit, schools, and jobs, the plan will create more affordable and middle income homes, bring predictability to the approval process, and spread opportunity beyond a handful of neighborhoods. In short, more places for people to live and more fairness and access. I urge you to approve the plan and resist amendments that would water it down or make it harder to deliver the homes San Franciscans need. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 81.0]: Good afternoon, chair Melgar, supervisors. My name is Asia Duncan, and I am with build affordable faster California. We support supervisor Chen and Chan's amendments to the family zoning plan.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: And

[Speaker 81.0]: also we want to ask for an affordable housing bond in our twenty twenty six election year. We need to fund affordable housing. Planning just did their analysis on looking

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: at affordable sites

[Speaker 81.0]: about a couple hours ago. So it's time to fund for those sites. And we feel that a housing bond is what will be needed to help us with that. And thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 82.0]: Good afternoon. My name's Corey Hallman. I'm a representative with Teamsters Local eight five six. I've been a resident of District 5 in the Tenderloin for twenty two years now. Fortunate enough, eighteen years of that, to have, protections of a rent control unit, renting there. It's that reason that I've been able to live and work in San Francisco for as long as I have, even with a good union paying job. That's why I'm fearful, the way this legislation currently reads, that it could potentially displace working families and individuals in San Francisco. That's why I'm here to support amendments that, a, preserve existing housing stock or covered by rent control protections, b, provide incentives and prioritize housing projects that include high road labor standards, c, commitments that any development on city owned properties will be 100% affordable for working families, and advance policies that create sustainable social housing projects. And finally, I would like to thank supervisor Melgar and her amendment that, puts a prohibits converting any hotels into housing. Just like local two, you're not here local two, Teamsters Local eight five six represents many hotel workers in the city of San Francisco. Thank you for your time.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 83.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Christian Turcios. I'm proud member of the

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: mic to your face, Christian.

[Speaker 29.0]: What?

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: The microphone. Pull it in front of your face.

[Speaker 83.0]: What's happening? Well, good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Christian Turcios, and I'm a proud member of Carpenters Local twenty two. As a carpenter and San Francisco resident, a native at that, I see firsthand the impact of the housing crisis. More and more carpenters, they're being pushed further away from the city, facing longer commutes and less time with our families. The idea of living and working in the same community and helping build out the city we call home is slipping further from our reach. The family zoning plan is a step forward change to that. It will make it easier for working people to build their lives here in San Francisco. On behalf of myself, my brothers and sisters, I want to say we are ready and able to build the housing San Francisco desperately needs. We are just asking for the opportunity, the community, and the property, you know, to get it done. Come on now. Thank you. Appreciate y'all. And y'all. Oh, and I got claps.

[Speaker 84.0]: Thank you

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 85.0]: Hello. My name is Dane Willett. I live in Coal Valley in District 8. I'm asking you all to support the family zoning plan. My wife and I just recently moved here from Texas. Texas, as you may know, has incredibly strict abortion laws and other laws that make it very difficult to start a family, which me and my wife are hoping to do. And so we are lucky enough and fortunate enough to be able to get to San Francisco and have family here to help support us. But there are many others like me all across this country who would love to take advantage of San Francisco's beautiful climate, the beautiful culture, the beautiful city, and the people that make up this city, but are unable to do so because of how unaffordable and how expensive it is to live here. And so I'm asking that you please support the family zoning plan without any of the amendments that would possibly make us fail through the state's housing element. There's hundreds or over a $100,000,000 that's tied up in housing, tied up in transit, that anything that cuts the number of houses that we're able to build jeopardizes that. So again, I ask you to support the family zoning plan. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 86.0]: Dear commission, my name is Peggy. I'm a progressive Chinese American, and I support the family zoning plan as it stands. As a 27 year old transplant who financially supports a disabled relative, I spent 60% of my post tax income on rent. 60%. I pull my hair out every year when I have to think about renewing my lease. And the reason I'm rent burdened is because this city has a severe housing shortage, a shortage that rich, NIMBY homeowners who oppose this legislation profit off of. It is easy to oppose upzoning when you bought your house in the eighties. It's easy to oppose upzoning when you're inheriting that same house from your parents. I can't do that. So I asked, Do you not want transplants like me in SF? Do you not want local carpenters and construction workers to earn income? NIMBYs, not EMBs, are responsible for our current plight. Right now, low income people are forced to live in dilapidated old houses. That's what's being rent controlled, and that's what's sad about our current situation. This room needs to understand a harsh truth. You can't have long term success without some short term sacrifices. The rest of the world gets that and is rocketing past us. Many of us, including those who oppose this plan, vacation to Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore. Apparently, we're not scared of high rises there, nor do we think they ruined those cities' waterfronts. We talk about how beautiful and shiny Asian cities are, so why can't we make SF one of those cities? And finally, let me say that my working peers share my same sentiments, but they can't be here today because they're not retired. Our voices are represent underrepresented, so I'm speaking for our collective futures. Stop stalling, approve the plan, get shit done.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 87.0]: I'm Patrick Hoffman. I'm a lifelong resident of the Inno Sunset District. I neither support nor totally oppose the upzoning plan. We need affordable housing in the neighborhood, not luxury condos. And we could do it in places such as gas stations, parking lots, or crummy and more modern unoccupied buildings that nobody cares about. Old buildings have a charm and character that makes them worth saving. Modern buildings are often torn down fifty years after they're built. When I say modern, I consider post 1945. I have an idea of how we can solve the issue. We can go through every neighborhood in San Francisco, look at open lots, parking lots, and as I mentioned earlier, We need to make sure our buildings are built well. We need to make sure they look nice so people will be obligated, morally obligated, to preserve them in the future. We also need to make sure they are suitable for families. I looked at one building built in the Mission District, where it's actually new in completion now. It's 811 Valencia Street. It has nineteen one bedroom apartments in it. Out of those 19 units, two are affordable. The other 17 are not. And the one bedroom not suitable for families. I am also concerned that this upzoning plan can be weaponized against low income neighborhoods. If we are responsible in the way we move forward, we will prevail. If we move forward without considering any flaws in our designs, we may have issues in the future. I did not write a script, so that's why I'm not speaking with certainty. I'm doing this on my own. I've spoken.

[Speaker 88.0]: Thank you

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: for your comments. Please begin.

[Speaker 89.0]: Hello, supervisors. Kristen Evans from Small Business Forward. Small Business Forward supports more affordable housing, and, unfortunately, we cannot support the mayor's plan without significant amendments. We want to see that all rent control units are taken off the map. Many of our small business workers live in these affordable housing units and rent controlled units. We don't want them at risk of displacement. We wanna see you commit to new funding for affordable units. And, in terms of small businesses themselves, we need you to commit to meaningful relocation assistance. As was mentioned by Sean from Joe's Ice Cream in his remarks read by Gwen, the current assistance available is not adequate, and I'm not seeing any real meaningful moves to create assistance that will support Joe's Ice Cream to remain. We need a dedicated source of funds for that assistance. And, to that end, we support Supervisor Connie Chan's amendments to have developer impact fees and a nexus study that would allow the city to require developers pay into a small business displacement fund. As you may know, when we started this journey back in April, the planning commission the planning planners of the city's Department of Planning actually recommended AB twenty eleven style payments from developers directly to small businesses. When the city attorney determined that that would not be feasible, there was nothing that was really put forward that we saw that was equated to what was lost with that proposal. So we need to see some meaningful, movement in that regard. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 90.0]: I didn't come with a script, either. I'm speaking to you as a first generation American, child of refugees, and whose support my family of five with a small business. And so I get really triggered by this, because if it was my childhood, we'd be out in the street. Okay? But moving up to the future this morning or this afternoon before entering the hearing, I was texting with my now 30 year old niece. And I said, oh, honey, you know, what are you doing? What am I doing? I said, I'm about to go into city hall hearing. And she said, what about? And I said, do you remember when we had shakes at this beautiful historic cafe in the Mission District? 24th And Mission. Do you remember that? I said, well, just think about all these luxury high rises coming there with maybe four or five affordable units, and we have to define what's affordable. I can't imagine a family, you know, of five, moving into one of those creepy little small apartments, those dense apartments. I wonder why we're not using Prop I money to actually purchase

[Speaker 39.0]: and

[Speaker 90.0]: be able to build on some of those parking lots and empty spaces. So let's do this for my in memory of my father. And let me be able to tell my niece that, yeah, they listened at city hall. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 91.0]: Hello. My name is Ellen Hornstein. I'm an over 50 year old, well, I am over 50 years old, 50 year resident of San Francisco. And I oppose this, family zoning plan. I'll keep this short. I, I totally support that the city needs affordable housing for all people. But this plan is not going to give us that housing. It really concerns me that the developers can buy out of their commitment to add affordable units. And the money goes into the housing fund, that's not the correct name. And is very, very difficult to get housing out of that. I have a friend who's tried repeatedly to get below market rent housing. She's won the lottery twice in about the past year. In one, she her number was in the five hundreds. In another, her number was in the three hundreds. That means that many people for, like, $20.25 units. And this this plan, there's nothing to really force the developers to actually build the affordable housing. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 87.0]: All good to go? Alright. Good evening. It's 06:13.

[Speaker 92.0]: I've been here since 01:30, so I appreciate the opportunity to speak. My name is Jordan Tyrona. I live in District 11 off Mission Street. I live in the same house that my grandma bought in 1971 after she moved here from The Philippines. She raised my parents or my she raised my father there and his two sisters and she ran the first Filipino operated grocery store in the Mission. I love that legacy. I want to embody that and that's why I'm involved in public service. I use the privileges that I've been given by my ancestors to advocate for people in the future. And I fear that we are pulling the ladder up after us. I would not be able to live in this city if the person who gave birth to my father did not move to the city thirty years before I was born. We need to build more housing. I think that San Francisco works as a system of harmony. We need bus riders and we need drivers. We need affordable units and we need market rate units. We need single family homes and we need condos and multi family units and SROs. We need housing now in San Francisco. What what is the point of a city if 60% of the city employees don't live here? 71% of the firefighters don't or 79% of the firefighters don't live here. 71% of the police officers don't live here. What what are we doing? San Francisco State University. I I was a founding member of the San Francisco State Student Union. We are suffering. Our poli sci department, our communications department, our liberal arts, they are suffering because we lack enrollment because it is more affordable to go to a different state, out of state, than it is to live in San Francisco and go to your local CSU. The point of these universities should be to make the ordinary person extraordinary and that's what San Francisco offers to so many people. It gives them the opportunity to be at a global hub. But the fact that our housing supply is so short means that we aren't able to offer this to many, many people. Please do not pull the ladder up after us. Continue in building a legacy forward. Don't worry about the past. We will preserve it. People will care about it. It remains there. But we need to continue to build for the future. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 93.0]: Hello. My name is Micah. I'm a resident of District 9, and I'm here in support of the family zoning plan. Though, I think the plan does not do enough to encourage housing production and to rectify decades of deficits in the history of exclusionary zoning. And, it should include Bernal Heights. I wanted to use my time here to push back on comments from the supervisors, though I see that, unfortunately, the members that I most wanted to address are no longer here. So thank you to the members and the staff that remain. Instead, I'll use my time to celebrate celebrate the magical thinking of some of my fellow citizens. It's magical thinking to say that when a developer buys a property with the hopes of turning a profit, that's real estate speculation. But it somehow is not real estate speculation when I hold on to my single family house, which has appreciated in value faster than any other asset class based on artificial supply constraints. It's magical thinking to say that we can somehow fund 100% affordable housing without building market rate housing, which provides a necessary subsidy for that subsidized housing. I'd like to propose that all of these new units come with a free pony or perhaps even a unicorn. It is a different, darker kind of magical thinking to fear monger about demolitions, when the available data shows that the vast majority of these demolitions that are happening in the city were single family homes, and not the rent controlled units that so many people expressed concern about. And, finally, it's magical thinking to call this the mayor's plan when it has existed due to state laws and the hard work of city staff that precedes the mayor by multiple years, but whatever gets it passed, I guess. I could go on and on, trying to debunk the junk statistics and misunderstandings that we've heard today, but I'll spare you all and just say that I urge the the committee to pass this plan, and to continue building the housing that the Bay Area desperately needs. Thank

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 94.0]: Good afternoon. My name is Maria Paula Moreno. I am a resident of District 9. After hearing so many of our fellow citizens talking about their feelings on this family zoning, I want to begin by saying that the NIMBY YIMBY debate in San Francisco is not as black as and white as it of the portrayed and can be very polarizing. Not all NIMBYs who raise concerns about new development are opposed to diversity or change, and not all NIMBYs who advocate for construction care only about market rate housing. We all want a city that is livable, inclusive, and sustainable. The disagreement is about how to get there. In today's world, saying we don't want housing is just not an option. San Francisco and California face a real housing shortage, as we all know, and we just must build. But let's be honest, the market alone will not solve affordability. Housing is not like other goods that respond neatly to supply and demand. Land is finished, and it cannot be reproduced. And in The United States, property has become a vehicle for speculation and wealth storage, not just a shelter as a human right. If we rely solely on market logic, we will continue producing homes that most San Franciscans cannot afford, while thousands of units remain vacant or held as investment. That's why we need stronger regulations on rental vacancies, land use, and affordability protections along this plan. So, yes, please pass the family zoning plan, but do not pass it as a symbolic gesture with the only purpose of building more. Treat it as a foundation of a thirty year year commitment to equity, inclusion, and the definancialization of housing. Let's ensure that homes we build are homes for people, not just assets for investors. Thanks.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 95.0]: My sister lives in a rent controlled duplex apartment on a street that will be rezoned by this plan. She is an ICU nurse at the VA. She has a strong stable income, and landlords repeatedly choose her over hundreds of other applicants because of it. She's one of the lucky ones. She's basically won the housing lottery. In this unofficial system, the scarcity of housing means only a select few get the peace of mind she enjoys. As her sister, I'm grateful. It gives her a pathway to lasting stability in a city we both cherish, where we daydream about growing old together. But as a San Franciscan, I know she doesn't deserve her home any more than those hundreds of other applicants. The truth is our housing system is rigged. That's because San Francisco leaders downzoned the city in 1978, making apartments illegal in most neighborhoods. Ever since, home values have skyrocketed while renters and working families have been pushed out. For generations, we've protected rising costs by refusing to change our zoning and build more affordable homes. We really see the harmful impact of downzoning in the Haight Ashbury. A Chronicle writer once wrote that she bought her house in 1972 in The Haight, and just four years after the downzoning was passed, it was worth more than 10 times what she paid for it. Before the downzoning, her community in The Haight was 40% black. Today, just 3% remains. That's why the family zoning plan matters. It addresses some of the harm created by the 1978 downzoning and targets one of the greatest barriers to housing equity, exclusionary single family owned zoning. Leaders like Zora Maum Dani, Bernie Sanders, AOC have all called to address the racist impact of exclusionary zoning that covers 40% of our city, and it's time we do too by passing this plan. We need to legalize affordable multifamily apartments, especially in wealthier neighborhoods like mine in Bernal Heights. For over twenty years, we've built less than half of 1% of the affordable housing built by the mission just next door, seven units versus 1,500. That is not progressive. That's an embarrassment. We must fix this broken rigged system. Let's pass this plan and create a future where housing is not a prize for just the luxury

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: of you. Comments.

[Speaker 95.0]: But instead, it's a human right enjoyed by many. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 96.0]: Good evening. I'm Lila Holzman, and I'm speaking in support of the family zoning plan. I have lived in San Francisco for a decade and was lucky enough to become a homeowner a couple of years ago in District 5, after many years renting in North Beach. Unfortunately, it's getting harder and harder for most to do anything similar, especially friends who would like to start families. As a citizen who's worked my whole career in climate change and social impact at a national and global level, I'm also very concerned about my own city's ability to tackle issues like climate change and, of course, homelessness. The fact that we need more homes here should be obvious, and no plan can solve all problems, but this plan is one step you can help take towards us now. I'm worried if we don't support a state level compliant plan, we risk millions in funding for affordable housing and transit that we all know we need. I know many who agree with me who couldn't be here today due to work. I'm only able to be here after recently losing my climate change nonprofit job, another sign of the tough times we're in. Please support this item. Thank you so much for your time.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you. Next speaker.

[Speaker 97.0]: Eileen Bogan with speak. To the mayor and the board of supervisors, we didn't elect you to play the part of victims. You tell us to swallow the poison pill and support the up zoning because the only other option is for the state and Builders Remedy to take take over our planning process. Are you not willing to sue the state or fight back in if Sacramento attempts a hostile takeover of our planning process? If you're willing to challenge a proposed hostile takeover of San Francisco streets by the National Guard, then you should also be able this should also be on the table. To quote a local media article regarding state housing legislation, and I quote, This legislation is not designed to stoke housing production, but rather to maximize the discretion of private developers and state officials while decimating home rule and grassroots democracy. That's what it's really supposed to do, create a housing policy regime that legitimizes and enables authoritarian capitalism, end quote. And is what the city's upzoning plan is also intended to do, legitimize and enable authoritarian capitalism. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 88.0]: Good evening, Bruce Keane. You know, I appreciate this opportunity to, speak on what I think is the most important issue in the forty years I've been here in San Francisco. Couple of observations and suggestions. First of all, the family zoning plan is too severe and broad. San Franciscans have been told the family zoning plan is required to comply with state dictated housing requirements and to avoid the builder's remedy. But this plan exceeds Sacramento's requirements many times over because the plan is so broad and unrefined, many amendments are being contemplated. Unintended consequences will be a reality and the character of our city and its neighborhoods is unnecessarily threatened. Secondly, the family zoning plan will not have the positive pricing impact expected by the public. Members of the public speaking in support have repeatedly voiced the expectation that passing the family zoning plan will make housing more affordable and allow their family members, friends, and work associates to stay in San Francisco. But this plan does not guarantee any affordable units to be built, increases land values by upzoning, and has no impact on the increased building materials and labor costs that have stalled the tens of thousands of units that are already permitted in San Francisco. Planning department is hoping developers will willingly include 10 to 15% affordable units, but developers have chosen in the past to pay fees instead, and there's no reason to believe this will change. This plan may create view condos for tech salary employees, but trickle down housing or developer fees funding city construction of $1,000,000 affordable units will not help teachers, nurses, police, fire, and other critical industries. Please right size the plan for San Francisco, require private developers to include affordable use units in their projects, and adopt all resolutions made necessary by this plan's shortcomings. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 98.0]: Good afternoon or evening, supervisors. Thank you. I'm Jason Wright and I live in District 8 for transparency. I'm a former historic preservation commissioner and work in preservation architecture, but I'm here speaking on my own capacity. I've been in my rent control department for over twenty years located on Church Street above Dolores Park in District 8. Although it's listed as being in a transit corridor on Church Street, it's located where the J Church Muni cuts through the middle of the block, the right of way between 20th And 22nd Streets, and does not pass directly in front of my building. My building sold to a developer a year ago, and it's a two unit building. So I'm really concerned, even scared, of the vulnerability of losing my apartment. Even with some of the proposed amendments already, I think people like me and the others renting in my unit would fall through the cracks. If I lost my apartment, I'm afraid I'd be forced to move out of San Francisco. Separately, I'm also concerned about the historic resources of our city. I'm not anti development, I'm not anti density, and I'm not anti new housing. The work that is being done on the citywide survey by planning staff will inform the best places to achieve density, and could allow more height and density than a prescriptive blanket approach. Finally, demolition of existing buildings does not help San Francisco align with its climate change goals. Readshirt shows that embodied carbon and smart upgrades are imperative to combating climate change. The payoff of the the most sustainable new construction will be after the tipping point. A prescriptive blanket approach jeopardizes both the character of our city and some 20,002 unit rent controlled units, which could mean affecting upwards of 40,000 to 60,000, or even more people, depending on the number of tenants per unit. Please protect the rent controlled units. Thank you so much.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 99.0]: Good evening, and thanks to everyone that is still in the room for hanging out this long. My name's Richard Ivanhoe. I support the amendments proposed by supervisors, Chan and Chen, and I have some questions. It seems like this process is driven by Sacramento. And, question I have is where are our state representatives? Why didn't they resist the builder's remedy or imposing this deadline on us. Planning said there are very few demolitions every year. So why not exclude one and two unit rent controlled buildings from demolition and displacement? Planning also said they don't know how many rent controlled units there are, but doesn't the rent board currently require landlords to report their units. Where are we going to get the funding for the infrastructure for these new units? We need to find a source for that. We need to find a source for affordable housing. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 100.0]: Good evening, supervisors. My name is Zachary Friall. I'm a D Five resident, and I work for SonCan, a member of the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition. We support the amendments being proposed by supervisors Chan and Chen to mitigate the negative impacts of the upzoning plan on tenants, small businesses, and housing affordability. Demolishing rent controlled housing to build new housing doesn't make any sense. Rent controlled housing is the largest stock of affordable housing in SF, so getting rid of it will not only displace residents, but make housing more unaffordable. While we acknowledge the efforts of Chair Melgar to prohibit the demolition of rent controlled buildings with three units or more, it fails to protect thousands of tenants like myself who live in two unit rent controlled buildings. I refuse to be collateral damage in this upzoning plan and urge you to protect all rent controlled buildings from demolition. I actually lost my previous housing a few months ago. And while I was looking for new housing, I applied on Dahlia to live at the new affordable housing development at 730 Stanion. Over 8,600 people applied for just 95 units. If that number doesn't illustrate the need to intentionally build more affordable housing in the city, then I don't know what will. Inclusionary housing requirements have slowly been eroded over the past three years. So unless we restore these requirements and incentivize the production of a 100% affordable housing, we will never reach our affordability goals. I barely make over 30% AMI, so I don't qualify for any of the units currently listed on Dahlia. It doesn't matter if developers make new housing rent controlled. This housing will still be something I cannot afford. If the housing that is built is not affordable, then it will be exclusionary to people like myself. There is no solution to the housing affordability crisis without low income tenants at the table. That is why we support supervisors Chan and Chen's amendments. Our message is loud and clear. No more demolitions. No more exclusionary housing. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you. Next speaker.

[Speaker 101.0]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Theresa Dolalas. I'm a Somcan, and I live in Soma Pilipinas, District 6. We oppose this upzoning because while it's being framed as a path to solving the housing crisis, in reality, it risks accelerating displacement and repeating the same painful history we've already lived through. We've seen this before, Manila Town, where redevelopment erased a thriving Filipino community, leaving behind just one block and a long list of broken promises. Today, we stand here again saying never again. We must protect all rent controlled homes, affordable housing, single family homes, and small businesses in every building from one story and above. Meanwhile, San Francisco is still struggling to maintain what we already have. Thousands of vacant units sit empty. Major developments remain unfinished. Our streets are dirty. Our infrastructure is aging, and drug markets remain unchecked. And yet the city talks about building more, but where will the displaced go? Who will help them rebuild their lives? And most importantly, who do you serve? Because it's clear, this proposal serves speculators, not communities. This upzoning talks about building, but what about what gets destroyed? What about our families, our small businesses, our cultural landmarks, our sense of home? We ask real concrete written protections for tenants and small businesses in all buildings from one story and above, true transparency and and accountability about what affordable affordability really means. Action on vacancies and investment in infrastructure and safety before adding new density. San Francisco must not build over its people. It must build with them. We value our past, present, and

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: future. Comments.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you. Next speaker.

[Speaker 102.0]: Good evening, supervisors. My name is Miranda Ehrlich. I live in District 3. I'm a renter. I live in a rent controlled unit. I also work at a climate nonprofit, and I'm here to speak strongly in support of the family zoning plan. As a woman in my early thirties, a lot of my kids or a lot of my friends rather are thinking having that conversation about starting their families, thinking about having kids. This is coming up in most of my day to day conversations. And the thing I hear over and over from my friends is that they can't afford to start a family in this city. Rents are going up again. I also have friends who are simply just looking to to move, and change units. And even if people were lucky enough to score a rent control unit earlier on, if that no longer meets their needs, You know, if they need more bedrooms, they're they're kinda out of luck. I empathize a lot with some of the concerns folks have raised here. I think I share a lot of the values that many folks in this room on either side of the issue have. And I believe rent control is an important tool to prevent displacement, but it is not sufficient to address the affordability crisis that our city faces. We need more supply of housing fundamentally, or we are simply playing a game of musical chairs on an increasingly expensive set of chairs. And if this was gonna be enough to solve the crisis, then why have we not seen progress on it already? We need more supply, plain and simple. As a resident of District 3, I also wanna speak specifically to some of the changes proposed for District 3. I strongly support the upzoning of Fisherman's Wharf. I have been I go in that walk in that neighborhood frequently. I think right now, there's, a lot of things are dilapidated. It's actually not a place a lot of tourists really enjoy going. I think an infusion of new housing, and businesses in that area would be fantastic. And so I just really ask supervisors to pass a plan that works. We need more housing, and we need it very soon. Thank you very much.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you. Next speaker.

[Speaker 103.0]: Hello. My name is Nina Block. I've lived in San Francisco for fifty seven years, and I have vivid memories of the Loma Prieta earthquake. I want to say that since the earthquake water infrastructure has not been updated for Districts 1 And 4, that no, no plan should be approved for those districts until it's actually updated. I mean, not not plans to update, but the actual physical infrastructure should be updated. They can just up zone the other neighborhoods first. And honestly, I think that should go for all infrastructure, you know, including transportation, water, electricity, everything that before any project is approved, it should be guaranteed that, you know, the city can support it in that location. But especially, okay, Districts 1 And 4, they don't have, a proper earthquake water supply, and that needs to be fixed. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 104.0]: Good evening now, speakers. My name is Philip Raffel. I am a resident of District 8, Noe Valley. I'm declaring my support of the family zoning plan, an estimated 36,000 that the city desperately needs, and with the plan to put behind the community policies that have failed this city for decades. I have grown up in the Bay Area the majority of my life. I grew up in Marin County. And I have seen them be policies, like, take away opportunities for me. I had to live with my parents for a good chunk of my life. The first time I could rent on my own, I had to go to another continent. When I got my when I got my dog, Ziba, who's since passed, like, right here, like, I don't this housing shortage, I was at the mercy of people who wouldn't rent because I had a rottweiler. It took a pandemic, the fact that, like, my family didn't lose their their money in the pandemic like others fortunately did, that I could have support to buy a house that had a backyard. And I finally fulfilled my dream of moving to San Francisco and living here. I should not be the example. This family zoning plan is needed. It must be passed. And furthermore, any amendment that hinders or delays the development of of building shouldn't be defeated. It will not serve us to keep our city as a museum and or a country club with only people with money and tenure being allowed to live here. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 105.0]: Good evening, supervisors. I am a resident of District 5. In a recent special election in his D 4 District, the supervisor was recalled by a landslide. The mayor remained numb. On election night with a clear blowout, the mayor issued the statement, as I campaigned last year, I heard countless families say what San Franciscans have been feeling for years, that their government is doing things to them, not with them, and that government is not working to make their lives better. These potent words apply to this behemoth upzoning plan, as evidenced by the hundreds of folks who are here today. With 82,000 as your magic number, why not instead focus on the over 72,000 green lit and permitted units that are currently in the housing pipeline and unbuilt. Combined with the 40 to 60,000 existing vacant units, 10% of current housing stock found in the city analyst's recent audit. That's between a 111,000 and a 130,000 units of housing at your fingertips. The plan's name is inaccurate and insulting. Unless amended, as currently written, 75 percent of constructed units can be micro studios and one bedrooms. That's market driven decision making, not needs based planning. We desperately need real family housing for both new and growing young families, and for multi generational aging families. Why doesn't this plan include a hard ban on the demolition of any rent controlled units? Why not protect each and every single existing precious rent controlled unit? Why doesn't the current plan require that developers using the huge density bonus granted them to cover new public transit costs that will be required by this planned dense population. They shouldn't be able to they should pay for the public transit. Thank you very much. Please support supervisor Chen and

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Chan. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 106.0]: Good evening. My name is Tab Buckner. And I am, I've been in San Francisco for nearly forty two years. Forty of them, in the Haight Ashbury, and, which is, of course, on the target for upzoning. I strongly support a ban on demolition of rent control units regardless of their quantity resulting in displacement. I also advocate for protection of community serving businesses, including nonprofits, health related, and legacy businesses. Let's face the facts. This upzoning plan, the way it is right now, is a complete mirage as private developers have no interest in creating affordable housing. This board, however, has the opportunity to help spearhead bond measures to hire nonprofits to oversee construction of truly affordable housing to fulfill state requirements, utilize the potential of public space, and provide what so many San Franciscans desperately need. While the shutting while shutting the door on n b meanwhile, shutting the door on any amendment is tone deaf and reckless. Please support supervisors Chan and Chen's amendments and foster community member input, honor the scale character and historical relevance of our neighborhoods, and push for bond measures to deliver the resources to ensure what is actually affordable housing along with adequate muni service and infrastructure needs. And, yes, as mentioned by the previous speaker, there was a recent, recall. Let's try to avoid future recalls by truly listening to our our constituents

[Speaker 55.0]: and, fulfilling their needs. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 107.0]: My name is Kat Bell. I've been, in San Francisco since 1979. I actually came here as a 17 year old. At that time, I was fortunate that I could share a room with somebody else and a bunch of people in a flat. But I can't imagine coming here now and, manage to do what I did, traumatized young person. I was able to find community here. I was able to get my part time job, go to city college, go to SSA state, and ultimately become a special education teacher for twenty years. I'm retired now, and I dedicate much of my time to serving our community and, supporting democracy. We're already, we need to have a strong community here. We all know you need to be able to stay here, afford to stay here and stand up for our country and our city as we are being threatened. We're being attacked. We're being threatened right now by the White House. So I also am concerned that now I'm like, well, what is, I mean, what is the state doing now? We're all like being threatened. Like, oh, you better go along with this because otherwise, so perhaps we need to revisit that and look at what's going on with the dynamics with our, state government, that we're being faced with this ultimatum. I think there's things we could do, to explore that. Also save rent control, all rent controlled units, and our small businesses, we need more affordable housing, and let's use that, Prop I money to actually build that housing. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 108.0]: Hi. My name is Charlene Ntoli. I live in District 6, and I'm here to offer my strong support for the family zoning plant. I also wanted to thank the entire planning department. I can tell from, you know, being battered with questions earlier, you guys clearly know your stuff and have done a ton ton of work. I also wanted to urge the board to be very, very careful, and not add any amendments that might wire down this plan's ability to help people or, worse, risk decertification. So firstly, my husband and I really dream of raising a family here, but it is just very, very expensive to even just rent an apartment for ourselves, let alone multiple kids. And so I think that this is really, really important for us as a way to potentially add affordability. Number one, for all families, but as prospective queer parents, it also means the world that a place that is a queer sanctuary is doing this at a time when I think red states do not feel safe for us. Because of that, I really, really support and appreciate the amendment from Cheryl and Sauter, to add incentives for more larger units as well. I was also reflecting on a comment earlier from the carpenters union about how their members are struggling with affordability, and that concerned me a lot. Not just for the sake of the carpenters, but because we desperately need people with the skills to build housing. And if those people are getting squeezed, we are all in trouble. Lastly, I think a lot about what this means for our democracy. I think I'm very, very happy that the state is working on prop 50, but we can't ignore the fact that California is forecast to lose three congressional seats to red states because they are building housing and we are not. San Francisco is currently part of the problem, but I think we can be part of the solution there with family zoning. So lastly, I wanted to thank the board and the planning department and urge my strong support. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 42.0]: Madam chair, members of the committee, again Fujioka. I'm here speaking on behalf of the San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition. I'm also staff at Chinatown Community Development Center. And I was listening to the testimony of folks here today. It's some ways it feels very polarizing, but yet I from the amendments I heard today and the responses by planning, staff, it sounds like with these amendments, we can accomplish a lot of the goals that everyone in this room share. That is we can protect rent control housing. We can increase production in in in the city. We can accomplish we can with amendments that we've heard about historic preservation that we all appreciate, we need to strengthen tenant protections. That's coming forward in the future. Deadlines to build and on approved projects, what a great idea. Let's build faster, and let's build those units that that we we need. So it seems to me with amendments that we have here and I can't actually, I should say, we're take I need to take these amendments back to our coalition and and and, you know, for us to take a position, but it sounds like there's with these amendments, it we may be ending up with a a set of policies that we could generally support, and perhaps all of us in this room can support. I think that there's more work that needs to be done. A a coalition particularly concerned about the the discussion around demolition controls. Although demolitions have been low historically, the the the legislation that's before us, particularly in the tenant protection ordinance, it it it it deregulates the demolitions of housing in ways that we're very concerned about. We hope we can we can address those issues in the future conversations. We appreciate, supervisor Chen's work on the TPL. We continue to hope to work with the supervisor on that legislation. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 109.0]: Hello. My name is Tuesday Rose Thornton. I'm a District 9 tenant and also an eviction defense lawyer. And I should support this plan because my business will be booming, but I do not. In the nineteen sixties and seventies, San Francisco underwent urban renewal and completely decimated the Fillmore District, the Harlem Of the West. Residents were promised affordable housing, thriving neighborhoods, and the right to return. Does that sound familiar? 50 out, we know that those promises were hollow and the plan did nothing more than displace black and low income communities. If the board does not remove rent controlled buildings from this family zoning plan, a plan that centers transit corridors where working class people live, we will see devastating long term displacement of the working class. You will essentially be subsidizing developers to carry out a new urban renewal plan. The Fillmore's urban renewal is a shameful scar on our city's history. The purpose of coming up with our own plan and avoiding the builder's remedy is so that we can take this history, like what happened in the Fillmore's urban renewal, into account and not repeat our mistakes. Exempt rent controlled buildings protect the working class. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 84.0]: Thank you, supervisors. My name is Robert Ho. I sit on the board of Ingleside Terraces Home Association. Both my wife and I came from poor immigrant families. Single family neighborhoods have given hardworking immigrant families the opportunity to realize the American dream, and our society as a whole has benefited. I feel this rezoning plan needs to be significantly amended. First, it encourages a demolition and replacement of single family homes that have existed for generations in the West and North Side residential neighborhoods of the city. They will be replaced if they are they were replaced by density controlled buildings that are minimum 65 feet high, if they are located in corner lots or on small lots that are merged into larger 8,000 square foot lots. Clearly, this affects every single family home in our residential neighborhoods. Many of our single family neighborhoods are over 100 years old, and some have already been designated by the city as category A eligible historical resources. However, this rezoning plan will do nothing to protect category A eligible historic neighborhoods from mass demolition. The city has said that this rezoning plan will create housing capacity for the next fifty years. I find this completely unnecessary because San Francisco is only required to have a plan to meet the 36,000 housing gap by year '30 2031. I urge the city to take a phased measure approach. As much as I dislike to overstate a state mandate, a phased measured approach is already provided by the RHNA process that will reassess housing needs every eight years. As is, this rezoning plan creates excessive capacity and does not include any mechanism for review and reassessment. Supervisor, I I ask you to amend this rezoning plan to take out minimum 65 foot heights Thank

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: you for your comments.

[Speaker 84.0]: For all residential corner lots and combined 2,000 square foot lots.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 84.0]: And I also ask you to exempt all category a eligible or historic neighborhoods from this site.

[Speaker 3.0]: Thank

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: you for your comments.

[Speaker 35.0]: Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 110.0]: Good evening. Thank you so much for taking the time to hear our comments. My name is Kate Fochel. I'm a member of d nine, Neighbors for Housing. I'm a thirty two year resident of the East Side Of San Francisco. I'm going to try to be short and sweet. First of all, I wanna answer a question that a young lady asked about five years ago in this hearing, which is how did we get here? And we got here because in 1978, the board of supervisors sat here just like you are now, and removed the capacity to build 180,000 units in this city with dire consequences. I live in the Mission. I the East Side of the city has paid the costs of this down zoning disproportionately to the rest of the city. We have had the most accelerated rents, the most displacement, and we are home to the largest homeless population in the city. It doesn't have to be like this. We can all work together to make a better city for everyone. I fully support this family zoning plan. I think the rent control amendments are fantastic. I urge you to pass this without adding anything that kicks it back into the process, so that we can start making San Francisco a city where our children can live, our grandchildren can live, where people who want to, who need San Francisco, and need that way a place to thrive, whether they are, having, you know, under a pre repression in domestically or abroad, we can make room for everyone, and keep San Francisco great. Thank you very much.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 30.0]: Good evening. My name is Meg Rudy, and I'm here from d nine Neighbors for Housing to voice my support for the family zoning plan. When I landed a job at a nonprofit here, my now husband was thrilled. His great grandmother had grown up on a farm in the sunset, and he spent his childhood visiting family in the Mission. So when we moved here from North Carolina, it felt like coming home, not just for him, but for the both of us. Our next door neighbor who grew up in the house he now owns rooted us from day one, inviting us to music jams at Presedo Park and still gets a thrill out of us discovering the magic that is this city. His joy at us staying here reinforces what San Francisco can be, a place where longtime residents and new neighbors share community. But as we look ahead, staying here is getting harder. Like many others who spoke today, buying a house is far out of our reach. San Francisco zoning rules have shaped and continued a legacy of exclusion. I'm here because it's time to change that status quo. The family zoning plan is a small but meaningful step towards opening up more housing in more neighborhoods and ensuring that all San Franciscans, regardless of their race or income, can access and contribute to good schools, music in the park, and community. Please pass the family zoning plan, and I encourage you to consider including Bernal. We are welcoming neighborhood, resourced, connected, and we want to be a neighborhood in a city that welcomes, includes, and grows. Thank you, planning committee and supervisors, for all the work you've done to get us here.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 111.0]: Good evening, supervisors. My name is Mike Chen. I'm a renter in District 2. I live near the Kaiser at Kirigan De Visidero, near a place that's gonna be upzoned, and I support it, and I support this plan. And any changes, should be net neutral positive, for adding homes. So I moved here three times in San Francisco in the eleven years that I've been here. And every time well, moving is generally awful. Moving in San Francisco, I think, is especially awful because it's so expensive. And, you know, my first time moving here, it was, like, 40 people in a room trying to apply for the same place. They were offering tons of money. It was it's it's pretty awful. And it's still happening. And I'm really tired and tired of seeing my friends leaving the city because it is too expensive. They don't see a future here. And the bottom line is that there's not enough housing to go around. We can do better. And this affects folks, not just newcomers, but also people who have been in the city. It's young adults striking out on their own. It's families planning for more children. It's middle class workers hoping to take essential jobs in the city, Empty nesters who want to downsize. And unfortunately, folks who might lose their home because of fire. Or they have a divorce and they need a new place. And we need to have places for all those folks. I hear a lot of comments about folks saying, oh, yeah, you know, we don't have the capacity or we don't have the infrastructure. And I want to push back on that. Because, you know, if we want to be pro immigrant, we need to be pro newcomer. And we need to say that newcomers, including immigrants, give back to the city more than they take. Because we are greater than the sum of our individual parts. Not just in culture, but in economic activity and in tax revenue. And we know that and we can grab and more folks here are able to be able to be able we can fund bring more folks and also be able to fund the infrastructure, the transit, the housing, all the services that our city needs and deserves. Please pass the plan. Help people who move, change, and grow, and and help the city move, change, and grow. Thank you.

[Clerk’s Office Staff (public comment facilitation)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 112.0]: Oh, your phone. I think this is your phone.

[Speaker 48.0]: I don't want you to forget it. Thank you.

[Speaker 112.0]: My name is Patrice Thompson, and I'm a public school teacher. I've been in d one district one for fifty years, and I've worked about thirty five years of the time I've been a teacher in the public schools. And I recently had, I think it was last semester, a girl come up to me and tell me that she had to move suddenly. Her whole family had to move in a week. I think they may have stopped in a hotel for a few days and then they moved into somewhere else. And it was so, you know, she was displaced. And I think we're gonna get a lot more of that just so that people developers can make money on this thing. If people live in homes that are presently living there, our our students are mostly low income, and they're living in homes that they probably rent. They have to get out, and then they have to rent something else. And when they come back, they're not gonna be able to afford what they have. Recently, I heard about some students. I I was there at the school in 2000 as well, and some people in I think it was the Fillmore were offered families were offered $10,000 a piece to get out of their leases so the developers could make something. And the students found out by accident in the gym that all of them were living in cars. That's what I foresee if we do not take care of our our people that are already here, that are already underserved, and we don't wanna leave them in the dust. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 113.0]: Good evening, supervisors. Supervisor Malgar, thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Mike Casey. I'm president of San Francisco Labor Council. The Labor Council cannot support this absent amendment. We have three main goals and objectives in our, hope. Number one is to address the question of, rent control. Thank you, supervisor Melgar, for going a long distance there. However, what we would like to see is a 100% protection of, all rent controlled units. Many of our members, working people, survive in San Francisco as a result of those rent control units. And there is an absolute nexus between increasing homelessness, people people being put out on the streets, and the elimination or demolition of any rent control units. We've seen that over the years, over the decades. Let's not make that problem worse. Number two, we haven't heard a lot today about the jobs, but the jobs are critical. Increasingly, as a result of deregulation and the erosion of labor standards in Sacramento, some of which by our super by our representatives, increasingly, the jobs that go into construction are not jobs where workers have family medical benefits, pensions, fair wages. They're increasingly low wage jobs. We need to fast track those jobs, those projects that will actually create good jobs. Number three, we believe strongly that all housing or all development on public property should be a 100% affordable. We need to focus more, like so many other world class cities, on building and developing social housing. We appreciate the time. Supervisor Chan, supervisor Chan, we appreciate your amendments. We're with you.

[Speaker 114.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Lala Wu, and I'm with District nine Neighbors for Housing, like many of the other d nine commenters here. I also appreciate the many opportunities that we have had to engage with this thoughtful plan. So thank you so much to the supervisors, and the department, and the mayor, and the rest. I lived in San Francisco for thirteen years, and my husband and I love having the opportunity to raise our four year old in Bernal Heights, where we plan to stay. I'm also the daughter of immigrants who arrived in Seattle with little more than the clothes on their back. My mom eventually got a steady job at the county where she worked her whole career, and my dad started a small construction business, something he never would have been able to do without access to stable housing in the city, customers, and workers who could afford to live nearby. When I was born, my parents and I shared a tiny one bedroom apartment with my aunt until they saved enough for a modest rambler on the outskirts of Seattle. I want people like my parents, people who come here who want to work hard and to build their dreams, to have that same chance in San Francisco. To do that, we need to build more housing. We have to make it more affordable, and we need to welcome more neighbors. I love this city deeply, and I wanna share it with more people. We have a choice to make room again for more families, for renters, for working people, for immigrants, for dreams. This plan is not a panacea, but it is a necessary step. Please pass the family zoning plan and keep going to rezone Bernal Heights. Thanks.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 115.0]: Good evening, supervisors. Thank you very much for your patience and, expedience in getting this, plan passed. Thank you to the planning department for their years of hard work on it. My name is Will Jackson. I'm a resident here with Grow the Richmond and SFEMB to support the housing plan. I am not a native San Franciscan. I moved here for work, have managed to stay for a decade now. My wife and I started a life here, made friends, built careers, found community. We're lucky to be able to do this. It's much harder now for folks leaving school, even those who have access to high paying local jobs, but especially for those who don't. But as we in our community, look at the next phase of our lives, things get much dicier. Kids would likely take us away from the city as they have for so many of our friends. The family zoning plan will make it easier for folks and their support networks to stay, keeping communities of young and not quite young people intact. Due to prop 13, new housing also means new property tax revenue paid at the actual value of the property. These taxes will help pay for our public schools, which for years have struggled to balance their budget on anemic property tax revenue. The research is clear. Cities that don't get in the way of building new housing see rent prices stabilize and drop even as their population grows. Affordable housing requires sufficient density to build. If you want to see more affordable housing in the city, you need this plan. If you wish to see the city be a sanctuary, you need to make space for others. If you care about your community, know that communities thrive when they grow. If you love our history, remember that the story continues as people respond to the needs of their world. Thank you very much.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 116.0]: Good evening, supervisors. My name is Divya Singh. I'm also with Grow The Richmond, and I live in D One. Just wanted to share a brief anecdote of a close friend of mine. She works in homeless services here in the city, and she shared that her colleagues face some serious housing challenges. They have to commute from Hayward or further, or if they're in the city, they face high housing costs that force them to live paycheck to paycheck, and a few are even at risk of becoming homeless themselves. It's extremely unfortunate that people who provide critical social infrastructure to our city suffer some of the worst impacts of the city's neglect. We need to do right by our neighbors. The anecdote that I just gave illustrates that whatever we're currently doing is not effective enough. Our housing emergency is dire and we should be taking big steps to build as much as possible as quickly as possible so that more housing becomes affordable for many more people. The family zoning plan is a great tool in this regard, and we should be deliberate to adopt this plan without amendments that dilute its effectiveness. On the flip side, I've spoken with bar and restaurant owners in the Richmond who are excited by the increased foot traffic that density can bring, as they'd be able to significantly recover after struggling since the pandemic. We consider these establishments to be core to the fabric of our city, and, we should help them thrive. As our governor recently said upon signing s b 79, the cost of in of inaction is simply too high. So thank you, and happy Diwali.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. To the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 117.0]: Good evening, supervisors. My name is Jatin. I'm a resident of D Six, and I'm here in support of the family zoning plan. Like a lot of others, I moved to the city for a job almost a decade ago now. Over the years, I've fallen in love with the city and realized I wanna build my future in this city. Now as I get closer to starting my own family, I'm facing a harsh reality. There are simply not enough housing options in this city. Right now, many parts of San Francisco are zoned for low density single family homes, which prices out anyone who can afford the high price of one. The family zoning plan allowed duplexes, triplexes, and small apartment buildings in these neighborhoods. This is not radical. This is simply common sense in a time when we're facing an unprecedented housing crisis. This plan also smartly focuses, increases capacity along our transit corridors, which is exactly what we need as Muni faces a financial crisis and desperately needs more riders to support our public transportation system. I strongly urge the land use committee to reject any amendments that would reduce the housing capacity created by this plan and to pass the family zoning plan. Thank you.

[Speaker 85.0]: Thank you

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 118.0]: Hi, everyone. I'm Sarah Rogers with District nine Neighbors for Housing. We're here in strong support of the family zoning plan. I have a few ideas that I don't think are very radical, but they're worth stating clearly. You could call it my one minute manifesto. People who work here should be able to live here. People who like where they live should be able to stay. People who want to move but stay in their community should be able to do so. As existing residents, we don't get to personally approve each new resident, and that's good. Homestyles that are beloved today were criticized, sometimes broadly, when they were new. Architectural talent still exists, and excessive historic districting prevents us from getting to enjoy the landmarks of tomorrow. Not building anywhere near enough housing is about to make us lose a lot of electoral votes and political power to Texas and Florida, and the results will be devastating. We need more housing, lots of it, for a diverse and vibrant community to live here and thrive. San Francisco offers strong tenant protections, made even stronger by supervisor Melgar's recent amendments. The city should not be viewed as just an amenity for the affluent. City cities are great because they are living organisms capable of change, while retaining an essential nature. The family zoning plan is a step in the right direction toward restoring the key elements of the San Francisco essence, the welcome, the creativity, the community spirit. I wish the plan were bolder and went bigger, but it's a good first step, and I urge you to support it. Thank you for your time.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 119.0]: Good evening, supervisors. I live on Union Street.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Please pull that microphone down. Okay. There you go.

[Speaker 119.0]: Is that okay now? Yeah. I live on Union Street between Van Ness and Polk. It's an upward sloping street filled with two to three bedroom, non vacant, affordable flats, some condo, some some rental. 40% of those flats, for no apparent reason, it's not the transit corridor or the corner, are now up zoned to go from 40 to a 140 feet, 14 stories, at least, on Union on Union, and the parallel streets, such as Green, Vallejo. They are going up to Broadway, or 250 feet on their zoning. There's They're all filled. There's no particular reason for that. It's what supervisor Chan was saying. It would only cause disruption. And it makes no sense. It's not a transit corridor. Now, turning to the transit corridor, of course, I am right at Van Ness, and I don't think I have to have this made bigger in order to see that we all know Van Ness was dramatically impacted in a different way than what they were talking about. Everybody was talking about family family housing, six units, maybe seven, nine, when it came to the areas closer to the hub. And that's not what's happening here. It's a minimum of a 114 feet, and it will be higher, they always are, to, I don't know, going all over the place. And that's extreme. What's odd is no affordability. And guess what? SB 79 describes the more moderate plan. Why are we more extreme without looking at it carefully? My final question is about the Cortese list. A couple years ago, the supervisors promised that we would never again have very toxic land approved for building on Union Street on Van Ness.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Time is concluded. Thank you for sharing

[Speaker 119.0]: hearing. Committee. And I hope you'll keep that promise.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 119.0]: Thank you.

[Speaker 120.0]: Good evening, supervisors. Hi. My name is Bob Ecosfandiari. A couple of quick logistical things. I'm here in my personal capacity. I volunteer my spare time with my neighbors, Grow the Richmond, as well as my friends in SFGMB, And I support the family zoning plan. I support the amendments that supervisor Melgar, Cheryl, and Sauter are offering today and are working on and tinkering with. And I am opposed personally to any proposed amendments that would demonstrably water down this proposal to liberate our zoning codes and make it legal to build apartments in a vast swath of the city again. A quick personal story about the building that I moved into and call home out at Ocean Beach over a decade ago. Playland At The Beach was an amusement park that some of you may remember, some of you, like me were born after it was torn down. In 1972, it was sold, and, people's tastes around entertainment changed. They shifted away, you know, video games were starting to become a thing and there was also more crime there and there were like, things change. Right? And so it was sold and, the complex where I live, was built a decade later in 1983. But not before, people, including some people today who still are here and testifying today against the family zoning plan, had come out to try and appeal the building where I currently live today. And what they succeeded in doing is getting the senior housing and the affordable housing removed, but everything else got built and approved. And and I find that to be a shame. I think that if we allow homes to be built, it allows for the next generation of San Franciscans to be able to tell their story, to live here, to thrive. Countless people that I have been able to enjoy getting to know and get to walk Golden Gate Park with and get to enjoy the beach with, they are able to build their families, build their lives here, build the tapestries of who they are because we were able to build the homes where I live, the homes up the block between Balboa and Fulton on La Playa. We need to do that for the next generation. I need you to have the courage to do that, and I'm urging you to support the family zoning plan. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 17.0]: Good evening. My name is Brandon Powell. I am with District nine Neighbors for Housing. I'm unabashed booster of San Francisco. I think this is the greatest place in the world. I haven't been to all the places in the world. So, you know, imperfect, dataset. However, I think everyone here would mostly agree with me that this is just a wonderful place to be. And I have, you know, one problem with San Francisco is that people that I love, like my little sisters, one of whom is an early childhood educator, the other of whom raises money for an education fund, could never afford to live here. They can live in Saint Louis and Denver. My sister, one of them, unfortunately, you know, her marriage came to an end. She was even able to find another apartment within walking distance of where she had lived with her husband so that they could share custody of their child. And neither of them is broke paying for their housing. They they can afford to have decent lives in Saint Louis and in Denver that they could never afford to have here. And I think it's a damn shame. It's re it's embarrassing, really. San Francisco needs to do much better. We need to build housing. I encourage all of you to support the family zoning plan. Thank you to supervisor Melgar for a very thoughtful amendment, which addressed, you know, I think a very reasonable concern about render protections. It's good enough. Let's get going, or do some more. I'd I'd go for that too. But, include Bernal Heights next time around. We'll appreciate it. Love you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 121.0]: Hi. My name is Caleb Polster. I'm a Stanford student, and I'm a California native. I've loved San Francisco my whole life. For decades, San Francisco has been known globally as a place where creativity, innovation, and diversity come together to make one of the most beautiful, inspiring, and ever changing cities in the world. Great leaders come from diverse backgrounds, divining their greatest ideas from the uniqueness of their experiences and values. In a city like San Francisco, innovators are welcome. But since the Silicon Valley boom, and more recently a global pandemic, San Francisco has become infamous for its cost of living. For me, to live in San Francisco is a dream, but unless I stumble upon a great source of wealth or am born into it, having a home here, a place to call my own, is almost an impossible reality. When a city becomes this expensive, thousands are turned away. It is only by prioritizing affordability that San Francisco can open its arms once again to the dreamers all across the world that so desperately need access to a vibrant, inclusive, and opportunistic community like the one here in the great state of California. San Francisco can lead California forward by making the city livable again, taking the first steps towards welcoming in students, educators, families, and dreamers to promote creativity and innovation in a city like no other. San Francisco is in the midst of a broader transitional period in American history. As it becomes caught in the crossfire of criticism and skepticism nationally, the time has come to assert your place as a strong, resilient community and become an example to American cities across the country. Support the zoning policy and show your state and your country that you are a city that cares about regular, hardworking people looking for a place to realize their dreams. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 122.0]: Hi, everyone. My name is Juliana. I'm a third generation San Franciscan. I'm a volunteer leader with GrowTheRichmond. I'm a public policy student, and I've lived in San Francisco primarily as a rent control tenant. I also grew up mostly in the Richmond District, and I'm really excited about my neighborhood being more accessible for me and other people my age. I'm gonna tell a quick story here. When my grandparents moved to the city in the late nineteen fifties, not knowing a single word of English or having a high school education, they only needed to work for three years before being able to buy a home in the Sunset District. Their house back then cost $20,000. Why was it so cheap? Because it was built in an era of mass housing development. We were creating homes that allowed a working class immigrant family to live in stability and thrive. I had lunch with my cousins and my aunts and uncles in that very house yesterday and can only think about how fundamentally that is the American dream. But as I consider my own future, I don't know when I will be able to own a home in San Francisco. I don't know when whether I'll be able to give my children the privilege of being fourth generation San Franciscans. The character of the city comes from its people, not its buildings. When you don't allow families to grow here, you break apart communities. More housing allows us to maintain our character, and pretending otherwise is simply not grounded in reality. I strongly urge you to vote in favor of the plan at Bernal Heights, and not add any amendments that will restrict the housing production. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 123.0]: Hi. My name is Mark, and I am in support of the family zoning plan. I have lived in SF for fourteen years, and have seen many friends who absolutely love this place have to move away because they cannot afford to live here. This is quite a contradiction for a city that prides itself on being inclusive. We must stop prioritizing the value of historical property and neighborhood character over the value of access to opportunity. By suppressing housing supply as we have done for decades, we have suppressed our collective prosperity as communities and as a city. It's long past time to build much more desperately needed housing. It's time to begin digging ourselves out of this deep housing hole we're in, and advancing the family zoning plan is a critical start.

[Speaker 111.0]: Thank you so much.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 124.0]: Hi. First of all, thank you so far as just for being here and for listening to all these voices. I'm Nicholas. I'm a resident of DuBose Triangle District 8. I'd like to speak in support of this family zoning plan. In summary, the reason I'm here is that everyone knows the city is too expensive, and I think any true long term solution is going to involve building more housing, and this makes that possible. It's obviously only part of a solution and won't solve the crisis alone, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. While we go around debating how to best address the crisis, no housing's getting built. So this is doing something, at least. The main thing I'd like to emphasize though is the voices in this meeting are not all you should consider. I was only I was only able to be here because this went very long. And so I was able to stop by after work, but not all my friends could find the time and energy to come as well. Despite the significant effect that the housing prices has on all of us. So while you can listen to the voices in this meeting, please know we represent only a small portion of San Francisco. Please also give weight to the written comments and other ways people have provided their feedback. Thank you so much.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 125.0]: Oh my god. Hi. My name is Mikey. I'm a D Eight resident. I'm a member of SFUMB, and thank you for your time. Sorry. I'm also legally blind, so I gotta hold my phone close. I have two stories to tell. One in one one for my own. One is of someone who doesn't yet live here and can't tell his story. I've lived in SF for over fifteen years. The cash rose is my home. I used to work at a sandwich shop called Ike's. It was at 16th And Sanchez. That's where I learned that's where I fell in love with the city. And that's where I fell in love with the cash flow. The cash flow is my home. It's my family. A couple years back after I had moved into the cashier, I had lost my job. I lost my apartment because my partner moved out and I couldn't afford it anymore. And for the first time in my life, I found myself homeless. See, like people talk about, oh, we need to build affordable housing. We need to continue rent control. They're only affordable. They're you can only afford it if you get locked in to the affordable pricing. It goes up with market rate. So the other story I'm going to say, I was at trivia the other night, and I was playing solo, and someone walked up to me and asked if they could join. Turns out the trivia was bad, but we were good. And we ended up winning that night. He told me his story. He wants to move here from San Antonio. He recently came out to himself as queer, and he doesn't want to be in Texas anymore, so he's been saving up money, and he really wants to get away from that. So I extended my resources to him. I introduced him to my friends. I found my family here. I want him to be able to find his family here as well, and I really urge you to pass this family zoning opinion. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 126.0]: Good evening, committee members. My name is Lucas Wang, and I am from District 6. Thank you to supervisors Chan and supervisor Sauters for coming out tonight, and thank you to the planning members and the city staff who put together this zoning plan. I am here to put in all of my support for this plan as well as any amendments that keeps this number of units or increases the number of units that we're building in the city. I moved here four years ago, and I spent this past year thinking about how I'm going to spend my next four years, next ten years, really the rest of my life in San Francisco, and the number one thing that came to my mind is housing affordability. How will I continue to afford to live in this city, to start a family in this city, and where will that be? And I think this zoning plan makes a big difference in providing clarity for my ability to afford in this to live in this city and continue living here for the decades to come. So that is why I support the zoning plan, especially where we're increasing housing around our transit lines on the Western part of the city. I don't own a car, and it's encouraging for me to see that we're adding adding more dense housing around these areas. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 127.0]: Supervisors, John Crabtree, resident District 4, the sunset. There are many issues that you must not ignore today. I mean, so so many issues you've heard. But just to add one more, please. For me, general plan changes to the Western Shoreline plan and creation of a new local coastal program and the family zoning plan must be challenged. It simply cannot be denied that the family zoning plan intent is to bring up zoning into the coastal zone, to encourage development in the coastal zone, to set a precedent for up zoning in the coastal zone, and to create opportunities for further development and increased up zoning in the coastal zone in the future. The California Coastal Act states that the coast is, quote, a distinct and valuable resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people. And that it must be preserved for future generations. Coastal Commission approval requirements for some of the specific provisions that you have in front of you on your agenda today, the the approval requirements provide a clear pathway for this committee and for the entire board of supervisors to support the coastal zone, to defend the western shoreline, and to preserve and protect arguably the greatest natural resource we have here in San Francisco, the coast. I urge you all to oppose all provisions embedded in the family zoning plan that extend up zoning into this into the coastal zone or the western shoreline plan. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 128.0]: Lisa Arjes. I'm a resident of District 4 Of The Sunset, or as a previous speaker remarked, I live in one of the homes that make up the monotonous rows of houses on the West Side. I come today to give comment in opposition to Mayor Lurie's family zoning plan. However, I do support the amendments put forward by, Supervisor Chan and Supervisor Melgar. I want to talk a little bit about infrastructure, and encourage the infrastructure before densification. San Francisco is the most densely populated city in California, the second most densely populated city in the country, second only to New York City. We're very vulnerable in terms of fire following an earthquake. Currently, the western part of the city, West Of 12th Avenue in the Richmond, West Of 19th in the sunset, and also, the Bayview Hunters Point is also unprotected by the auxiliary water supply system. There have been three bond measures, 2010, 2014, and 2020, two civil grand juries. Both recommended that the AWSS be extended. And in 2019 they said do it urgently. They added to do it urgently. Currently we're still, nothing has been done to put in the auxiliary water supply system, and so we're still largely unprotected. The other one is sewage treatment. We're at our capacity for sewage treatment. I encourage you to think about infrastructure before before taking on and being held to state mandated programs. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 129.0]: Hello, supervisors. Thank you for staying late to hear our comments. I'm Tyler, a District 8 renter, and I'm commenting in support of the family zoning plan. Please

[Speaker 84.0]: pass

[Speaker 129.0]: a clean zoning plan without incorporating any amendments that water down or convolute the plan further. I'm a local architect working on all scales of housing, primarily affordable housing through projects administered by the mayor's office of housing and OCII. If you hadn't heard, I can tell you firsthand that the bond funds for these projects has dried up. While I support a more sustainable long term funding source for a 100% affordable housing, we need we need to acknowledge that what we have now is one time funding. It's finite and it's running out. Folks say how unrealistic it is to build our RHNA allocated affordable housing, and I agree. In our current funding reality, the vast majority of these BMR units will be built by private developers as part of market rate housing. The only the only realistic plan to get ARENA goals is to lean into this reality and go bigger, bolder, and understand that there is no state penalty for building more market rate housing than we need. Let's also acknowledge that nearly every building in SF, including nearly every home of every person that spoke here today, was built as market rate housing. Yes. Some of that housing is now naturally affordable because it's old. But the only way we get more of it is to build new market rate housing now. I also just wanna, appreciate the work that the planning staff has done on the local program. We have a couple studies in our office right now that are studying and weighing the differences between state density bonus and the local program. And, it's exciting and it's, still a toss-up and we're waiting on feedback from our clients about the flexibilities for, the the fee in lieu. And so it's, great work by the planning staff. Thank you. Please pass the plan. Thanks.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. 10,

[Speaker 3.0]: please.

[Speaker 130.0]: Evening, supervisors. My name is Frank Noto. I support the family zoning plan. I'm here as a neighbor in supervisor Milgar's district, as a Democrat, as a parent, and as a grandparent. I want my children and my grandchildren to be able to continue to live in San Francisco. You've heard that Einstein supposedly said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That's what we've been doing on zoning. It's time for a change. Doing the same thing as before on zoning is not going to get us more affordable housing or more housing in general. The easiest way to have more affordable housing in San Francisco is to build more homes, period. Less supply makes housing more scarce and increases the price. And make no mistake, we do need to build more housing. Rents were up 12% this year. Last time I looked, buying the average home or condo in San Francisco requires an annual household income of about $300,000 on top of more than $250,000 in savings for the down payment. I couldn't afford my home at those prices. I bet that's true of most of the folks in the audience who are homeowners. Opponents say that family zoning plan is not going to solve all our housing problems. They're right about that. It's just a first step and a crucial part of the solution. The housing crisis will get worse unless the board acts. The city risks losing millions in funding for affordable housing unless the board acts. Please vote to support this plan. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 3.0]: Hi. I'm Lianne Chang, and I live in D One with my husband and our eight year old son. I'm also a member of the Westside Family Dem Club. I support the plan. I'm I'm really tired of myself and a lot of other people that I know feeling pushed to make decisions, not only about our jobs and our neighborhoods and our roommates, but also really personal stuff like our reproductive status, our marital status, and more just because of the astronomical price of housing in the city. I appreciate all the work that so many of you done, to make sure the plan is thoughtful, including supervisor Melgar's work to make sure that existing tenants are protected. And I hope that, like the last speaker, that you don't accept any amendments that would, risk making the plan not compliant and losing our funding, for housing and trans. Thank you. Thank you

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 97.0]: I'd like to put a photo

[Speaker 131.0]: up on the overhead, please.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Just drop it on the on the projector. SFCOV TV, if we could display the slide. I'm gonna start your time.

[Speaker 131.0]: Okay. Good evening. Thanks so much for being here, all of you, both the land use and transportation committee and planning. I know you've done a lot of work, and I appreciate your continuation going back and doing reiterations of your plans. It's made a lot of changes, and I do appreciate that. To give you a little background, I'm 73 now. I was born in San Francisco. I am the third of five generations to live here. When my husband and I got married in 1976, we lived for a brief time in the inner sunset on seventeenth Avenue in a flat, a post World War two flat. But when I came back in 2008, I came back as a widow and I was actually able to move into a family home, which is located in Ingleside Terrace, which is pictured here. It has some unique features, in that it was built inside of a racetrack. And that racetrack, housed people who were homeless after

[Speaker 28.0]: the earthquake

[Speaker 131.0]: in nineteen o six. So we have a very unique location and I think we're getting to yes on this largely to all the work that you've done. I appreciate the amendments that have come up. I would really love to have even one supervisor who would champion looking at historic buildings and keeping the historic eligible a buildings because we do have some history. And not only do we have the race track and Ocean Avenue, which is a corridor, but we also have some unique terrain. And I think that we need to make sure that we build buildings that are safe on that terrain. We have three flood plains in this area And so it's just something to consider. And I hope that you will, continue to work forward on this.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Time is concluded. Thank you for your comments.

[Speaker 63.0]: Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 132.0]: Hi. My name's Arman Domilewski. I live in District 2. I've lived in San Francisco for about ten years. I was born and raised in The Bay Area. And honestly, I've been coming to these things for about ten years. I'm just I am so tired of begging to be able to afford to live in this city. I am so tired of being told that people's views and the historic character of the windows on their house is more important than people not having to live on the street. I'm so tired of people deluding themselves into this notion that it is building housing that makes a city more unaffordable and seeing multimillionaire homeowners coming in here and saying that the only housing that can be built is exactly not the kind of housing that they live in, because 99.9% of people in this room live in housing that, a, was built by a private developer, and b, that somebody objected to when it was first built. And I'd like you to think when you object to a new house and to consider the fact that the home you live in right now, somebody also didn't want it there. But we built it so you could have a chance and to live in the greatest city on earth, and more people deserve that chance. I'm so tired of seeing people I love on the streets. I'm so tired of seeing people I love getting kicked out of this city. And I'm so tired of reasonable amendments and conversations about, well, maybe we'll tweak it a little bit this way. And every single one of those tweaks, every single one of those cuts means a family that can't live here, a family that can't afford to live here. And I'm just tired. And it's late. Please vote for the family zoning plan. It is frankly not nearly enough given the scope of the crisis we are facing. It is not nearly enough housing, and we will have to do more, but it is a start. And the more amendments you accept that will water it down, the that means the more families are on the streets and cannot live here.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you. Comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 35.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is. I live in District 7, right across from a grocery store. And I support the family zoning plan. I wanna thank you all for the work on it. I had a major injury a couple years ago that left me in a wheelchair for five months, and sadly, there was no accessible housing, like, avail like, available near where I lived. So and I was concerned that if I moved to a totally different neighborhood, you know, I'd be all alone, and also I might not be able to move back to the inner sunset, which I love. So I stayed where I was. You know, every time I got back home, I'd have to leave my wheelchair outside downstairs, bump up the stairs using my shoulders, and get in crawl into another wheelchair upstairs. And, you know, laundry they meant doing this three times a day. And it was not very easy when I was, you know, still paralyzed after a neurosurgery and all that, but the thing I one of the reasons I stayed there is once I got myself downstairs, you know, I had a grocery store, I had restaurants, I had Golden Gate Park, all that within a very short row of where I was, and that was very helpful for my recovery. But, you know, if if we had more housing options, if we'd already done this plan, you know, hopefully, there would have been more, you know, accessible apartments right there in the inner sunset that I could have moved into without needing to leave my community. And when I got better, I could have, you know, found a different spot that I like. And that is what housing abundance really would look like because all of our life circumstances change over time, and we shouldn't have to uproot ourselves from our neighborhood, when we need a new, housing that reflects our circumstances.

[Speaker 3.0]: And, you know, of course,

[Speaker 35.0]: I've heard so many stories of, you know, couples who'd like to start a family, but they're unable to because their current space is too small for it, or even people who have stayed in abusive relationships, unfortunately, because they have no other place to stay. We don't it doesn't have to be this way. Like, we can build more housing so people can stay in San Francisco, stay in our neighborhood. You know, all of us are gonna grow old someday, and wouldn't it be nice if we could live in a building with an elevator, well, surrounded by our friends and neighbors, next to essential amenities like groceries and public transit, even

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Speaker of Sam is concluded. Thank you for your comments.

[Speaker 3.0]: Thank you.

[Speaker 133.0]: Can I

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: have the next speaker, please?

[Speaker 133.0]: Hello, supervisors. My name is Peter. I'm a district renter, and I'm here to support the family zoning plan. I grew up in the Bay Area, and I'm on a group chat with eight of my closest friends. We met in kindergarten and have done everything from go to Giants games together at Candlestick when we were kids, all the way through being in each other's weddings, and now even helping out with each other's kids as some of us have, start families. Six of the eight of us have lived in San Francisco at some point in our adult lives, and now I'm the only one that still does. One moved to Santa Rosa, another to Texas, another Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, etcetera. They left San Francisco because it was too expensive to raise a family here. This plan will help make that more affordable, will help make it more possible for make it possible for more families to actually stay, people that have deep roots to the area, to the city, and who want to raise families here. It will the plan will build the kind of, medium density apartments that will keep young families in the city, And, especially, in neighborhoods that will, where where young families thrive. In a previous meeting, a public commenter said that the plan would somehow tear at San Francisco's social fabric. The fabric is already being torn every day because of the inaffordability. This plan is a great step towards repairing that, towards helping us to repair our social fabric and keep more people here. And so please support it without any amendments that will jeopardize our ability to meet our important housing goals. Thank you.

[Speaker 3.0]: Thank you

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 134.0]: Good evening, supervisors. My name is Davey Kim. I'm a volunteer for SF YIMBY. I've also been a renter in the city since I came here, since, twelve years ago. I am close to the end. I'm going to be one of many to thank you all for your stamina. I know that you're all feeling sleepy. Your joints are achy. And let me ease your pain with another comment in support of the family zoning plan. Not just any family zoning plan. The version that has provisions that realistically and meaningfully can add more and much needed housing to our city. And not a version that has locked backed elements or kneecapped. But just to take a step back, at a personal level, I just became a dad. And more than ever, I want to ensure that I live in SF with him for the long haul. I want to raise him in a walkable environment, with many, many neighbors, of many, many differing backgrounds. This zoning plan is just one step in that direction, not only to guarantee affordabilities for young parents like me, but also, that other people might have a future here as well. San Francisco is the place where I essentially started my career in the nonprofit sector. San Francisco is where I met my wife. San Francisco is where we got married. San Francisco is where my son was born. I was incredibly lucky. And fortunately, and unfortunately, I'm the exception, and definitely not the rule. I want to explain to my son one day, that we, at the time he is born, which was just recently, that, we NSF stood across roads. We could either build a city to let people of all lived experiences

[Speaker 3.0]: Thank

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: you for sharing your comments to the committee. You have time to ask the next speaker.

[Speaker 52.0]: Hello. Thomas Rogers, resident of Bernal Heights, a member of District nine, Neighbors for Housing, speaking in support of the family zoning plan. I just wanted to start by saying how profoundly lucky I am to live in San Francisco. I originally arrived here in the nineteen hundreds, which I say not to imply my opinions are worth more than someone of a newer resident, but because I like saying, the nineteen hundreds and how old timey it sounds. But more seriously, I I'm very fortunate to have built a life here. I was lucky to serve here at city hall as a public servant of a type, as a member of the pedestrian safety advisory committee for about eight years. I can unfortunately confirm that we took the initials PSAC and pronounce said, let's pronounce that PSAC. We no longer exist, which may be related to that. I also, here, I met the woman who became my spouse. Hi, Kai. I'll be home soon. We got married right here in City Hall, And in 2020, we welcomed our daughter into the world, who's the light of our lives, our little native San Franciscan, who will probably throw that back in our faces at some point. But we really we truly want that to be a story that more people can tell, that they built their families, of whatever type here in our amazing city. And the family zoning plan can make that happen. I will say, in a little more negative note, I am tired of California handing off congressional seats to Florida and Texas. We need to stop that and rebuild it. And I truly hope we can be the welcoming dynamic city that we have been in the past. Thank you. You've been a great crowd.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. To the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 135.0]: Hi. My name is Monica Morse, and I am the chair of the land use committee for the west of Twin Peaks Central Council representing thousands of homeowners, families, and neighborhood associations West Of Twin Peaks. I believe the answer to supervisor Mammut's very first question about six hours ago was every corner, every lot over 8,000 square feet can go to 65 feet, not 40. That's six or three times the size of a one or two story house. That's not gentle infill. The maps are not color coded that way, but it's in the footnotes buried in the 500 pages of legislation and over half a dozen maps. This family zoning plan is political. It's not planning. According to city hall officials, this is a fifty year historic plan for San Francisco, not a response to this year's RHNA cycle. Based on out as as outdated, they are as those population numbers. We have today over 70,000 units approved in the pipeline. Everybody who wants the housing built, I want it built too. We have 70,000 units approved in the pipeline. 10,000 of that is within a half mile of our neighborhoods. Lots of it's affordable. Please build that and welcome another 200,000 residents now. But why aren't we spending our tens of thousands of hours figuring out how to actually unlock that building of the pipeline instead of upzoning the entire city. Ironically, state law already just did the upzoning job for us. SP 79 just upzoned within half a mile of every transit stop. And as planning said today, most of this everything in San Francisco will likely be upzoned by 2032 according to SB 79. We ask that density decontrol specifically get removed because it is pushing demolition and speculation deep into San Francisco's stable family neighborhoods. This plan targets family neighborhoods, erases design reviews and historic protections, and removes public notice.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Speaker's time is concluded. Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Speaker 136.0]: Good evening. My name is Jonathan Budeman. I live in District 2, and I am a member of Northern Neighbors, a neighborhood group focused on housing and transportation issues. Thank you to the supervisors and planning staff for listening to hours of public comment tonight. I know this reflects strong civic engagement, but I also hope we can find a more efficient way to gauge public public opinion and hear from neighbors in the future. I'm speaking in support for of the mayor's zoning plan. We're entering another period of steep rent increases. And like many San Franciscans, I check Zillow often, hoping one day to buy a home here. Unfortunately, that goal keeps moving farther out of reach. The average rent in San Francisco is now about $3,663 a month, up nearly 10% from last year. And for for sale homes, I can see prices climbing week by week over the last few months directly on Zillow. This plan is a practical step towards addressing our housing shortage. Allowing more homes in more neighborhoods means more opportunity and leads to self safe safer, healthier housing built to modern standards. I urge you to advance this plan without loading on amendments that would water it down or delay real progress. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 137.0]: Good evening. My name is Mikaela Connery. I am a renter and a mom in District 2. I had the chance to go home and feed my kid. I know this has been a long day for you all, so, thank you for for sticking it out with us. I also am here as an affordable housing developer, here in District 5 from the Kelsey that builds affordable, accessible, and inclusive housing. And I'm here today in strong support of the family zoning plan. This plan represents a critical and long overdue first step towards legalizing multifamily housing in San Francisco, housing that our city has needed for decades. More housing is inherently more affordable housing. It's inherently more accessible housing, as we heard earlier, and it's inherently more opportunities for all types of people to live and thrive in San Francisco. You've heard a lot today, and I've heard it too, how this plan doesn't do enough for affordability. And they're right. It doesn't. Because that's actually not what this plan is about. This is about being a critical first step in unlocking more homes and then fully realizing that through subsequent policies around creative and targeted inclusionary zoning towards developer incentives that support people to build affordable housing on-site, towards accessibility streamlining for folks who commit to enhanced accessibility codes. So I think we need to pass this, and then we need to take this as a first and critical step. And we need to pass it not with a bunch of amendments that make it harder to implement or more difficult to pass in the timeline that we need to. San Francisco can't afford to stay where it is around housing. Just like a person who acquires a disability can't afford to stay in their inaccessible home, or a renter whose apartment leaks, like mine did last week, can't afford to not move, or a young family that's growing who can't afford to stay where they are because their family is outgrown where they live. So we need to move housing forward just like families need to be able to move across the city. Thank you for passing it, and thank you for your support of the next steps.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 138.0]: Okay. I think that the amendments that would exclude rent controlled buildings are a good first step. So those amendments I do support. But I would like to see a hard ban on demolition of rent controlled buildings. And then I was surprised to hear that rent controlled, never needed buildings never needed to be included in the UP zoning plan in the first place in order to meet the state requirement. So I really I'm starting to wonder if this is really about providing affordable housing. And I've heard all these people who have just moved to San Francisco and can't afford it and wanna move here and so forth. Well, as someone who's been here since 1984, I have been through at least three waves of taxpayers being asked to support affordable housing. And we do it and we do it and we do it and we don't get it. And I would ask you, what is happening to the in lieu of funds that all these developers are paying into in lieu of actually providing the affordable housing? How much money is in the fund? What has it been spent on? Has it been spent on any affordable housing? And where is it? So and also, why can't you just do the minimum right now as far as capacity? And then think forward about what the the endgame should be. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 139.0]: My name is Paula Katz. I'm a thirty year resident in the Outer Sunset. I urge you not to adopt the proposal without significant amendments. One, there currently are no guarantees of affordability. Any plan should require that at least 20 to 25% of on-site affordable housing be included, along with more two and three bedroom family units, and 100% of affordable housing should be required on publicly owned lands. Two, all rent controlled buildings must be excluded from the plan. Residents of any up zone building that is being demolished and then rebuilt will be forced to move, and it's highly unlikely that they will be able to move back in when the high rises have been built, as they will have been forced to find other housing in the interim, with many leaving the city to find anything affordable. Three, most of the up zone buildings will include minimal, if any, parking. Even if they are built on transit lines, many of the new residents will have cars so they can drive places not accessible by muni. They'll end up parking in already overcrowded streets in the sunset in Richmond and throughout the city as SFMTA is constantly removing a lot of the parking in our neighborhoods. Please require sufficient parking for all of those up zone buildings so their residents will not have to compete with current residents already struggling to find limited street parking. Four, remove overlapping base and density maps and excessive height bonuses that allow stacked state density bonus incentives resulting in very high buildings. And five, support small businesses affected by upzoning, and don't allow locations with legacy businesses to be upzoned. Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 139.0]: Like to turn in a summary of my public comments for the minutes of the meeting.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Just leave it on the rail, and I'll pick it up.

[Speaker 139.0]: Do I come through here?

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Just leave it right on the rail in front of you and I'll pick it up in a moment. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 140.0]: Good evening, supervisors, chair Melgar. My name is Anas Charlie Bodkin. I'm a cofounder of San Franciscans for Social Housing, a d five renter, and I'm speaking in my personal capacity. As any housing expert will tell you, what we all know, the private market isn't building right now. Economic conditions aren't right. As odd as it may sound, since I agree with that analysis and I'm highlighting that analysis, I'm a YIMBY. I'm a supporter of plans for greater density, and I'm a supporter of all types of new housing. I've heard from my fellow YIMBYs today that a concern, that a concern that adopting amendments designed to protect existing tenants or add developer shot clocks might hurt our ability to meet our state RHNA goals. I'm more concerned that failing to fund social housing and affordable housing will guarantee we fall short of those goals. Without in public without public investment, even the most permissive zoning won't build the how the homes we need. But what's a YMB to do when the market isn't right? Support this city's efforts to build publicly owned, deeply affordable, mixed income social housing. Real YMBs in 2025 are SHMBs. In 2020, the board unanimously supported using Prop I transfer tax revenues for social housing. Those funds were effectively impounded by the mayor at the time, and the public had to organize to fight to claw back that money for housing. At a town hall on October 6, mayor Lawrie asked by a resident in the sunset if he'd use Prop I funds for social housing. The mayor said he'd, quote, look into it. Before we vote to pass this plan, I'm asking you to follow-up on that resident's questions. Has the mayor looked into it? Has the mayor looked into funding social housing? If we aren't so serious about funding social housing and affordable housing, how can we or the state take this plan seriously? If we if you aren't doing everything in your power to meet the affordable housing RHNA goals, how can we expect this plan to succeed? Thank you.

[Speaker 3.0]: Thank you

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 141.0]: Good evening, supervisors. My name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition as their community organizer. I'm also going to be giving my comments today on behalf of Annie Fryman from Spur, who, regretfully, was not able to be present for the full hearing. So just yesterday, we, along with other partners, held and hosted a family zoning picnic, and it was a really great reminder about why this matters. As new parents were running after toddlers that were running away from them, I spoke with a bunch of strangers and folks that I've never met before because they are not in this room. They do not plan to be in this room because they are busy having other responsibilities, like childcare and jobs. But what I heard was really loud and clear, that they support this plan and that it is popular. They want the same thing that all of us want, more neighbors,

[Speaker 3.0]: more homes, and more opportunities in every

[Speaker 141.0]: part of San Francisco. Many also shared their concerns about forward, about the risk of losing state funding that supports affordable housing, our already struggling transit, and other infrastructures, and we can't let that happen. For all the noise surrounding this debate, the reality is very simple. This plan reflects what San Franciscos want. It's fairness, inclusion, and the ability for people to live near they work, learn, and grow up. I also wanna lift up an important part about small businesses and the need for stability and protection. We strongly support complimentary legislation, including supervisor Melgar's proposal to create a small business protection fund. We know these models work, and they're essential to making our commercial quarters stay vibrant and roof vibrant and rooted. We're encouraged by some of the thoughtful amendments discussed today, like super supervisor Melgar's amendments and supervisor Cheryl and supervisor Sowder's amendments to incentivize larger family units. We need both private and affordable projects to succeed if we wanna be a city that works for everybody. Market rate housing is part of the solution. Affordable capital is part of the solution. Regional bills and funding are part of the solutions. Thank you very much.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Before we hear from the next speaker, it looks like we are reaching the end of the line. So if we have anyone additional in the chamber from whom we have not yet heard public comment, please line up to speak along that western wall I'm pointing out with my left hand. If you are downstairs in the North Light Court and you are watching the meeting and you wish to provide public comment to land use and transportation, please come upstairs to the chamber now. Mister Bash, please begin.

[Speaker 142.0]: Madam chair, members of the committee of the supervisors, staff, my name is Alec Bash. I reside at D 3 in a rent controlled redevelopment agency complex Gateway Apartments, and I used to be a city planner here. I started here in 1971 with the adoption of the urban design plan. In 1972, I was here for the adoption of the height limits that affected the whole city. In 1978, I was here for the neighborhood for the residential zoning study that led to the zoning that we have now throughout most of San Francisco. That was almost fifty years ago. The plan you're working on now will probably be here for the next fifty years, and it will be amended many times over the next years. And I applaud the mitigation measures that people have been thinking about, that the planning department has come up with, and that the members of the board have been thinking about as well. In my time at planning, we cared deeply about neighborhood compatibility. That's what we worked on. And we overdid it a little bit because with the emphasis on neighborhood compatibility, we did not take into account the pricing of market rate housing as it became increasingly constrained within the city. We cared about the jobs housing balance, but we were not caring so much about what market rate housing affordability might be. We also cared deeply about affordable housing. The planning department, I believe, has done an outstanding job of finding the capacity and ways to incentivize maintaining local design controls over this as we go forward. And I think whatever mitigation measures you're coming up with, there will be time for later. I urge you to proceed with this and support the plan, and do not slow down. There will be time later to do a lot of fix up over the next fifty years. Thank you for your time and your evening here.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 143.0]: Good evening, supervisors. Thank you for your attention in this. Jane Natoli. I am the San Francisco organizing director of EMB Action. And on behalf of our almost 1,400 members, I'm here to speak in strong support of our plan today. Thank you for your continued work to improve this. It's definitely been a work in progress. I've been in this room a lot. I was here when we approved the housing element. That was three years ago. We're continuing to discuss this, so I appreciate the continued diligence on that. But I wanna talk a little bit on my personal capacity. I really think we need plans like this, because the voices we don't see here. I can't judge everybody who was at this dais today, but almost 140 people are up here, and I'm the first trans person that I've noticed. We're not in here. This is the best place to be trans in the country, in my opinion. This is the kind of community you can truly call home and actually thrive. But you can only do that if you afford to live here. We have made it impossible for a community that generally has worse outcomes than almost any other community in many other regards, when it comes to affordability, and access to opportunity to be able to call a city home that has all these protections for them. What good are our vaunted protections as San Francisco if we cannot take advantage of them? I really, really wish I could tell a young trans person that I talked to that they should move here, that it's the right decision for them. But I know that when young queer people move here, unfortunately, they're disproportionately likely to end up homeless, to not have access to opportunity, and to not be able to thrive. We need to change course. That means we need to build more homes for the next generation of queer people to call San Francisco home, and build on our legacy. Thank you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Speaker 144.0]: Hi. I'm here to give the benediction. My name is Kevin O'Gorman. I've lived here since '84. Most, the time I've lived in Europe too, Paris, Dublin, and I've lived in San Diego, just to give you an idea. I love this city. I've been here for a long time. I was married here. I met my kids there. I was married right out there, actually. Met my had my kids here and so forth. But I'm very concerned. You have a picture? Can you put that up?

[Speaker 53.0]: Got it.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: SFgovTV, is there a slide on the projector that we can display for the room? Hang on just a moment.

[Speaker 144.0]: Alright. Well, I can this slide is is the night there we go. It's Justin Herman, nineteen sixties, 2,600 Victorians taken out. And a whole population pretty much decimated. And that was only 2.7% of all the housing in the city at the time. What we're talking about rezoning, upzoning is 20%. It's an enormous, enormous impact. And all the promises made back then, the population of African Americans went from 13.4 to 5.7, and you could probably ask them what their experience of all of that was, except they're not living here anymore. Because those promises are gone. So what I would suggest to you is, yes, you have to do something. I don't have a problem with growth except ugly industrial growth, which is what I see a lot of these proposed buildings being. I highly recommend the amendments from supervisors Chan and Chen, in particular, and also yours, supervisor. And I'd just like to say that I'm concerned about the parking, the lack of parking, the lack of infrastructure planning that goes around this. It seems very very developer focused. And I would urge you for your comments.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item numbers one through four on today's agenda? Madam chair.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. So I will give my colleagues a chance to provide any closing comments or wrap ups. I just wanted to say a couple things before that. I am going to suggest a way to proceed after all of this. It's very complicated. And I am very grateful to all the members of the public who gave their time, their energy to come and talk to us about this today. There are two amendments that have been accepted by the sponsor, the mayor, and vetted for compliance. Those are the ones that I introduced regarding the exemption of rent controlled buildings of three or more units, and Supervisor Sauter's amendments incentivizing the preservation of commercial spaces. So I will propose that we vote to adopt those amendments first. Then I will propose that we duplicate the file twice. One, to incorporate supervisor Mandelmann's amendments, because those, as I understand, may need re referral to the planning department. And I will need to ask the city attorney about that. And then I will propose that we move all of the amendments that have been proposed by all of the members of the board of supervisors who have taken the time and put in the energy to write those amendments. I will then propose that we continue that second filed with all of your amendments to, the November 3 meeting. That's two weeks from now. And that will give us a couple weeks to discuss with HPC, to, look at any, conflicts, amendments between you. There are a couple who are seeking the same thing, but the how is a little bit different. So it'll give us and the city attorney some time to coordinate and, concatenate things. The file with the amendments that need to be considered, possibly by, planning commission again, I will propose that we, continue that to December 1, because it needs to go in its own process. If it's ready by December 1, God bless. If it's not, then we may have to continue it. But if we don't continue it to a time certain, then we need to re notice it. And I don't want to do that to supervisor Mandelmann. So that is how I, I'm proposing that we proceed, and that gives us time to, like, do the work that we need to do, and have those conversations. But before I do that, I need to ask a couple questions to staff. The first, to our city attorney. Besides super or if you confirm that supervisor Mandelmann's, amendment that he proposed, does that need to be sent back to planning? And are there any other amendments that have been proposed that require re referral?

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: Deputy city attorney Brad Russi. Supervisor Mandelmann had has proposed two different amendments. One of them would modify, would amend a section of the code concerning lot mergers. That amendment, requires referral back to the planning commission. It's the only amendment that's been proposed by any of the supervisors that requires referral back to the planning commission. The other amendment proposed by supervisor on the end of the month to remove, landmarked or contributing properties to from the, up zoning portion of the legislation, that amendment, was very late requested and is not ready for today. So it can be made on November 3.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Or at any time after that.

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: Or at any time after that. But assuming that, you know, we're gonna hear all this again.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: So we don't have it ready. Right.

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: Not today.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. Thank you, mister Rusty. So the second, question that I have for staff is to our environmental review officer, Lisa Gibson. Do any of the amendments that have been proposed today, but any of my colleagues require that you go back and do CEQA again.

[Lisa Gibson, Environmental Review Officer]: Good evening, Chair Melgar. I'm Lisa Gibson, environmental review officer. The answer to your question is no. None of the, amendments that, we've heard today would require further environmental review. Generally, the amendments would do one of two things. They would either reduce, or remove parcels from the rezoning proposal or reduce the scope of changes that would apply to individual parcels, or they would add additional process for the rezoning. So none of those changes would alter the maximum height or the number of units, that would be allowed compared to what we had previously studied in the environmental impact report and the addendum. There would not be any additional environmental impacts, so no further study would be required.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. Thank you very much, Miss Gibson. So with that, supervisor Mahmood.

[Bilal Mahmood, Member, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you, chair. And thank you to everyone who made it to eight 08:00 in the audience. Really appreciate your support and sharing your voices and perspective. We clearly have, a variety of perspectives, but I know that everyone here cares about the future

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: of our city, even if

[Bilal Mahmood, Member, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: we have differing perspectives on how to get there. I wanted to thank my colleagues for all their proposed amendments as well, and to the planning staff, for all of your work over many years to get us to this point. I, again, reaffirm that I'm supporting the family zoning ordinance because of its objective to build for the future and to also build for the past. Unless we increase the capacity of what we're allowed to build, we won't meet the state mandated goals, but we also won't be able to build the capacity we need to support the children and the grandchildren of those who have not yet been born of our own progeny. And we won't be able to support the immigrants and refugees who are gonna continue to come here, Especially in light of everything that's happening nationally and internationally right now, we continue to have to make sure that San Francisco remains an inclusive city, and one that we can support residents no matter where they're coming from and for no matter how long they have been here to be able to afford to live here. In this context as well, I just wanna kind of frame to my colleagues. While there are certain amendments that could be paused today that I heard, I'm happy to go along with what Sheriff Melgar has said, which is to accept the amendments into the duplicated files. But I will, again, qualify that when we come back on November 3, I will have the same criteria that I outlined earlier today, which is if a amendment does require referral, which was seems like only one, I'm not inclined to support it. If an amendment is going to down zone any component of a neighborhood, I'm not inclined to support it. And if an amendment is going to hinder HCD's assessment of this plan, which puts us at risk of losing millions of dollars in funding, as well as little possibility for local control, I'm not inclined to support it. So I look forward to the next couple weeks. I invite my colleagues to engage with our office to understand better your respective amendments and what you're looking to seek. And look forward to seeing how, HCD, and hopefully you have conversations with them as well, about how, they view your amendments as well. Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank Thank you, supervisor Mahamu. Supervisor Chan?

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, chair. I think this is more of a technical question. I know that president Mandelmann is not here, but I'm just out of my curiosity. If the duplicated file well, first, I think you're making amendments to accept, yours sorry, your proposed amendments as well as supervisor Sauder, specifically on small business storefront, requirement. And then we're gonna duplicate, the files into three different files. One is to accept the remaining of amendments proposed by myself, and supervisor Chen, and any other supervisor that may have those amendments. It's not clear to me what the other amendments are, but remaining of the amendments outside of supervisor Chen and myself, and whether those actually need to be re referred. And then the third question that I have well, and then the third file, then you're saying that the third duplicated one then will be then adding supervisor Mendelmann's, historic preservation amendments to it. But the third one that is a stand alone will be a different version than any of it. And so when it were to trade, well, then it's different than from the file number two, which with all our amendments. So I'm just trying to understand, like, does that mean that by the time it comes back to us, we divide the question and specifically only vote on supervisor amendments, or are we gonna vote on that? But then then how do we do

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Nope. So let me do it with Sorry. I know it's super complicated, so I, you know, beg your patience. What I'm trying to do is to have all of our choices open to allow us to do the due diligence of, you know, vetting all the choices. So I'm proposing that we adopt a supervisor, Sauter, CDMA amendment, and the one on rent control. Because the mayor has already accepted it. He's a sponsor of the legislation, and it's not controversial. No no one has, you know, said anything about either one. So then we will duplicate it into two files. One will take everybody's amendments that have been proposed today. Yours, supervisor Chan's. There is an additional amendment that was jointly developed by supervisor Cheryl and supervisor Sauter about, providing an incentive for larger sized units. So those will also go. Those are ready, and approved as to form. The second file will be amended only with supervisor Mandelmann's proposed amendment. Because that needs to go back to planning. And I am hoping that the commission, if it needs to go to HPC in addition, I don't know. That's beyond my pay grade. But that will come back to us by December 1. And so, hopefully, the timelines will meet, so that by the time it gets to the board of supervisors, we will be able to consider both things. But so, on the November 3 meeting, this committee will have the original file without the amendments, and then we'll have a second file with all of the amendments. And at that point, we can, you know, take some out, or approve all of them, table one, approve the I mean, we have all of the choices in front of us at that point. So that just gives us two more weeks. It still meets that December 21 deadline for the second reading at the board, hopefully for everybody. So that's what I'm proposing. Supervisor is that okay, supervisor Chen? That's

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. So now, supervisor Chen.

[Chyanne Chen, Vice Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you, Chen Maoga. I also just want to express my appreciation to all the public comments today. And again, I want to assure that our community analysis is so important. And thank you for sharing the community stories. And I continue to also want to thank all the departments still here today, and for all your hard work. As a supervisor, I think I continue to want to make sure that this is a city, continue to be affordable, continue to affordable for, making sure that we have a plan to continue to protect our tenants and our small business. And also to make sure that, this plan also continue to allow workers, whether you're an IHSS worker, you're a teacher, you're a firefighter, that this is a plan where you can continue to stay in the city. And also, we continue to make sure that we are very thoughtful in creating space for families. Truly for families who want to raise their kids in the city, to have a space to live in this city, and raise their kid raise their children. And I also really looking forward. This is a plan where we continue to look for, current, but also generations to come, because this is a plan where we're gonna see, housing units continue to develop for the next fifty years. So I look forward, continue to, in the next couple weeks, and two months, maybe, continue to work really closely, with all my colleagues, and with the planning department, and the mayor's office, as well. Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, I'm gonna try to do this. I beg, everybody's patience, because it is complicated. So, if I do something not quite the way that I'm supposed to process wise, I am fully confident that you or the city attorney will check me. Okay.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: We'll go as slow as we need.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: So first, for item two, file number 250,700, the zoning map of the family zoning plan. I would like to duplicate that original file, and move to adopt the amendments as proposed and circulated by my colleagues, supervisor Connie Chan, supervisor Cheyenne Chen, and supervisor Cheryl, along with supervisor Sauter, into the duplicated file.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Let's let's take one step at a time, because I think that I may have already gotten lost here.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. Sorry.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: You want this duplicate to happen before any of the amendments have been written into the ordinance?

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: For that file, for item two. We will do the same for the remember, there's four files. Okay.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Okay. Okay. There we go. The zoning map amendment, I've recorded a duplicate on that now.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: The map. This will allow us to move a comprehensive version of the files forward for vetting by HCD. So that is my motion, and we can call the roll on that one.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: No need for motion on the duplicate.

[Speaker 3.0]: Okay.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Just it is split?

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Duplicated. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, mister Clark. I would then like to make a motion. I think we have to make a motion for this one to continue Oh. Both the original file and the zoning map and the duplicated file as amended to the meeting on Monday, November 3.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Hang on a moment. Hang on just a moment. So far, all I have put into the books is just a duplicate, and nothing has been adjusted yet. You want to continue an unadjusted version of the zoning map item to the November 3 with no amendments recorded on it.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Correct.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: You are moving to continue that now November 3. Yes. There we go. I can do that just fine. On a motion offered by Chair Melgaard that the parent file agenda item number two with no amendments be continued to November 3. Vice chair Chen.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: No. We can duplicate it without a motion.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Chen, I. Member of Mahmood. Aye. Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar. Aye. Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes on continuing agenda item number two to November 3.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. Now we amend it?

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: We have a duplicate that we set aside.

[Speaker 119.0]: So Okay.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: So that we can amend. Alright. Got it. That's what I thank you, mister Clerk. So I moved that into that duplicated file. We incorporate the amendments, as I had already stated.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: For my record, before we record that, please remind me which amendments it is that we're making to the zoning map item duplicates.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: So these are the amendments put forward by supervisors Chan, Chen, and Cheryl into the duplicated file.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: On the motion offered by the chair that the duplicated version of agenda item number two be amended to incorporate changes offered by supervisors Chan, Chen, and Cheryl. Vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmoud Mahmoud, I. Chair Melgar.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Aye.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Melgar, I. Madam Chair, there are three ayes on that amendment.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. That motion passes. Okay. Then, the next part is a little more complicated. Right? I would like to address item three, file number 2,507,001, the planning, business, and tax regulation codes of the family zoning plan. First, as I had previously stated, there are a couple of amendments that we know that the state has already preapproved that I think that we should adopt, such as my amendment to remove eligibility of front controlled buildings of three or more units from the local program and Supervisor Sauter's amendment to provide incentives for warm shell storefronts. Then I will suggest making two duplicates of this file.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Make the amendment first. Okay. A motion offered by chair Melgar to incorporate the amendments to agenda item number three offered by herself and supervisor Sauter. Is that correct? Okay. On that motion, vice chair Chen? Aye. Chen, I. Member Mahmood? Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar?

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Aye.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Melgar, I. Madam Chair, there are three ayes on that amendment.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. Now we duplicate that file. Twice. To the first duplicate, I propose adopting the amended the amendment proposed by president Mantelmann pertaining to lot mergers and category eight sites so that it can be referred to the planning commission.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: On the motion offered by the chair that the first duplicate to agenda item number three be amended to incorporate the changes from supervisor Mandelmann regarding lot mergers. On that motion, vice chair Chen Chen, I, member Makamut, I, chair Melgar?

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: I.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Melgar, I. Madam Chair, there are three I's on that motion.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you. To the second duplicate, I propose adopting all of the amendments proposed by all the supervisors. So supervisor, Connie Chan's amendment supervisor, Cheyenne Chan's amendment supervisor, Cheryl, and, Sauter's amendments, please, so that we can have an opportunity to go back to HCD and also, do the work that we need to do with the city attorney. I'm sorry. Did I miss, an amendment?

[Chyanne Chen, Vice Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: I'm just checking.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: No. No. No. That we already did that. Yes. Sorry. Okay. I see our city attorney, piping up here.

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: Deputy city attorney Brad Rusty. Just for clarity, you, supervisor Milagar, also have one amendment that was not adopted with respect to the first file. Right? The one about hotels.

[Speaker 3.0]: Thank

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: you. I'm so glad you brought it up, because I do need that amendment adopted as well. The one about the hotel conversions. I'm sorry, mister Clerk.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: So that was taken before the previous amendment and before the duplicate?

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: No. The previous amendment, we only adopted the one about rent control. This second, file will take the hotel that's number 10, I think. Yeah. The because that has not been vetted either by anyone.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Thank you for the additional information.

[Speaker 107.0]: That's correct.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Yes.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. Deputy city attorney, Russi.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: So on the second duplicate, the chair is offering a motion that the rest of the amendments be accepted, including supervisor Chen, Sauter, Cheryl, the the remaining Melgar amendment, supervisor Chan's amendment, but accepting the amendment from Mandelmann that was taken in the duplicate about lot duplicate about lot mergers. That's not here. On that motion offered by chair Melgar, vice chair Chen. Chen, I member Mahmood. Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar. I. Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes on that motion to amend.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. Now, I think that we need to continue to I will make a motion that we continue the duplicated file that has supervisor Mandelmann's amendment to December 1. And that way, it'll have time to go to planning, and hopefully come back. If it doesn't come back by that time, you know, we can continue it then. Did you have a question, supervisor Chan?

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Yes, chair. I believe supervisor Mendelmann has two amendments, and that one needs to be re referred back to planning, which is the merger lots. But the first one that I believe or one of them one of the two amendments that he proposed, does not require we refer to planning, but we have you have yet to take up the motion to

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: amend. Correct, supervisor Chan. Unfortunately, supervisor Mandelmann did not submit the amendment approved as to form today.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Therefore, we cannot act. Correct.

[Lisa Gibson, Environmental Review Officer]: My apologies.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: So if it's ready by the time it comes back, you know, we will try to accommodate, or this committee will try to accommodate it. So I'm just, I'm doing the best we can with what has been submitted, approved as to form. Thank you. But we we had expected. It just did not happen.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: And then, just a reminder, I think, I'm sure the clerk is already tracking your item number two, which the duplicate file with the amendment, you have not disposed it yet.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: No. That's what I was trying to do now.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Understood. Thank you.

[Rachel Tanner, Director, Citywide (Planning Department)]: Okay.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Hearing a motion from the chair that the version of agenda item number three that was duplicated and amended to incorporate the changes from supervisor Mandelmann regarding lot mergers be then continued to the December 1 meeting of this committee. On that motion, vice chair Chen Chen, I. Member Mahmoud Mahmoud, I. Chair Melgar. I. Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes on that motion to continue that item to December 1.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you. That motion passes. And I would like to make a motion that we move that second duplicated file with everybody else's amendments to November 3.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: On the motion offered by chair Melgar that the second duplicated version of agenda item number three that incorporates the rest of the adjustments be continued to November 3 as amended vice chair Chen Chen, I. Member Mahmoud Mahmoud, I. Chair Melgar?

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: I.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes on that motion to continue to November 3.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. Thank you. Now I'm sorry, mister Koehler. Did we dispose of the original file that was amended to include, the rent controlled amendments and supervisor slaughter's amendments?

[Speaker 38.0]: Not yet.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. So that I would like to move to continue to, November 3 as well.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: On that motion offered by chair Melgar, that agenda item number three as amended to incorporate changes from the chair regarding rent control, as well as the changes presented by supervisor Sauder be continued as amended to November 3. Vice chair Chen Chen, I. Member Mahmood Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar? I. Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes on that motion to continue as amended to November 3.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. That motion passes. Now, mister Clerk, is there anything that we have not disposed of?

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: There is. So turning our attention back to agenda item number two, we did continue the original file to November 3 where it can be considered again. But there also is an amendment to a duplicated version of agenda item number two that is still hanging. Would you like to consider moving that to November 3 as well?

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Yes, please. I would like to make a motion that we, continue that to November 3 as well.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: On that motion, offered by the chair that the duplicated and amended version of agenda item number two be continued to the November 3 meeting of this committee. Vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood Mahmoud, I. Chair Melgar.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Aye.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes on that motion to continue as amended.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. Thank you so much. I think we have taken care of everything.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: There are still two agenda items. The general plan item, which we've taken no other actions on, and the resolution that would forward the material to the Coastal Commission.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: I'm sorry. Can you say that again? I didn't hear you.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Agenda item number four as well.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Agenda item number four.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Agenda item number four is a resolution transmitting to the Coastal Commission for review and certification and amendment to the implementation program and land use plan for the city certified local coastal program.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Can you give me the file number?

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Oh, yes. 250985.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: I'm sorry. Can we take, like, a one minute break so that I can confer with the, clerk? Thank you so much. I'm so sorry. This is really complicated. I just wanna make sure we do everything that we're supposed to.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: You wanna recess the meeting?

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Five two minutes.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Two minute recess. We will reconvene no sooner than 08:35.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 24.0]: SFgov TV. San Francisco government television.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Madam chair, we're back in live meeting.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. Thank you, and thank you everybody for your patience. So the last motion I will make is to continue, items one through four to our meeting of November 3.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: One and four.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Yes. One and four.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: On the motion offered by the chair that agenda item numbers one and four be continued to the November 3 meeting, vice chair Chen Chen, I. Member Mahmoud Mahmoud, I. Chair Melgar

[Speaker 3.0]: Aye.

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes on those motions.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Thank you so much. Mister Clerk, do we have any other pending items in this agenda?

[John Carroll, Committee Clerk]: I am gonna make everyone wait for just a moment. I review what I've got, and I am very sorry. Madam chair, there is no further business.

[Myrna Melgar, Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee]: Okay. Mister Clerk, I really appreciate you. And we are adjourned.