San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Good afternoon, everyone. The meeting will come to order. Welcome to the 11/03/2025 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I am supervisor Myrna Malagar, chair of the committee, joined by vice chair supervisor Cheyenne Chen and supervisor Bilal Mahmood. The committee clerk is mister John Carroll. I would also like to acknowledge Jeanette Engelau from SFGOV TV for helping staff this meeting. Mister Clerk, do you have any announcements?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. 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 directly to me, and I'll meet you up front at the rail. 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 wait. I'm sorry. Please line up to speak along your right hand side of this room. Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways. First, you may email your written public 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 Goodlet Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102. If you you submit public comment in writing, it will be forwarded to the members of this committee and also included as part of the official file on which you are commenting. Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of 11/18/2025 unless otherwise stated. And we also have overflow seating available and viewing available for today's meeting just down the hall in Room 263. If you are joining us in the chamber, you do have to remain seated while you are here. If we reach capacity and there's no longer room for you to sit down, we do ask that you go down the hall to 263 so that you can watch the proceedings from there. And madam chair, that's all of my announcements for now.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much, mister Clerk. For members of the public who are here today for the family zoning plan items, please bear with us. I estimate it'll be about twenty minutes for items first that will be called and disposed of before we get to that item. So, with that, mister Clerk, please call items one and two together.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the planning code and the zoning map to establish the San Francisco Gateway Special Use District generally bounded by Kirkwood Avenue to the Northeast, Rankin Street to the Southeast, McKinnon Avenue to the Southwest, and Tollan Street to the Northwest. Agenda item number two is an ordinance approving a development agreement between the city and county of San Francisco and Prologis LP, a Delaware limited partnership for the development of an approximately 17.1 acre site located at Tollan Street at Kirkwood Avenue with two multistory production, distribution, and repair buildings in a core industrial area, including 1,646,000 square feet of production, distribution, and repair, space for non retail sales and service, automotive and retail uses, a rooftop solar array, ground floor, maker space, and streets built to city standard. The ordinance approves certain development impact fees for the project and waives certain planning code fees and requirements. It also confirms compliance with or waives certain provisions of labor and employment code and administrative code chapters. It ratifies certain actions taken in accordance with the ordinances, and it also makes findings of conformity with the California Environmental Quality Act and the general plan as well as planning code section three zero two, madam chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much, mister Clerk. We are now joined by district ten supervisor, Shamone Walton. Welcome to the Atlantic City Transportation Committee. Supervisor Walton, the floor is yours.

[Supervisor Shamann Walton]: Thank you so much, chair Milgar and committee. Today, I'm here just to speak briefly on the Gateway 749 Tolling Project in Bayview's market zone neighborhood, a place that's long powered San Francisco through essential industry and labor, but that has also endured decades of disinvestment. This project is a milestone moment for our district and received unanimous approval from planning. The project sponsor is directly investing in our community by rebuilding eight blocks of public streets to city standards, committing to $8,000,000 in direct community contributions, and $11,000,000 more in market zone improvements, including support for the produce markets reinvestment plan and small business development along 3rd Street. This project will generate nearly 800 construction jobs annually and create close to 2,000 permanent on-site jobs. It's also the first development agreement on a private project in the city to include a micro LBE goal with dedicated opportunities for hyper local Bayview contractors. And it comes with a first source hiring agreement to prioritize local residents for both construction and long term jobs. I wanna thank the community members and labor partners who served on the advisory committee. Your ongoing input has helped shaped a package that reflects Bayview's values and priorities. This is a model for what community driven, equity focused, and environmentally responsible development should look like. I also want to thank John Lau and Susan Ma and director Anne Topier from the Office of e Office of Economic and Workforce Development, the San Francisco Gateway Advisory Committee from Community, the team at Prologis, The Market Zone, Rudy Gonzalez in the building and construction trades, Tony Delario and Peter Finn, along with the Teamsters, and, of course, my legislative aides, Percy Birch and Natalie g, for all of their work to get us here today. And I look forward to this moving forward to the full board. Thank you, chair Melgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor Walton. Well done. And, thank you for all your work in this very important project, and for all of the thoughtful additions to this, project. So with that, we're gonna have Susan Ma come and present. Thank you.

[Susan Ma (Office of Economic & Workforce Development)]: Thank you, supervisor. Good afternoon, Chair Melgar and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. My name is Susan Mahl with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development. Today, joining me are my colleagues, John Lau of OEWD, Gabriela Pantoja of the planning department, and Courtney Bell, vice president of development management, representing the project sponsor, Prologis. Next slide. I will be providing a project overview, the proposed legislation, the key development agreement features, and anticipated fiscal impacts of this project. The project before you today is at located at 749 Tolland in the Market Zone neighborhood of Bayview Hunters Point within the city's Southeast region. The Market Zone is an industrial area surrounded by the SF Market and was created by a working group of local business owners and operators in the area. The boundaries can be seen in the map on the right outlined in red. The area shaded in the marigold orange is a map of San Francisco's remaining production, distribution, and repair zoning. For the last twenty five years, the city has been monitoring the demand, zoning changes, and impact of PDR policies and businesses. These light industrial zones are critical and valuable to the local economy. They provide direct services, are integral to the city's infrastructure, and offer a diversity of jobs for San Franciscans. This project represents the largest private investment and PDR project in decades, and also happens to be the largest investment in the market zone's public roadways in quite some time. Next slide, please. The project site is composed of two city blocks. There are four single story sheds on-site, totaling roughly 448,000 square feet of PDR space, with most of the surrounding streets not currently accepted by the city. The project would build two new three story buildings, which would be over 1,600,000 square feet of PDR space that would be appropriate for warehouse, distribution, manufacturing, parcel delivery, and the like. The project will improve surrounding street segments totaling eight blocks to city standards. Before you today are the following two board files. Thank you, chair Melgar and vice chair Chen for being cosponsors. There is an ordinance establish establishing a special use district for the project, an ordinance approving the development agreement between the city and ProLogistix. The project was at planning commission on 09/25/2025, where it received a six o vote to advance. The special use district will serve like an overlay zoning district and will not alter the underlying PDR zoning district. Rather, the PDR two zoning district controls will remain in effect unless it is stated otherwise in the proposed SUD. Those controls are principally permitting private parking garage uses, principally permitting parcel delivery services up to 225,000 square feet of occupied floor area in the project total, and conditionally permitting parcel delivery service beyond 225,000 square feet within the SUD. It will allow 8,500 square feet of retail sales and service uses. The SUD will establish off parking off street parking ratios for retail sales and other uses. The streetscape improvements, the transportation demand management requirements will be governed by the development agreement, and it will permit additional features as building height exemptions in addition to those listed in section two sixty b. And it will outline the design review process for the development. For the development agreement, benefits, and key terms, the DA has a twenty year term with potential for two year two five year options to extend. As mentioned earlier, the sponsor will improve the surrounding street segments to city standards, paving the way for city acceptance of those streets. There will be $8,000,000 in direct contributions to support workforce, youth education, and child care, neighborhood infrastructure, and small businesses. And throughout the process, the project sponsor has participated in over a 100 meetings with Baby Hunters Point stakeholders, connected with over 30 local groups, and created a community advisory committee to help guide them in the community benefits process. To continue their long term partnership with community, they have a community engagement plan to ensure stakeholders stay involved and informed. There are robust workforce development agreements for both Firstsource and local hire and construction and operational jobs. The project is anticipated to generate approximately 795 construction jobs annually during construction, and upon completion, approximately 1,980 permanent on-site jobs. There's also a strong local business enterprise utilization plan with direct opportunities for baby 100 points businesses. This is the first privately funded project that has included a micro LBE goal. I know supervisor mentioned that earlier, but I think it's worth repeating. And lastly, I'd like to talk about the anticipated fiscal impacts of the project. Beyond the direct community benefits, the city does anticipate positive fiscal impacts to the budget with over 16,000,000 in one time development impact fees. At full project build out, we are anticipating approximately 7,000,000 in annual annually in net new general fund revenues. And at full build out in operations, an estimated $514,000,000 in new annual spending in our economy. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you again for your time today. We are available for any questions.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, miss Ma. I don't see anyone else on the roster with questions or concerns. So let's go to public comment on this item, please, mister Clark.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation will now hear public comment for specifically agenda item numbers one and two related to the San Francisco Gateway Special Use District. If you have public comment for this item specifically, please come forward to the lectern at this time. I'm pointing it out with my left hand, and we'll get our first speaker.

[Rev. Carolyn Ransom-Scott]: Good afternoon, supervisors. I'm Reverend Carolyn Scott, Ransom Scott, commissioner as well as clergy. Not here representing the commission, but as clergy and a voice in the community. And for this Bayview project, I would like to just quote Doctor. King, out of a mountain of despair, a stone of hope. And I hope you approve of this because it's brought so much hope to the community, the advisory committee that has worked with them for two years and a little more. We've learned to trust them, understand what they're doing, and they understand our needs, our concerns, and our request. This is a long time coming. A change by way of Prologus that comes with a trust that they've earned and integrity. And you too can become a part of those stones of hope. With your approval, I hope you will go along with the agreed proposal and give your approval to this plan. This will bring help for today and hope for a brighter future. And I look forward to seeing the 2,000 permanent site jobs, the 800 annual construction jobs, and the benefits that are above and beyond what we've been given before with trust. Thank you.

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

[Steve Zeltzer]: Yes. My name is Steve Zeltzer. I'm with the United Front Committee for Labor Party, and we are opposing this project. It's a sham project. It says it's gonna benefit the community, but will bring 6,000 trucks a day into the community. The people of Bayview, the people of San Francisco San Francisco do not need a polluting facility like this. They've lied. There was no serious studies of the effect environmental effects of this project. And furthermore, Prologis set up a fake advisory committee, which only has some members of the community, not all the community there. Prologis is the owner of it, is friends with the mayor. It's cronyism that brought this project. Furthermore, they plan to use this as a Bezos Amazon project. Now the board of supervisors who say they're for the workers of San Francisco, why would they allow Amazon to build a facility here? They bought a facility on 7th Street, and there was a conditional use. They could not use it for delivering packages. There's no such conditional use on this project. So we're against union busting, right wing, Trump like facilities in San Francisco. This is what this is. There hasn't been proper overview, and it's wired by the billionaires in San Francisco. It's not gonna benefit the community. Where are these jobs gonna come from? Permanent jobs. They will be Amazon workers who don't have the right to have a union. The Amazon workers in San Francisco voted to have union representation. Have any questions been asked to the developer about Amazon? No. I think that that's because this is wired. It has to be opposed by the people of San Francisco.

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

[Lindsay Palmer (SF Market)]: Good afternoon, supervisors Chen, Mahmood, Melger, and Moulton. My name is Lindsay Palmer. I am the marketing and communications manager for the SF Market. We are located adjacent to the SF Gateway project. We are proud to be a member of the SF Gateway advisory committee and a founding member of the market zone working group. Our executive director, Michael Janis, deeply regrets that he is unable to attend today. The SF Market proudly supports this critically important project. From our first meeting shortly after Perlogis purchased the property in 2015, Dan Letter of Perlogis set a tone of commitment and collaboration that Mark Hansen and Courtney Bell have modeled throughout our ten year partnership. As a result of their consistent and thoughtful engagement, Prologis and the advisory committee developed a community benefits package that targets the true needs of Bayview Hunters Point businesses and residents. In particular, their investment will significantly improve our streets, lighting, and sidewalks. We are grateful that Prologis recognizes the impact the market has on our community and the Northern California food system. As a recipient of the community benefits agreement, Prologis' contributions will help advance our work in providing critical physical upgrades to our campus that will support our future. The SF Market and our merchants have been supplying fresh produce to San Francisco and the Bay Area for over sixty years. We proudly support the SF Gateway project because it will up uplift small businesses, support local jobs, and build a more resilient food system for our city's future. Thank you.

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

[Michael Halby]: Good afternoon. My name is Michael Halby. I'm the cochair of the market zone working group, and I've been working I've had the opportunity to work closely with ProLitus over several years. They've been an active and consistent participant in our working group, showing up, collaborating thoughtfully on the issues that matter most to the market zone businesses. I'm confident in the city's thorough analysis of the SF's gateway project, which has found no significant impacts. That process has been transparent and diligent, giving the neighbors and businesses in the area confidence that the project is moving forward responsibly. This project represents critical investment in an area that is home to many PDR businesses. Our working group has had has 13 members that represent approximately 1,600 employees that work in buildings in the market zone right now. Modern infrastructure and reinvestment are essential. The SF Gateway is an opportunity to bring new resources and long term benefits to this part of the city. As someone who works only a few blocks away from the site, I know firsthand the importance of the investments, and I strongly support seeing this project move ahead in strengthening our community. Thank you.

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: Thank you

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

[Wing Tam (Carpenters Local 22)]: Hi. Good afternoon, supervisor. My name is Wing Tam. I'm the, organizer with the local carpenters union local twenty two. It's in here in San Francisco. I'm with the same person, many 4,000 carpenters in the San Francisco County and 37,000 across Northern California. I spoke to you today, not only a union organizer, but as a carpenter representing the hope and, a speed a spin a spin a vision, of my following worker, regarding the San Francisco Gateway Project. This is a massive undertaking, two, three story building, nearly 2,000,000 square feet of production, distribution, and, repair space. But beyond of a scope of this project, what matter, most is its vision. The Gateway Project will be strengthened, San Francisco economy and support our city recovery, by insuring, area standards wages for both journeyman and appendices carpenter. The wages are more than a paycheck. They are a contribution, to pension and, unity. That's guarantee worker, dignity of, retirement after lifetime of the hard working day. So, this project also, history is this will be, first carbon natural, carbon neutral development of ISKCON in San Francisco. At least 17% of a contractor and company get involved will be San Francisco based keeper opportunity in in the local. That's most of important. That project will be create 800 construction job each year. The job that sustain family Excuse

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: me, Sam is completely Thank you for sharing your comments with the committee. Thank you. We need to move on to the next speaker.

[Vanessa (SF Gateway Advisory Committee)]: Good evening. My name is Vanessa, and I have been a part of the Palagas SF Gateway advisory committee. And we have met with them for like two years. Right? Two years. So, I'm just here to agree, to disagree, to say this. This is the first time I've been a part of such a project. And I really believe after meeting with them for two years that they got a good interest in the community. And whether I live a hundred years or not, because the project's supposed to be there for a hundred years. I think I gotta go around with y'all, so I approve.

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

[Unidentified public commenter]: Supervisors,

[Francisco Da Costa]: my name is Francisco de Costa, and I truly represent the community. Having put fifty years of hard work addressing environmental issues and other important issues that adversely impact our community. This is a very large project. And in order to understand this project, we have to understand the present economy the economy that is that is happening today. We really have to figure that in. Citibuild hasn't performed well. The controller has asked them for stats for the last five years. It's not forthcoming. So Citibail wants to partner with yet another entity, first source, and the director of both the companies is the same guy. And this is like hoodwinking the community in in broad daylight. I have been working with pro pro Prologic with our vice president, and I'm going to help her as best I can. But I will not tolerate nonsense, and I will not be hoodwinked in broad daylight. I tried Leinart tried that with me and hasn't succeeded. Thank you.

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

[Kristen Hardy (SEIU Local 1021)]: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Kristen Hardy. I am a SF native, and I am here to talk about the San Francisco Gateway project. I am in as me being a San Francisco native and also the current regional vice president for SEIU ten to one that represents majority of public sector workers here in San Francisco. I truly, truly am in support of this project. Labor is backing this. This is a 100% labor funded project. And, also, I love the fact that a lot of our organizations that work close with the communities that provide jobs for a lot of my family members, my coworkers, and their family through the pre apprenticeship programs will be recognized and getting some experience through this project. So I totally encourage, for this project to be supported, and I am standing here with my, fellow trade labor brothers and sisters in full, full support. And as me being the ex local twenty two, member from the Carpenters Union here in San Francisco, let's pass this.

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

[Dan Torres (Sprinkler Fitters UA Local 483)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Dan Torres, San Francisco native and proud twenty five year member of Sprinkler Fitters UA Local four eighty three. When I first got into the apprenticeship with UA Local four eighty three, I took the 9 San Bruno downtown to go to work to build this lovely city. So having this project in our backyard provides an opportunity for people like me. So I urge you to vote yes on this project. Thank you for your time.

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

[Rudy Gonzalez (SF Building & Construction Trades Council)]: Good afternoon. Rudy Gonzales, San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. I want to first note that this has been a long time coming. I know you have a busy agenda later this afternoon. I certainly appreciate the leadership of chair Melgar. I know you have a lot on your plate right now. Supervisor Walton has led with integrity in terms of making sure that the project sponsor, before they started working the halls of this building, actually put in the time with the community. And despite maybe one comment that I'm reluctant to even dignify with a response, brought together a community of actual stakeholders that are rooted and deeply committed to the Bayview community. I'm talking about YCD. I'm talking about APRI, economic development on 3rd Street. The list goes on. And so the community was actually not just allowed to be part of a listening session like we all too often see with private development in this city. The community were actually brought in to help shape that vision. And when that vision was brought together with labor, with community, and truly negotiated in good faith, we came out with a win win win. It's a win for the local economy. It's a win for the investment that's gonna happen in the surrounding area. It is a win for local blue collar workers who have been struggling, throughout, even the pandemic. We still have people out of work that are hungry and ready to go. And it's a shot in the arm for our apprentices and pre apprentices, people who are being intentionally recruited from nine four one two four, from nine four one zero seven, from nine four one three four so that we can diversify and bring equity and representation into the building trades. And we are proud that Prologis has partnered with us on that pre apprenticeship endeavor and that this project is gonna be something that the community can be proud of. You as lawmakers can also be proud that in a tough budget negotiations, in the future, you will have revenue, the MTA, the rest of the city departments will have direct benefits as will the community. So we strand stand in strong support and urge you to move this to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation. Thank you.

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

[Rami (Ramey) Tan (Local Architect)]: Hello. My name is Ramey Tan, local architect here, and, you know, I urge the land use committee to support projects and make it easy for the developer and the building owner to put forth the project without delay. And right right now with the economy, the way is, it it's really tough for all the trades and and all the architects and engineers. We got a lot of tons and tons of projects on hold. So if we can free these up, that'd be super. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item numbers one and two? Madam chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much, mister Clerk. Public comment on this item is now closed. Supervisor Walton, did you have any closing remarks?

[Supervisor Shamann Walton]: Actually, I don't, chair mayor guard. I just want to thank everyone who came out to speak on the project. Appreciate everyone coming together. And I do want to say thank you so much to our building and construction trades representative, Rudy Gonzalez, for emphasizing the fact that labor was a part of this conversation the entire time. So I want to make sure we get the right information out to community, because labor has been at the table the entire time within this conversation. And there have been some controls put in place to address some of the concerns that we heard from public comment. And I hope that people would actually pay attention to the conversations, the meetings, the things that are happening in community, so they'll know before they speak ill of projects that have had conversations that address their concerns. Thank you, Chair Melgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: You're welcome. And thank you, supervisor Walton. With that, mister Clerk, I'd like to make a motion that we send items one and two to the full board with a positive recommendation. Please call the roll.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by the chair that agenda item numbers one and two both be sent to the board of supervisors with the recommendation of land use and transportation. Vice chair Chen Chen, I. Member Mahmood Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. That motion passes. Mister Kolirk, I'm gonna call the next two items separately. So please call item number three first.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number three is an ordinance amending the planning code to allow additional uses as principally or conditionally permitted in historic buildings citywide, exempt historic buildings in certain Eastern neighborhood plan areas from conditional use authorization, otherwise required to remove production, distribution, and repair, institutional community and arts activity uses, and from providing replacement space for such uses, make conforming amendments to provisions affected by the foregoing, including zoning control tables. This item is on our agenda as a potential committee report. It may be sent for consideration by the board of supervisors tomorrow, 11/04/2025. Madam Chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, mister Clark. And we have gotten a a late minute, last minute request from the mayor's office, to continue this item to allow for some more work. I see Lisa Gluckstein here, perhaps. Can you confirm that that's the case, miss Gluckstein?

[Lisa Gluckstein (Mayor’s Office)]: That's correct. Yes. There are a few amendments that we would like to incorporate.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. So with that, we're gonna have to take public comment because it is agendized. But I think that what I'm gonna do is, given that folks still need to work on this and we want maximum flexibility, I will make a motion after public comment to continue it to the call of the chair. So let's call public comment on this item, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related specifically to agenda item number three, adaptive reuse of historic buildings. If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern. And if you are waiting for your time to speak, you can line up to speak along that western wall.

[Mark Bruno]: Is it two minutes?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Please begin. But please, this is about the continuance. So, yes, we're continuing this item. Yes. Okay. Two minutes. Yes. Go ahead.

[Mark Bruno]: I'm commenting on the item since we were in the

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Comment into the microphone, and I'll start your time.

[Mark Bruno]: Where where do I go?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Either one.

[Mark Bruno]: Which one has the timer?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: I'm gonna start your timer right now.

[Mark Bruno]: Thank you. Okay. I'm here to comment on item number three, adaptive reuse of historic buildings. I'm in favor of the continuance. I call your attention to a piece by Heather Knight in 2007 when she wrote for the Chronicle then, Cafe Trieste and Neighbors rally to rescue a neighbor in need. She described at the time the Promethean efforts made by a small cafe, Cafe Trieste, to assist a man who was homeless, who had mental health issues, and had been evicted from many SROs in the city. The story is emblematic of what our small businesses do in North Beach and I believe throughout the city, helping those in need. For them, customers are not merely dots on a flowchart, but their friends, their acquaintances, their neighbors, people who they care about. A policeman from North Beach at the time in the Knight article says, we have a homeless problem. Right? I don't understand why the city allows someone to be put on the street who can't pay rent. That problem in this instance was solved by a small business, because of compassion. And because the business, the owners, were small, they had the flexibility to act in the circumstances as they felt was needed. We're asking for the same flexibility by supporting our small businesses that the mayor asked for himself in handling the homeless problem earlier this year when he came to all of you on the board, I realize it's a subcommittee, and I supported him as did other people in the homeless community saying, yes. Let's give the mayor flexibility to help the homeless. That's what Cafe Trieste had, and I promise you Starbucks would not have had that because we know one thing for sure about Starbucks. In 2018, in Philadelphia, they evicted, they arrested, they had removed from their store two African American men because they were, quote, sitting there without making a purchase. I promise you that would not happen in North Beach or in San Francisco at any small cafe. This is I just saw supervisor Manilman come in. I'll say that my favorite small cafe, actually, is Little Orphan Andy's in the Castro. I love that place, and they're emblematic of our city.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for sharing your comments to the committee. Let's have the next speaker for agenda item number three.

[Cynthia Gomez (UNITE HERE Local 2)]: Good afternoon, supervisor. Cynthia Gomez. You're not here local too. My comment is very, very short, which is just to say, yes. There are some issues, with the adaptive reuse legislation, and we very much appreciate the chance for a continuance. That's all. Thank you.

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

[Romalyn Schmaltz]: Good afternoon, supervisors, and thank you. I'm Romalyn Schmaltz. I'm a North Beach working artist. And, this innocent sounding plan that I just heard about recently this week is a wild deregulation of our formula retail ban that has protected us from unfair competition since 2005. It sure is a curious coincidence that just last week, you passed Supervisor Souders' deregulation package, District Three Thieves, where for months, he swore legislate his legislation would not invite formula retail to cannibalize our small businesses. But this is calendarized the same week. It's a big old welcome mat for formula retail. Don't even tell me Danny didn't know what his best Instagram buddy had up his sleeve when he when he was telling us, don't worry, don't worry, there's not going to be any formula retail. Heard that so many times over the last two months, in this room even. It's insult to injury that Lurie and Sowder have blocked our historic district, and now are using our historic resources to further imperil our small businesses. I just can't believe it. I just, wow. So, it's insult to injury, and I want you to please consider consider not not, adopting this when you, recalendarize it. And, seriously, like, I I don't know how much our our small business can take, but, I mean, half of North Beach is, like, a historic building. So, I mean, we we'll just be Starbucks is just the beginning. I mean, Starbucks is going bankrupt. That's the last of their you know, there there's so much more. Good grief.

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: Thank you.

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

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: Let's have

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

[Apollo (working musician)]: Good afternoon, and thank you, supervisors. I'm Apollo, a working musician and a North Beach resident. Please vote no on this item or continue it. Do not send it to the full board, at least without time to review. As former supervisor in 2004 sponsor of original formula retail bands Matt Gonzales put it, while this legislation purports to allow flexibility for uses in historic buildings, it would reverse the formula retail prohibitions in the North Beach neighborhood commercial districts. No review would be necessary to allow chain stores of any size to compete with our small businesses. Recently our district three supervisor sponsored sweeping commercial corridor legislation that ends many of our retail protections, all the while promising our formula retail band would not be touched. I guess he meant technically not by him, but he surely knew of mayor Lurie's companion legislation here that can do precisely that. My neighborhood is filled with historic buildings, the same ones mayor Lurie and Souder have refused to add to an historic district. Now these buildings are not only not included under historic protections, they're being weaponized as a loophole shaped portal to welcome the kinds of businesses that will cannibalize our small business only district. None of my neighbors want this. Please do not send this to the full board, and please consider how attacked my neighborhood businesses feel after months of reversals of the protection they've relied on for decades. Thank you.

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

[Pat Huey]: Hello. Hello. My name is Pat Huey. I'm a forty year resident in San Francisco. I am against the adaptive reuse of historic buildings idea as it is currently written. It harms small businesses by allowing by preventing any kind of review for allowing for chain stores of any size to our neighborhoods. It also excludes local historic buildings from being included in the historic district. People come from all over the world to see our beautiful buildings in this our beautiful architecture in this city, particularly in North Beach. North Beach is unique. Don't turn it into a modern shopping mall with a bunch of chain stores, where if somebody is in trouble, they call the police instead of trying to help them as Cafe Trieste as the gentleman from Cafe Trieste said a few minutes ago. Thank you.

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

[Heather Davies]: Good afternoon, committee members. I'm Heather Davies. I'm speaking against this led piece of legislation and, asking you to bring it back to this committee before it is heard by the board of supervisors. I am opposed to the, conglomeration of major chains in our neighborhoods. It's antithetical to the unique character of our neighborhoods. It also does not support local businesses that serve ethnically diverse communities like mine in the sunset. We will potentially use lose our produce markets and other stores that particularly serve our Chinese neighbors, and myself. I'm also opposed to it because, please remember, we have a private prison in the historically important, 111 Taylor Street, which was the site of the Compton riots, which predates the Stonewall Rebellion and is an important landmark for trans neighbors and residents of our city. Don't make another mistake like that. Thank you.

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: Thank you

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

[Rami (Ramey) Tan (Local Architect)]: Hello. Again, Rami Tan, local architect here. I'm speaking to support the idea of adaptive reuse, but we do need to make sure that we're looking at every project carefully to make sure the historic fabric of the historic building is retained. And, you know, listening to some of the speakers, I think the issue with, with the chain store, it's a separate issue. It should be taken out of that and addressed as a separate issue. There may be appropriateness for some chain stores, like grocery stores or that stuff. But, you know, we have to be very careful to make sure we are preserving the local small businesses and making sure that, you know, if there's a chain store nearby, that it, you know, complements and not competes against the small business. And and, you know, we have the conditional use process to, go through that and make sure that, you know, we're, you know, looking at each case, you know, from a specific economic purpose. So, you know, I I think, you know, we we should move forward with historic, adaptive reuse, but, again, take the take the chain store issue out and make it a separate separate issue. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker for agenda item number three.

[Bridget Maley (Neighborhoods United SF)]: Thank you, supervisors. In support of continuing this item, I think it does need more work. Speaking on behalf of Neighborhoods United SF today, we support the continuance and hope that the will of the voters, which has specifically have specifically voiced their concerns in the past about formula retail in our neighborhoods, will be heard. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. To the next speaker for agenda item number three.

[Unidentified public commenter]: I too hope that you will continue this can you continue this item while you think long and hard about the in the tourist industry in San Francisco. I just spent five days showing friends from the East Coast around San Francisco. And one of the things that they thought was wonderful and charming is that it didn't look like every other city in The United States that has chain retail all over the place. It was San Francisco is unique, historic. The citizens have fought a long time to keep it that way, and we have reaped the benefits of tourism. Don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker for agenda item number three. Please come forward if you have public comment for this ordinance.

[Unidentified public commenter]: So I just wanted to put in a put in a plug for our friends at Neighborhoods United SF. They came up with a a really excellent map, which is three d. I guess I don't know if anybody showed that today, but, I was really impressed with that. It's let's see. I can Here's the URL. You can if you type that in, it'll take you to to their website. And the person they offer you is to look at the map.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Will you pull the mic closer to your mouth here so

[Unidentified public commenter]: you can hear what you're saying? Yes. Thank you. The the old maps that we were looking at are more likely

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: to pause the speaker's time. Just so you know, we're hearing agenda item number three right now, not agenda item numbers six through 11 related to the upzoning plan.

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: Okay.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: We'll be calling a separate public comment period for that, but you still have a minute and twenty seconds if you wanna address the current public the current topic.

[Unidentified public commenter]: I guess I'm I'm I'm misunderstood. Thank you.

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: Very good.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you. Let's have the next speaker for agenda item number three.

[Lee Sargis]: Hi. My name is Lee Sargis. I'm speaking to agenda item number three, adaptive reuse of historical buildings. Please vote no or send this back to continue. It needs more work. This undermines our small businesses. It not only opens the door, but it incentivizes, formula retailers to displace our small businesses. And it it does, as someone mentioned, weaponize our historical resources, and and it prevents any kind of review or community input. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number three proposed for continuance? Madam chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. I would like to make a motion that we continue this item to the call of the chair, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by the chair that this be continued to the call of the chair, vice chair Chen. Aye. Chen, aye. Member Mahkamund. Mahkamund, aye. Chair Malgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Malgar, aye. Madam chair, there are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much. That item passes. Now please call item number four.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number four is an ordinance amending the planning code to require certain planning department fees to be paid to the department at the time the development application is submitted. Modify the environmental review fees for large projects, and remove the separate fee schedule for class 32 categorical exemptions under CEQA. This ordinance affirms the planning department CEQA determination, makes findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section one zero one point one, and findings of necessity, convenience, and welfare pursuant to planning code section three zero two. It also appears on our agenda as a potential committee report that may be sent for consideration by the board tomorrow, 11/04/2025.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you, mister Clark. Again, we have Lisa Gluckstein from, the planning department to present on this item. Oh, no. Miss Flores.

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department)]: Thank you, chair Malaga. Veronica Flores, planning department staff. This item is the planning fees ordinance introduced by the mayor. The proposed ordinance does primarily two things. First, this would shift the timing of the planning department fee collection from the issuance of the building permit to the submission of a development application. And secondly, there would be changes to environmental review fees under the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA. The planning commission heard this item on October 23 and unanimously adopted a recommendation for approval. This concludes the commission report. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much, Miss Flores. Colleagues, do we have any questions or comments on this item? And if not, let's go to public comment on this item, please.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Mister Clint.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Madam chair. Land use and transportation. We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number four, planning fees. If you have public comment for this item specifically, please line up to speak along that western wall that I'm pointing out with my left hand, and then come forward to the lectern if you are next to speak. Looks like we have one speaker. Please come forward.

[Heather Davies]: Good afternoon. I am speaking against delaying fees being paid associated with development. With respect to how this will play out with the family rezoning plan, the developers who are not required to pay fees at the onset of the planning process delay and and starve the city of funds needed to support the review of this program, but also the construction of infrastructure. And we don't, that will lead to increased costs for our residents, and for the city budget. The developers who are serious about developing should pay their fees upfront, and fund the process by which they're going to receive value and profits, and not require the city to carry that cost as well as the residents. Thank you.

[Rami (Ramey) Tan (Local Architect)]: Hello. Again, Ray McCann, local architect. Listening to the presentation, it is a little unclear. But I'd like to kind of clarify what I think should happen, you know, based on my experience as an architect, for many years. The developers should pay a fee when they submit, and that fee should cover the cost of reviewing the plans and reviewing the plans only. And then when they go into construction and they finish construction, they should pay the fee to cover the cost of any additional infrastructure that the project burdens onto the city, no more, no less. We cannot also charge fees to the developer that, you know, covers additional, infrastructure that is not associated with the project. And I think the courts have made it very clear that if, we do that, that's considered a taking, and it's legal under the California and federal laws. So I hope that the planning department and the committees reviewed this very careful to make sure that we're charging fair fees to the developers and clear fees so that there's no, no confusion and we can, get, you know, the much needed housing that we need here, built, you know, in an expedited fashion and not being delayed by, necessarily, fees and complications. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number four?

[Romalyn Schmaltz]: Thank you again, supervisors. I just wanted to say on the record that I am definitely opposed to this legislation, and that, developers should definitely I don't why are we bending over backwards for developers like this? I don't get it. It doesn't make any sense to me. Like, yeah, they should be paying their fees right up front. And that's all I have to say on this item. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number four? Looks like we have someone coming forward. If there's anyone else after this speaker, please line up to speak along that western wall. I'm pointing out with my left hand. Please begin.

[Unidentified public commenter]: I just have to second and reinforce the comment of why are we bending over backwards to accommodate developers. What a cogent, on point point. Please, let's stop doing that and represent your constituents instead.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number four? Madam chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, mister Clerk. Public comment on this item is now closed. I would like to make a motion to send this item out as a committee report to the full board with a positive recommendation.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by the chair that this ordinance be recommended to the board of supervisors as a committee report, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood Mahmood, I. Chair Malaga.

[Reina Teo (PODER)]: I.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Malaga, I. Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much. We are now at item oh, there she is. Great. Number five, please, mister Clerk.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number five is an ordinance amending the planning code to define legacy businesses and to require con I'm sorry. Is an ordinance amending the planning code to define legacy business and to require conditional use authorization prior to replacing a legacy business for a new nonresidential use in certain neighborhood commercial named neighborhood commercial and neighborhood commercial transit districts and in the Chinatown Mixed Use District, amending the plan excuse me. Admitting amending the administrative code to allow a business that has been operating for fifteen years to qualify as a legacy business, affirming the planning department's secret determination and making findings of consistency with the general plan as well as planning code section three zero two.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much, mister Clerk. We are now joined by district one supervisor Connie Chan. Supervisor Chan, the floor is yours.

[Supervisor Connie Chan]: Thank you, chair Malgar, and thank you so much. I'm really grateful for you and as well as for this committee for last week's really robust discussion and bringing this item with amendments back to the committee today, to ensure that we can continue this conversation and utilize this critical, legislative tool to protect our legacy businesses. Again, I I wanna emphasize that legacy and long time businesses are not just business entities. They are cultural assets and are recognized as contributors to the neighborhoods that paved the way for other small businesses to thrive. I cannot imagine, you know, how dynamic, Clement Street, is today if it weren't for, legacy business like Green Apple or Toy Boats that really been, really been, the angering business in in that space, and that leading to newer business like Mama, Hoo, Hoo, or Pasta Supply. And those are amazing business too. But then you also have business somewhere in between, like the Chinese Grocers that are on a few block, like Mei Wa and Ga Mei. And then you also have Parklife. And it's really creating a robust small business and really neighborhood commercial corridor. And it's the reason why I really hope to have your support today. This ordinance really allow us to make sure that we protect our existing small business legacy business. At the same time, should there be a situation where there is new development, we also can welcome new small business and further deter, formula retail and corporate chains, to be on our neighborhood commercial corridor. The goal of a number of policies under the commerce and industrial elements objective truly, really emphasized, in this legislation. And that, it it really helped to think about the city's total living and working environment, our diversity of the city's economic vitality, and employment opportunities, particularly for, people of color and economically, disadvantaged communities. Thank you. And I really, again, wanna thank you, chair Malgar, for scheduling this today, and I hope to have your support.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor Chan, and thank you for all your hard work on this issue, and, you know, the larger issue of protecting small businesses as our city changes and makes way for change. I think it's important to support them. Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: I have a couple of questions for the planning department, if they're available to answer about this legislation. Last time we were here, there was new amendments that were discussed. Wanted to ask, now that you've had time to review the amendments, at the last committee hearing, you had recommended not to proceed with this legislation. Wanted to check based on the amendments, how do the amendments look to you from your perspective, and how do they change or or not your original affirmation?

[Unidentified Planning Department staffer]: Yeah. The planning department's recommendation stands to recommend disapproval of this ordinance, even as amended with the 500 or excuse me, $5,000,000 gross receipts threshold that, the supervisor added as an amendment.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: And why is that?

[Unidentified Planning Department staffer]: There are two two reasons, predominantly. One is that the planning department is not in the business of looking at gross receipts. We don't have access to the tax assessor's records, and so it would be relying on a sworn affidavit by the business applicant, to submit that documentation. There's no means for the department to verify that because of confidentiality around tax records. The second reason is that, generally, the department does not believe that a CU requirement is the appropriate tool here to control for,

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: what

[Unidentified Planning Department staffer]: is ultimately a biz a small business support goal. And the department's very supportive of other methods, like a proactive fund to support small businesses and legacy businesses, to help them with technical assistance, and any sort of relocation expenses, that sort of proactive means. But controlling new businesses from moving into a vacant space that happened to be occupied by a legacy business in the past. The department believes that's not good for the overall urban fabric of our city.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: So just to reiterate, you're saying that this legislation is focused on previously this legislation is focused on previously vacant legacy businesses. It's not actually supporting the legacy businesses of today. It's focusing on a site or a parcel that was a legacy business, and it is blocking a new business from coming in, or having to go through a CU process instead.

[Unidentified Planning Department staffer]: That's correct. And the other thing I wanted to mention is that that we're also representing the commission's action, and the commission recommended disapproval, four to two, with the knowledge of those amendments being read into the record.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: You're saying the small business commission. Right?

[Unidentified Planning Department staffer]: Sorry. Planning commission.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Planning commission. Okay. Do you feel that this could create negative incentives with landlords potentially against legacy businesses going forward?

[Unidentified Planning Department staffer]: That's right. There's actually, a particular instance in which a legacy business asked to be delisted from the legacy business registry. They were, leaving the business. They they of their own decision. And they asked to be delisted because that, like, particular business felt that it was unfair to their landlord with whom they had a good relationship, that there would be controls on the types of businesses that could move into that space after that vacancy.

[Howard Wong]: Got it. Thank you.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: That helps answer my questions.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Before I go back to you, supervisor Chan, I just wanted to state that this is the rare occasion where I, you know, differ a little bit from the folks in the planning staff. I think that, you know, the universe of legacy businesses in our city as opposed to the entire, you know, universe of businesses is actually quite small. And legacy businesses fill a pretty unique niche, on our commercial corridors, given that we are, also working on a rezoning plan that has the potential for some displacement, I think that it is wise to make these types of changes to support these unique businesses. I think that, that this coupled with, a fund to assist the businesses as they have to, you know, adapt to the environment around them, either by moving to another space or, you know, whether through construction on their block is, you know, is is the right thing to do. So I think that, you know, having a space that is nearby that where your customers already know what where to found find you is wise. And there you know, I I like the amendments that supervisor Chan has put in. I do think there is a way to do it. You know, we do tend to have, processes that support the needs of each department, and then sometimes not cross departmental collaboration. But I don't think that it cannot be done. So with that, supervisor Chan.

[Supervisor Connie Chan]: Thank you, chair Malgar, and thank you so much for your support. And I think, you know, one of the questions that was asked by supervisor Matmoo and answer by the planning staff about how one legacy business asked to not to be listed any longer. I think that another questions, and I look forward to the answer also is then how many more actually asked to be registered once they learn this, you know, legislation? And and I know that there are certainly more than one wanted to be listed as a legacy business and registered to be so, and they recognize the potential displacement risk and the benefits to it. This is no different, and I wish there's more legislative tool that we can do for both residential tenants and commercial tenants. And this is almost very similar to conditional use authorization for demolition of residential flats and residential dwelling units, and to be able to have a put a CU when you displace a legacy business and then to put in a new one is is one of the legislative tools that I think we can utilize. And I also wanna indicate that the previous version with the interim zoning control of eighteen months had unanimous support at the board supervisor, just last year, not too long ago. So I look forward to having more of those discussion, should this be able to vote it out today, and have this discussion at the food board with our rest of our colleagues. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Supervisor Chen.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Chair Melga. I also want to echo and continue to uplift that, this is a time where our small business are really going through a lot of tremendously, risk. We have seen, proliferation of state laws that make it easier to redevelop properties, and bypass local planning review. And as a result, many small and long standing neighborhood small business face growing pressures and uncertainties. And what troubles me more is that there are many gaps in the protections and supporting our small business. There are so few remedies at our disposal to ensure that we do no harm. In my own district, an SB four twenty three project is displacing several cherished neighborhoods serving small businesses that have been rooted in the community for many years. Small businesses already face many challenges, and these new pressures result in uncertainty in their lease and store fund. This is very destabilizing and undermining the essential fabric of our neighborhoods. Our neighborhoods lose out on business that provide critical linguistically, culturally, and economically accessible goods and services, as well as jobs and vitality for our working class and diverse communities. Without stronger protection, we risk losing a very es- very well established that gives San Francisco its unique identity. We, at this moment, must do everything that we can to protect, to preserve, and to promote them, especially our legacy business that have served generations of residents, and continue to hold our neighborhood togethers. As San Francisco opens the door to increased development and new housing production, the impact on small business often gets lost in the conversation. I don't disagree. I don't agree with Planning's, assertion that this tool is not appropriate to address the land use issues. I believe that our land use framework should be incentivizing the kinds of uses that deliver the kinds of benefit that legacy business do for our communities. A stable, long term workforce anchor for our commercial corridor, as well as locally rooted merchants that have deep community connection to their surrounding neighborhoods. This legislation provides some disincentives to displace certain business, and protect what is never and protect what is near and dear to us. It provides an additional layer of protection for the legacy business that carry out our city's history, cultural, community spirits, and create the character and sense of place that makes each neighborhood very special. So thus, I would like to support this legislation today.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Would you like to make a motion, supervisor Chan? Or wait. Oh, yes. I have a comment. Public comment first. And you can okay. Let's go to public comment, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Before we go to public comment, just a quick bit of housekeeping to note that with the presence of supervisor Chan now, as well as supervisors Mandelmann and Sauter in the chamber, we are presently constituted as a special quorum of the board of supervisors. Conduct of this committee will still continue as as usual with three voting members, but we do have a special quorum so everyone knows. Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number five, legacy businesses in neighborhood commercial districts. If you have public comment for this agenda item specifically, please come forward to the lectern at this time. And if you're waiting for your time to give public comment for this item, you can line up to speak along that western wall that I'm pointing out with my left hand. Mister Wooding is up front. You may begin.

[George Wooding]: Good afternoon, committee. I just wanted to say very quickly, thank you for adopting Connie Chan's amendment on legacy businesses. I think legacy businesses in particular are very important to San Francisco. She has four other amendments, and I think they should all be seriously looked at. But that comes at number six. But I want to thank you for adopting her legacy business. Thank you.

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: Thank you

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

[Mark Bruno]: My name is Mark Bruno. Thank you for letting me speak again on this issue, and I agree with the prior speaker that, supervisor Chan's amendments regarding legacy businesses are important to all of our neighborhoods. I know in North Beach, where I've helped some businesses become legacy businesses, it's not an easy thing to do. And I don't believe in contract I'd like to contradict very directly what Planning said about, oops, we're in trouble here because businesses could lie to us. That was the implication of the comment by planning that, after all, we don't have access to the tax assessor's records, and so we don't really know what their, sales are every year. I I don't believe businesses are going to lie. I don't believe they do lie, and I certainly don't think they're gonna lie to become a legacy business, the benefits aren't that great. When you read an affidavit or a deposition, all of you who are lawyers know, it says right at the bottom, under penalty of perjury of the laws of state the loss of penalty of of perjury of California, I swear to the that the above is true and correct, and I don't think a business is gonna lie about that. So, I think that it's great piece of legislation, and I thank supervisor Melgar, chair Melgar, for supporting it, and please vote in favor of it. Thank you.

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

[Romalyn Schmaltz]: Hello again. I would just like to briefly speak in favor of, supervisor Chan's amendment. And, I've I've written a few, supporting letters for legacy businesses over the years and and helped craft some of their verbiage. And it is not easy. It is not, it is it is not an easy process, and I don't think that, we need to make that any more difficult. And, you know, what Mark said about people lying on their applications and so forth. Anyway, please support Chan Chan's amendment, and thank you.

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

[Heather Davies]: Thank you, supervisor Chan, supervisors all for supporting this amendment. The legacy businesses are part of our lives. There is something very special when you walk into mister Bing's or your favorite other stores and restaurants. They are part of our city's heritage. It's part of our who we are in the history. And you can't recreate that with a new chain restaurant or store or entity. I was part of a process to help our very tiny legacy yacht club on Treasure Island become a legacy business. It's an it is a former Navy recreation club and has history that goes back throughout, the Navy's presence on the site as well. And it is well loved by many people who across the country who have been part of that history. And I encourage you to protect these businesses and support this amendment. Thank you.

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

[Yolanda (Small Business Forward)]: Hello. I'm Yolanda with Small Business Forward, and we are here, in support of Supervisor Chan's legislation to extend the requirement for a conditional use for sites where a legacy business has been displaced. In absence of having many other tools available, or financial resources to support successful relocation of a legacy business within their community, the conditional use is an imperfect, but necessary mechanism to discourage the displacement of legacy businesses in the first place. That is why small business forward supports that the CU legislation be extended until other more protection measures are in place, such as commercial rent control, the right to return, and relocation assistance. Thank you so much.

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

[Gwen McLaughlin (Small Business Forward)]: Hello, supervisors. My name's Gwen McLaughlin, and I'm here today with Small Business Forward to express our organization's support of supervisor Chan's legislation to extend the requirement for conditional use for sites where a legacy business has been displaced. Legacy businesses are staples in our communities. They provide vital services and resources to our neighbors and help us live in the beautiful, vibrant, walking cities that we enjoy. If we cannot provide meaningful financial assistance to our displaced businesses, then ensuring conditional use is a good tool to prevent that displacement in the first place. So thank you for supporting this amendment.

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

[Justin (Small Business Forward)]: Good afternoon. I'm Justin with Small Business Forward. I would also like to speak in favor of supervisor Chan's legislation to extend the conditional use permitting process. Supervisor Ramud, I would like to get your earlier question and what I believe is a somewhat disingenuous response from planning. To imply that this legislation exists to simply hamper a building owner of a vacant commercial space that's sat vacant for a while, and now this is hurting, and new businesses would like to come in, is quite obviously silly. This legislation is intended to protect existing legacy businesses, pillars of their communities, that are at risk of displacement because of a non renewal of lease by their commercial landlord. I'm thinking specifically of the Uptown, a bar in the Mission that served its community for over forty years and was evicted in bad faith by a commercial landlord who wanted to move them out, move in a shell business so that he could sell the building more expediently. Now, in that scenario, we went for the conditional use permitting process. It was unsuccessful, but we did get to make our voices heard. We did get to express our opposition to this change. Is the conditional use permit process perfect? No, it is not. But in lieu of further processes, such as the right to return or commercial rent control, it is a useful tool to disincentivize the closure and expulsion of our legacy businesses. So I'm gonna speak in support of the legislation. Thank you.

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

[Pat Huey]: Hello. My name is Pat Huey. I'm, 40 resident, and I'm just want to, express my support for, supervisor Chan's legislation. We need to support our legacy businesses. Our city will lose so much by not doing this. People who run these businesses, they are far better citizens than some corporate headquarters in Chicago somewhere. I know so many visitors who come to our city, and they just love that we have these legacy businesses. What dull places they live in. How envious our our visitors are when they see our legacy businesses. So please support supervisor Chen's legislation. Thank you.

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

[Lisa Arges]: My name is Lisa Arges. I am, speaking today in favor of supervisor Chen's amendments. In listening to the planning department, it occurred to me that I think what is at odds is this urbanist view versus a community view. And the planning department looks at small businesses as interchangeable units or cogs, not as unique, not as essential fabric of our community. And I think that, you know, when I moved here twenty one years ago, that was one thing that someone pointed out to me was how, how much thought and care was taken into protecting our small business and to trying to deter formula businesses from coming in. I hope we don't lose sight of that. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker for agenda item number five.

[Steven Torres]: Good afternoon. My name is Steven Torres. I'm a small business worker. I'd like to also speak in support of this legislation and echo what was shared by Small Business Forward. There are thousands of small business workers in this city. Though it may be called imperfect, this is a way to protect their employment as well. As we continue to hyper focus on other industries that we want to curry favor with or entice to move to San Francisco, we have to understand that the small business sector employs thousands of San Franciscans right now. We need to protect them.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker for agenda item number five.

[Andy Katz]: Hello, supervisors. My name is Andy Katz, a North Beach native, and I support supervisor Chan's legislation. North Beach is filled with legacy businesses, and tourists come from near and far to our neighborhood because of these businesses and our rich history. This makes up the heartbeat of our unique city. Thank you, supervisor Chan for this legislation.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker for agenda item number five.

[Catherine Howard]: Good afternoon, supervisors, Catherine Howard. I support supervisor Chan's amendment and her legislation. A few years ago, there was a cartoon in the New Yorker, which I have unfortunately not been able to find it. If anybody can please send it to me. There are two people in a coffee shop and one turns to the other and says, are we in this Starbucks? Are we or are we in the Starbucks down the street? And this is, I think, the whole thing in a nutshell. This is not what we want San Francisco to be. Thank you.

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

[Rami (Ramey) Tan (Local Architect)]: Hello. Again, Rami Tan, local architect. I'm speaking, generally in support of, supervisor Chan's, amendment. Do wanna make sure I think it's a little confusing again, with the planning staff to make sure that if the legacy business is vacated because they wanted to close, retire, or whatever, that that space is, you know, not considered a legacy business because that's, you know, the business is gone. So we wanna make sure that that space is quickly filled without any any delays so we don't have a vacant storefront, which is really, I mean, if you look at Stockton Street, Powell Street, San Francisco Center, it's all vacant, And it looks terrible and embarrassing every time we have a conference. Just kind of note how important to preserve the legacy business. I was at an art opening yesterday in Pacifica, and a local Pacifican artist painted the Green Apple bookstore. So, and then met some other people, over the week who, you know, came for the tech conferences. And, you know, you know, they love going to, you know, city like books and, you know, a lot Cafe Trieste, a lot of our very famous, legacy businesses. So that's really part of our tourism and convention, revenues. So we have to make sure that we we do preserve that. But then at the same time, making sure if those businesses close under their own accord, that the space, the vacant space, can be quickly filled. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker for agenda item number five.

[Bridget Maley (Neighborhoods United SF)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Bridget Maley on behalf of Neighborhoods United SF. We support, supervisor Chan's comments, amendments on this, legislation, And, we support our legacy businesses citywide. Thank you.

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

[Howard Wong]: Howard Wong. I'm a architect and a native of North Beach. I support, supervisor Chan's legislation and legacy businesses. When we travel, it's often very common for us to kinda look at guidebooks, look at websites, look at cities, and zero in on businesses that have been around ten, twenty, thirty, fifty, a hundred years because those type of businesses reflect the essence and the soul of the city. And it's very important that we nurture those things that last. Nothing lasts forever, but when a legacy business is around that long, you you want to find out why. And I think it's also important to start looking at how we invest in legacy businesses, that it's not just some protections. It's about how we invest some financially tax breaks, tax incentives incentives. How do we keep those businesses around? How do we build a neighborhood that has a character? And legacy businesses are part of it, but we have a whole role of legacy businesses. That's pretty remarkable, and that's something we we should strive for. Thanks.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker for agenda item number five.

[Unidentified speaker (d Forward)]: Hi. I'm representing, deep forward and from the just district deep forward. Why do we have to come here not only to this committee meeting, but to our city hall, and have to fight for small businesses and residents. And anything for the big corporate businesses just slide right by. The entire family housing plan, gives it to the big corporations. And we're here begging for legacy businesses. It's outrage, really. Please support, not please, support small businesses and residents in the city. Let's have a turnaround here from the right wing shift that has happened in this city where everything's for the billionaires and the corporations. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number five? Madam chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, mister Clark. Public comment on this item is now closed. Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Thank you, chair. I wanna make some comments based on what we heard public comment, but also from the planning department, in regards to this legislation. To start with, I am a supporter of the legacy business program and our office has helped multiple applications under this program. I cherish the impact these businesses have with deep roots in the community for thirty years or more, especially in the neighborhoods of District 5. And it's with that understanding, actually, that I cannot support this legislation due to the unintended consequences that our departments have indicated that they would have on neighborhood commercial districts because they outweigh the perceived benefits that they could offer to legacy businesses. While it's true that having a conditional use permit may dissuade a landlord from forcing out a legacy business, As several commenters noted or asked, it's important to clarify that the rules in this legislation do not distinguish between whether that business vacated as a result of displacement forced by the landlord or they left voluntarily. Without that distinguishing factor, we may lead to a higher rate of vacancies because we're not able to fill them because of this conditional use. This would have a chilling effect as a separate unintended consequence, as the planning department indicated, on the legacy business program because it turns what is a win win situation into something that landlords may be more hostile to. The conditional use authorization could also make it more difficult to fill spaces that can be a high barrier for businesses. We've already dealt with this in District 5 and across the city, where only formula more often, formula retail businesses are able to provide grocery stores or pharmacy stores, which are often formula retail. And if we have a vacant storefront that could be a wholesale grocery store or could be a pharmacy, but we're adding barriers to fill a much needed service in our city that is setting back the needs of our residents. I'm glad that small businesses are exempt from needing a conditional use authorization under the new amendments that have been proposed, but this requirement to demonstrate business side business size is going to impede on those other goals that we have about filling empty storefronts. While this legacy business programs are often community landmarks, new businesses should not be something to be feared, especially when they help to fill in much needed services, like grocery stores and pharmacy services as well. And because formula retail businesses in these areas need to get a conditional use authorization, it's local businesses that would suffer the most from this legislation. So for that reason, I cannot support this legislation and will be agreeing with the planning department and the small business and the planning commission's affirmation, on, declining this legislation. I look forward to working with everyone here on other ways to improve the outlook for our legacy businesses. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor, Mahmoud. Before I go to you, supervisor Chen, I'm just gonna make a a couple points and then let you make the motion. First, you know, I think that, while you were correct, supervisor at Mahmood, about the differentiation of whether a a legacy business went out to be retired or, was displaced, it is a real world phenomenon that, sometimes landlords, will displace the business because it is in the way of development plans. And that is something that we see more often. And so because I think that this particular legislation is targeted towards providing protection, you know, in the event of a rezoning conversation, I think it's the right thing. The second thing that I will say is that the definition of a small business is consistent with the amendment that supervisor Cheyenne introduced last week, which I also think is a good thing, because we wanna be using the same definition that the small business, you know, office uses, that the, feds use, that everybody uses in terms of what is a small business. So I think it's good to have that definition, in the, legislation. Okay. Supervisor Chen.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, chair Melga. I would like to make a motion to move, item number five as a committee report with positive recommendations.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: I'm sorry, vice chair Chen. This item was not on our agenda as a committee report, and it may not be sent to the board meeting tomorrow.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: If you could remake the motion, please.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: I would like to make a motion to move item number five to the football with positive recommendations.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by vice chair

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: Chen that the ordinance be recommended to the board of supervisors, vice chair Chen.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Chen, I, member be recommended to the board of supervisors. Vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmoud. Mahmoud, no. Chair Melgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are two ayes and one no with member Mahmoud in the dissent.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, supervisor. Thank you. Okay. Now, let's go, mister Clerk. Two, items six through 11.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number six 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 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 changer changes in the city's coastal zone. It directs the planning director to transmit the ordinance to the coastal commission upon enactment. It affirms the planning department's secret determination and makes other findings. Agenda item number seven 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 as various types of residential to residential transit oriented commercial or RTOC. Second, reclassify properties currently zoned residential transit oriented RTO to RTO one. Third, reclassify certain properties from residential districts other than RTO to RTO one. Fourth, reclassify certain properties currently zoned neighborhood commercial or public 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 projects in the family zoning plan

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: excuse me. Reclassify properties

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: in the family zoning plan to 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, designate various parcels to be included in the noncontiguous San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency site special use district, also known as SFMTA SUD. The ordinance also amends the local coastal program to first, reclassify all properties in the coastal zone to r four height and bulk district. Second, reclassify certain properties to RTOC and neighborhood commercial district. And third, designate one parcel as part of the SFMTA SUD. Fourth, it directs the planning director to transmit the ordinance to the local coastal commission sorry, to the coastal commission upon enactment and it affirms the planning department's secret determination and makes other findings. Agenda item number eight is an ordinance which was duplicated from agenda item number seven and amended during the Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting on 10/20/2025 to incorporate additional amendments, which first, remove the base zoning and height and bulk changes to parcels in the Priority Equity Geography Special Use District, except that any parcels in the RTO zoning in the Priority Equity Geography Special Use District shall be reclassified to RTO one. Second, it removes the base zoning and height and bulk changes to parcels located in the coastal zone North Of Fulton. Third, it removes two parcels in the coastal zone from the SFMTA SUD. Fourth, it adjusts the base height for the our four height and bulk districts for the street segments in the Inner Clement And CD, Outer Balboa and CD, Geary Boulevard between 32nd And 43rd Avenue, and other portions of Geary Boulevard, portions of Marina Boulevard, portions of Northpointe Street, and portions of Block 0025 along Hyde Beach And Northpointe Streets. And it eliminates the proposed change from RH 2 to Geary Boulevard NCD for assessors assessor parcels Block Number 1070 Dash 002. Moving on, agenda item number nine is an ordinance amending the planning code to first create the Housing Choice San Francisco program to incent housing development through a local bonus program and by adopting a housing sustain sustainability district. Second, modify height and bulk limits to provide for additional capacity in well resourced neighborhoods and to 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 to the RHRM and RC district zoning tables to reflect the changes to density controls and parking requirements throughout the ordinance. Fifth, it creates the RTOC, residential transit oriented commercial district. Sixth, it implements the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's transit oriented communities policy by making changes to parking requirements, minimum residential densities, and minimum office intensities, and requires maximum dwelling unit sizes. Seventh, revise off street parking and curb cut obligations citywide. Eighth, create noncontiguous San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency 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, it makes technical amendments to the code to implement each of the above changes. Eleventh, it makes conforming changes to zoning tables in various districts, including the neighborhood commercial district and mixed use districts. And twelfth, it reduces usable open space and bicycle parking requirements for senior housing, and it amends the business and tax regulations code regarding the Board of Appeals review for permits in the Housing Choice program housing sustainability district. Also, it amends the local coastal program to implement the Housing Choice San Francisco program and other associated changes in the city's coastal zone. It also directs the planning director to forward the item to the Coastal Commission. Agenda item number 10 is an ordinance which was duplicated from agenda item number nine and amended during the Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting meeting on 10/20/2025 to incorporate additional amendments, which first, amend the local program to exclude projects that demolish or substantially alter category a historic resources, demolish, remove, or convert dwelling units or residential flats, or demolish or convert any portion of a tourist hotel. Second, it amends the local program to state that other city laws would apply to local program projects, such as dwelling unit mix requirements in section two zero seven point seven, article four, development impact fees and requirements, displaced business requirements, tenant protections in the planning code or SF rent ordinance or other permitting or licensing requirements outside the planning code. Third, it requires that projects comply with the inclusionary ordinance through off-site units or land dedication to provide these units within a half mile of the project. Fourth, it amends the local program approvals to expire if the project sponsor fails to obtain a building permit within thirty days subject to a six month extension. Fifth, it amends the local program to include additional bonus square footage of 250 additional square feet for each two bedroom unit in excess of the dwelling unit requirements for the local program. Sixth, that amends the housing sustainability district to prohibit any projects using the housing sustainability district streamlining from demolishing or substantially altering category a historic resources or demolishing or converting any portion of a tourist hotel. Seventh, it amends the SFMTA SUD by adding findings regarding the purpose of the SUD, adding pre application requirements, and excluding properties in the coastal zone. And eighth, it removes the exemption included in the ordinance in board file two five zero seven zero one that did not require a conditional use authorization to merge, reconfigure, or reduce a residential flat if the project adds at least one unit. And finally, agenda item number 11 is a resolution that transmits to the to the California Coastal Commission for review and certification, an amendment to the implementation program and land use plan of the city certified local coastal program to implement the family zoning plan, and it affirms the planning department's CEQA determination. Madam chair, items six through 11.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, mister Clark. That's a lot. Okay. So I want to welcome my colleagues who are still here, who are not on the land use committee. We have supervisors Sauter and Dorsey. And we did have supervisor Chan and Mandelmann earlier, and they may come back in. For the folks who are standing for public comment, I just wanna let you know that we have presentations of each of the items, as well as the, economist report. And some comments from my colleagues before we go to comments. And I know everyone is really eager, but just, you know, in the interest of people's feet, I just wanted to let you know it's going to be a moment. So with that, I would also like to, respectfully request to my colleagues that we hold our questions and comments until after the presentations from staff. So after the presentations, we will have those supervisors ask their questions, you know, share their comments about the economist report, because I know people have a lot of thoughts about that. We also have staff from the planning department available for questions. And since all the amendments were introduced, I know folks have a lot of questions. Then supervisors can discuss any proposed amendments so that the members of the public are able to hear about them before we go to public comment. Then we will go to public comment. Each speaker will have two minutes per speaker. And I want to note that while amendments will be discussed, no motions will take place until after public comment. I also want the members of the public to know that after amendments are adopted, I will make a motion to request that the items, all items, be continued to the Monday, 11/17/2025, to allow time for further review. So with that, I would like to welcome our chief economist, Ted Egan, to make his presentation. Thank you, mister Egan, for, your hard work, and for this contribution to our process.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: While mister Egan is coming up, just a reminder, everyone needs to get their get back in their seats. It's gonna be a while before we get to public comment. Please take your seats again.

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: Thank you, Chair Melgar, and good afternoon, supervisors. Ted Egan with the Office of Economic Analysis. One moment, please. Last week, our office issued an economic impact report on two of the items before you. And I'm going to briefly summarize that report and happy to take any questions at this time. Specifically, our report covers the zoning map amendment item 250,700, which raises some building heights and changes some of the zoning districts, and also two five zero seven zero one, which implements the Housing Choice San Francisco, the local program. There were amendments that were made prior to the release of our report on October 20, that should be. Those are not considered in our analysis or in this report. And I would just like to stress that this report comes about because of the Comptroller's Office, independent responsibility to review legislation for economic impact. This has nothing to do with, the state planning process or the compliance of of any of the, city's planning efforts, with state, with state law. You're already quite familiar with the plan, and I'm not going to go through the introductory sections of this report for that reason. I'll go straight to the economic impact factors. Essentially, they come about from the costs and benefits of more development. Relaxed zoning leads to more redevelopment in a city with little vacant land. That has some positive effects. The increased housing supply, we can expect, puts downward pressure on housing prices. It stimulates investment in construction and related industries that are part of the construction process. And it also supports the city's economy getting larger through a larger population, more customers and more workers in the city's economy. The primary negatives of the redevelopment are the loss of existing housing units, and also displacement and relocation costs for some businesses. And these are the factors that we consider and try to quantify in our report. Fundamentally and most importantly, the economic impact depends on the amount of housing that the rezoning will lead to. For this report, we've refined a statistical model that we've worked on over the past nine or ten years that predicts how housing production changes based on policy changes. This model is based on twenty years of data in the city, whether or not it produced housing and how much, and that covers every parcel in the city. It's a statistical model, and it found certain statistical factors make housing more likely. Those are things like higher housing prices, lower construction costs, higher allowable height, and a larger building envelope on the site. Are the existing properties on the site smaller? The lack of any existing residential units makes housing more likely. The lack of historic resources makes housing more likely. A location closer to downtown makes housing more likely, as does form based zoning and eligibility for the state density bonus. And when a parcel does build housing, the number of units that it produces is further a factor of the size of the building envelope, whether it's eligible for the state density bonus and whether or not the zoning is density restricted. So essentially, the model enables us to take estimates and forecasts of information for all of the parcels in the rezoning to estimate the expected number of housing units each parcel could produce over our twenty year forecast period, and we are adding that up over the entire city to get our totals. Like any statistical model, it has limitations, and this approach has three other limitations that are worth mentioning, or two other main ones that are worth mentioning. I mentioned on the previous slide a lot of the data that we look at to make the model. That is not everything that affects the likelihood of housing for every parcel at every time. So there's specific site features we don't have data for. We can't put in the model. Our treatment of land use policy is really at the level of what zoning district is it in, is it historic resource, and what is the allowable height? Obviously, there are many more dimensions of the policies that are in the plan than that, and we don't have enough data to calibrate the model at such a fine grain level. Additionally, the model covers, or was calibrated, on the period of 2004 to 2024. The end of that period, after 2020, development in the city has been heavily curtailed because of our

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: post COVID economic situation. But during that

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: time, both the city and the state have model can't possibly predict. So those are, I think, two significant limitations of the model. But still, when we look at our responsibility of what's producing an estimate of the citywide economic impact, and we need a housing estimate for it, we still think this is the best approach for our purposes. To do this, we need to make reasonable forecasts of what the future housing market might be in San Francisco over the next twenty years. And so now I'm going to turn to those questions this in both scenarios, which is slower than what they've done in the past. This is a look at the relatively widespread of housing prices that come about from our two scenarios that I just discussed. This is indexed here to 2016. So you can see that, for example, in the low growth scenario, by 2045, we're just barely back to where we were in 2016 in housing prices. And under the high growth scenario, we're about 80% higher than we were in 2016, adjusted for inflation. So this is quite a widespread, reflecting, I think, the real uncertainty about what the city's economy will look like over the next twenty years. So as I mentioned, we developed this model and this forecast to allow us to estimate how much housing would be created by the zoning. We also have to, of course, estimate how much housing would be created on the same parcels under the existing zoning. And under the low scenario, that number is around 1,600 and around 3,200 under the high growth scenario. There is significantly more under the proposed rezoning, about 10,000 under the low growth and close to 18,000 under the high growth. And the net effect of the proposed rezoning then is about 8,500 units for the low growth scenario and about 14,650 for the high growth scenario. I should mention, this is not considering the effect of housing units that would be lost during the redevelopment, but I'll talk about those in a moment. This is a summary, and this table is quite complicated, and I won't talk about everything in it. But it is a summary of the results by the current zoning district. And for those who are not sort of familiar with the codes the planning department used to describe zoning districts, RH1, RH2, and RH3 are essentially residential zones. The vast, vast majority of the parcels in the family zoning plan are those parcels. Under current zoning, under either scenario, they have a really negligible chance of being developed into housing or redeveloped as housing. Under the two scenarios, their likelihood of developing housing over the next twenty years goes up a lot, but it's still quite low. So, for example, the 43,000 RH1 single family parcels have a likelihood of developing housing in twenty years of less than point 5%, which suggests that maybe one house in 200 would be redeveloped for higher density housing. You can also see on the rightmost column the change in the number of housing units for that number is less than 5,000 for those three zones, out of about 80,000 parcels. For example, the publicly zoned parcels, which are far fewer, we're forecasting under the high growth scenario to produce more housing than all of the residential zones combined. Our model that's able to estimate, how much new housing is produced can also estimate how much existing housing is lost. And that would be, our estimate is four sixty three units lost over twenty years under the low growth, and slightly over 1,000 in the high growth. In either scenario, that translates into six to 8% of the housing units gained. So for every 100 units gained, it's six to eight that are lost through the redevelopment. The report discusses potential financial harms to tenants that could come about from eviction, and also the potential demolition of rent controlled units. That is quite challenging to quantify because of the, really, lack of recent data on the demolition of rent controlled units. And it's the loss of the rent controlled units and the termination of rent controlled tenancies that would bring about the financial harms, to tenants. So while that is possible, we just don't feel that we have the data to try and incorporate that in our analysis. Here are the results taking the housing production net of the lost units I just discussed and its impact on housing prices. Under the two scenarios, it's between a 23.4% growth in housing supply. We forecast that that would lead to a 2.5% to 4.2% drop in housing prices, and this would be twenty years hence when the housing would be, completed. And those numbers there just indicate that in terms of context, what that means in terms of today's housing prices or today's annual rents for market rate asking rents for apartments in the city. We've also tried to estimate, and we're able to estimate with the model, how much commercial space, would be, or the tenants, the tenants who would be displaced, commercial tenants, and how much space they currently occupy, which ranges from 1.5 to 2,600,000. We've estimated in the report some disruption and relocation costs associated with that, and we've annualized that cost as between $16,000,000 to $28,000,000 a year. All of this, the investment, the decline in housing prices, the, loss of residential units, the displacement and relocation costs for businesses. We entered into, the RIMI model, which we use for economic impact analysis in our office. And under the low growth scenario, the result of the family zoning plan would make the economy about $560,000,000 larger, leading to an increase of about 3,000 jobs. Under the high growth scenario, it's a $940,000,000 increase to GDP, or about 5,000 more jobs. The job gains are found in every sector, but are particularly found in construction, health care, real estate, and the accommodation and food services sector. We can note that despite the displacement of some businesses who may be retail trade in particular, retail trade is also forecast to grow. We looked at the GDP effects of both the positive side and the negative side, and the GDP effect of the positive outweighs the negative by a factor of roughly 22 to one. So just to summarize, COVID and the post COVID economy in San Francisco has really changed the context for development in San Francisco. The decline in housing prices in the city has been real, as has been the increase in construction costs. And that will make it challenging for the city to replicate the levels of housing construction, even with such an expansive rezoning program that we saw in the previous decade. And there is, obviously, a range, of, economic impacts that we're forecasting here because of the uncertainty of what will happen to the city's economy. But under both scenarios, the economic impact is clearly positive. And what we see as the positive factors of lower housing costs and additional residential investment outweigh the negatives by quite some margin. So that's the summary of my report, and I'm happy to take any questions now.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Do it. Do it. Do it. Okay. Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Thank you, economist, for the presentation and the context on some of the metrics for this economic impact analysis. I had a couple questions about we were seeing the results of your report. There's been projections from the planning department as well. The planning department is saying that the plan will help produce 36,000 additional units by 2031. And that's based on looking historically at how much of our zone capacity has been built year over year. Do you think the planning department's methodology for that claim is a reasonable analytical model for predicting what development this rezoning will produce in the next five years? How does your how does your model differ, and why the difference in the assumptions?

[Unidentified public commenter]: Well, as I mentioned, the model that

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: we refined for this is the latest iteration of a model that our office started working on, I think, in 2016. And at that time, when we were considering alternative approaches for doing this, I mean, obviously, it's a fairly complex model, and it always has been. But we felt that in the past, people had kind of tried to do representative pro formas of projects that seemed representative of other projects, and said, well, how feasible are those pro formas? And what we found from that is there's just too much variation across parcels in the city to look at a few prototypes and extrapolate from there. We really needed a methodology that went in parcel by parcel, and did the best we could do, in terms of making an estimate about what any individual parcel would do. I think your question about the planning department's choices are better directed to the planning department, but that's the rationale for the choice that we made.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: The the threshold of reasonable capacity to the planning department is different from yours in how they're defining it? How does the threshold of reasonable capacity the question of reasonable capacity has come up in the context of this plan. How does the threshold of reasonable capacity that the planning is using differ from yours?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: Well, I would say the issue of reasonable capacity doesn't really come up in the context of an economic development report. The only thing that has economic development is new housing. And and and one of the things that's that's important about our model is it's calibrated against actual housing production. And, of course, there's always a challenge of, you know, you can look at the building envelope that you create with an up zoning, and you look at what's there now, and you can measure that difference. But how much of that is actually going to happen is the challenge. But I think, to answer your question specifically, it's just, it's not something that we're concerned with in the economic impact report, the question of reasonable capacity. What we're trying to do is actually estimate how much housing would occur under specific assumptions, and one could make other assumptions about what the housing market might do in the future.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Is it correct to say that you're answering a different question than the planning department is trying to answer?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: I mean, again, I'm not an expert on the question the planning department is answering. But, I do think that's the that's the question that we're trying to answer, is is we can't really assess the economic impact until we have an estimate of how much housing will be created.

[Jatin (District 6 resident)]: Okay.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: It's no, mystery that the amount of specific units you are estimating is maybe it's apples to oranges comparison with how the planning department is asking the question. But the number is about a third of what the mayor's office has projected. In your opinion, what would be some ways to improve the plan to generate a higher number of units, given we do still have to meet housing element goals?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: I'm afraid that's a difficult question for me to answer on the fly. I just that hasn't been part of our study on this so far.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Are there gaps or levers that you identified in the model that you feel, based on your assumptions, where different parts of the assumptions were lacking, in terms of that variable was not as highly leveraged?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: Well, our report does lay out what we think clear policy levers are for increasing housing production. And that could be a starting point. And I don't think those variables that I listed are a surprise to anyone. But if you're asking the question, have I done any work to figure to do sensitivity analysis to see what would lead to more housing production under our assumptions, I have not done that work.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Okay.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Did you incorporate the potential impact of SB79 into your analysis, as well?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: No. We did not.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Why not?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: SB 79 is, not part of the ordinance that is before you. We looked at the height increases and the zoning changes that are part of the ordinances that are before you.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: But it is recognized that it will have implications should this not pass or certain components not be introduced. It has an effect on zoning capacity.

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: Okay. I I understand your question. We did not consider as a baseline that if this was not adopted, SB 79 Heights would go into effect. That was not in our baseline. Our baseline is simply, the existing zoning and the existing heights.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Got it. Thank you. That's my questions for

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: now. Thank you, supervisor. Supervisor Connie Chan.

[Supervisor Connie Chan]: Thank you, chair. In your, evaluation, was was it inclusive of affordable housing production?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: No. Our model doesn't make any distinction between market rate and affordable housing production.

[Supervisor Connie Chan]: But did it include at all of affordable housing production?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: Any affordable housing production would be incorporated in the numbers that we're showing here.

[Supervisor Connie Chan]: Because I I'm kinda curious. Here it says zero production for the Richmond in terms of housing production. I think maybe maybe I'm incorrect, or may may may may may I misunderstood. In, one of your slides, you know, in discussion about, like, housing production, I think it indicated there's a zero units that was for, 2000 between 2000 and 2024 for the Richmond. And, so I'm just kinda curious because and and even even then, I I would think that both market rate and, and affordable housing units have been produced in the last, like, three years in the Richmond. So I'm just trying to curious, like, what what is happening there, and or maybe I misunderstood. It's it's your 17 of your slide.

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: My I I understand, and it's a good question that I don't have, an answer for at the top of my fingertips. The only thing I would say is that these are not the entire planning districts, just the area that are rezoning. But I would I I I can go back and check that.

[Supervisor Connie Chan]: I would appreciate it only because I know just right off top of my head that there's 98 units of, you know, 100% affordable housing. We tell it all the time. And then, clearly, there's also plenty of market rates. Like, they're not a lot and significant. They're just roughly about 10 units here and 12 units there. So I'm just kinda curious about the discrepancy there and try to see if it was it because you tried to differentiate market rate and and affordable housing. With that, though, I I I wonder if this is a question maybe it's not just to you, but a mix to planning. But I I think because you indicated you're evaluating sites, try to be realistic about whether housing production is possible based on sites feasibility. And then here's my questions. You know, I I I saw look at the file. I'm trying to understand better what these lots really are. And and one of the file that is included in the planning co amendment with the family how with family zoning plan, one is a rezoning lower income site. That's that's item 23 in the in the legislative file. And then also the housing elements twenty twenty two reused sites. And they are both files that actually has specific lots, block lots and addresses. And for example, 1175 Columbus Avenue. I know that I identify some of them, like 353035 Gary Boulevard, and some of them are sites that I'm familiar with, and some of them are not. Is there a is there a an answer to sort of, like, are these the sites that we're looking at for both affordable housing and potential develop sites that we can actually develop housing? And if so, from planning, then back to our, you know, mister Egan, where then there's a sort of mash up and say, looking at these sites, how feasible are they in your indication and projection of housing production?

[Joshua Switzky (Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Joshua Switsky, planning staff. To answer your question, supervisor Chan, though those lists, the, low income sites list and the reused sites list, there's not a direct connection to mister mister Egan's work. I'll explain what those lists are. First, simply the reused sites is simply a list of of sites that the planning department included on our sites inventory that were listed in the prior housing element. So for all sites that were previously listed, we we have to carry those over because there are certain state laws that apply to the entitlement of housing on reused sites. The low income sites list, is a subset of of sites that we are rezoning that we are projecting are reasonable development sites based on their level of underdevelopment and based on the, capacity of those sites that fall they fall within a certain range. There are sites over a certain size, and, also, they're they're not too big. There are sites that generally fall within the range of sites that the mayor's office of housing would typically identify as potential sites for a 100% affordable housing. They're generally they, they have a a capacity. There's slightly there actually there are more sites on there than than probably the mayor's office housing would build on. There are some at a smaller end that also there's particular, state housing element law about what qualifies as a low income site as a site that has at least 16 units of capacity. Other jurisdictions may be built at a smaller scale, and that's what state law recommends. So we basically identify a subset of all of the rezone sites that we think are reasonable development sites. And we identify those for the state. And the implication of those is that they, they projects that achieve certain minimum amounts of affordability have to be approved, ministerially. And there are certain minimum density provisions which apply to those sites.

[Supervisor Connie Chan]: And sorry. And then, I guess, now I'm taking those quick questions, and then that will be my last question, chair. Is then with a combination of these two lists, what is the projection of housing, number of units that can be produced based on these two sites list?

[Joshua Switzky (Planning Department)]: Off the top of my head, I don't I don't have we don't have those immediately. We could find those numbers for you. The reused sites doesn't necessarily have a specific number associated with them. It's just, some of them are not even in the rezoning area. There are sites all over the city that were previously listed, and that are being listed again. I I could find the information for you on the, the low income housing sites. It's it's thousands of units. It's probably tens of thousands of units.

[Supervisor Connie Chan]: Great. I I just out of curiosity, and and and this is my statement, and thank you, chair. And and my apologies, mister Egan, for sort of changing the subject, I guess. It's it's all I'm trying to understand is within the context of projection of how many units that we can produce as a city, both from an economic standpoint, but from a also feasibility from the sites that it's available. I'm just trying to understand with the sites that previously identified clearly in 2022 and, again, 2023, we have identified low income sites. Well, technically, we would call them affordable housing sites, as well as perhaps a mixed income or mixed sites. It seems like I would like to understand them based on a lot of those two lists. What is the projection, and will that actually bring us to the mandate as 36,000 units, or would it not? And is it something outside of of of this both this report and outside of maybe we need more from from there.

[Joshua Switzky (Planning Department)]: Yeah. So we have to identify, sufficient sites with sufficient capacity that meet the low income standards of the state, to meet as as part of this rezoning exercise, is not just to to create overall capacity, but also to identify sites that that meet the the state's low income, minimum criteria that qualify. So, yes, this proposal does provide sufficient sites, to meet the low income standards. Of course, we know that the actual production of those those units is certainly dependent on available funding and other other things besides besides the zoning, but we do are providing sufficient sites.

[Supervisor Connie Chan]: Thank you. And I I think it's just, one more thing that I would like to just understand better and to see how we can be more strategic and surgical in the way we up zone the our city and instead of sort of just this one size fits all approach. Thank you, chair. I really appreciate you allowed the time.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor Chan. Supervisor Chan.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, chair. Thank you, mister Egan, for your analysis for this this report. Having developer, you know, rezoning, I would think there must be some reasonable expectation for developer to build. It's like they will assume that the rents that they can charge are high, and will keep increase. Right? And also, this is probably how our developers can continue to use this to address the earning earnings and expectation of the investors. So based on the model, on increasing rents in order to entice developers to build, This continues to seem to be reinforcing the dynamic that we have been seeing repeatedly in San Francisco for over the last decade. The city, it's overbuilding housing supply that most San Franciscans cannot afford. So it I also see that in the report, we the proposed zoning the proposed rezoning will lead to a negative 2.5% to a negative 4.2% change in housing price in the city by 2045. So for a two bedroom apartment today, the rent, the rent, it's around $3,700 per month. That would mean a potential reduction between, dollars 92 and $155 I'm really not very impressed with the number. I also see that especially because the price we are being asked to pay for this outcome, including demolishing existing housing, where existing resident residential tenant and small business will put at a higher risk of displacement. And we should be pursuing strategy that to do no harm. So I also believe that there must be more tools in our toolbox that we can and we should exploring, strategy that will more likely in resolving more affordable housings. So besides what, supervisor Connie Chen talked about, did your analysis explore any other strategy that could resolve a more affordable rent?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: No supervisor. We were simply trying to estimate the economic impact of the ordinances.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So I I want to be clear that I requested a report from the budget and legislative analysis to analysis to have an analysis of our city's strategy to create more affordable housing. And I'm hopeful that we can explore, additional policies and revenue strategy to make sure that we solve our fundamental problem, which is a housing affordability crisis for our future generations, for our workforce, for our families and seniors in the city. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Please, if you, approve of something, someone saying, just hands up in the air, no audible, you know, activities, please. Okay. Supervisor Sauter.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter]: Thank you, Chair Melgar. Thank you for your work on this. I just have a few questions. I noted that you mentioned construction costs, projections around that. Did you look at interest rates as well? How did you account for that?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: Interest rates actually wound up not being a significant, variable in the model.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter]: And we know that, you know, one outcome of the next few months, if we do not have a compliant, plan is a builder's remedy scenario. Did you look at that outcome?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: No. We did not.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I will say

[Supervisor Danny Sauter]: Public, you know, you broke down the different categories of housing production. Looks like public sites, that category was number two in terms of, the second highest source of units. Can you remind me when you did that analysis, what affordability percentage did you look at? And I ask that because there are for for production of units, and I ask that because there are suggestions and amendments before the body of for public sites, in particular, of higher affordability requirements.

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: We did not vary affordability requirements. And affordability requirements are actually not a variable that was part of our model. We that is really a function of the the higher developability on the public parcels is largely a function of the fact that there are relatively larger parcels, with smaller buildings per, you know, lot square foot and are getting significant height increases.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter]: But you don't go one step further and look at scenarios and outcomes with different affordability requirements for those large sites?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: No. We did not have sort of site specific twenty year history of affordability requirements to see how changing affordability requirements would affect availability on a parcel. I mean, that is part of the policy toolkit that is just too detailed for us to be able to model with this.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter]: And then in terms of, you know, kind of sources of new units, did you look at specifically at units that are projects that are already in the pipeline? Did you look at potential conversions from from office to housing? Did you consider those two sources?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: No. We only looked at the parcels that are being rezoned as part of the family zoning plan and the difference between what we estimate would be produced under the current zoning and under the proposed zoning. Okay. Thank you.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter]: Those are all my questions.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor. Supervisor Mandelmann.

[Supervisor Rafael Mandelman]: Thank you, Chair Melgar, and thank you, mister City Economist, for, your work on this report. I guess I I also have questions about sort of what's in, what's out. And it looks like other I mean, Supervisor Mahmoud, I think, asked about SB 79, but there have been a ton of local and state changes in law around processing and around reducing uncertainty for developers and property owners, with the idea that not just would we be speeding applications along, but that more people might be coming in and more entities would be trying taking on development projects that they might not otherwise have done because the process is easier. And it looks like, from your presentation, that was not a factor in your in your analysis, or those changes were? Or

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: what I would say is that many of those changes occurred during a time when the development climate in the city was weak. And we can't really see how effective they would be in a healthier housing market.

[Supervisor Rafael Mandelman]: Right. I mean, it occurs to me that a lot of that is sort of 2018, 2019, 2020 to present, which is not a we've been not in a strong development environment in that time. And sort of hard to figure out how I mean, the reason you didn't why didn't you look at it? Why didn't you try to figure that out?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: We did have a variable in the model for when the state density bonus was strengthened in 2016, which is very positive. But we did not have a way to parse out other specific state or local policy changes. And we just felt that, particularly the ones that went into effect, say, post 2019, we would be underestimating their value anyway. So just to conclude my answer, you could argue that that is at least to an underestimate in our behalf of what the housing rezoning might actually produce with those with that with those, enhancements in place?

[Supervisor Rafael Mandelman]: Hard to know. But if if all of this state legislation and the local efforts to implement and comply with it have meant very much, Presumably, the numbers would be larger going forward.

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: Right. I mean, but I don't think you can judge the current climate and sort of indict those policies on that basis. That's the issue. Because it might be that if we get closer to 2017, 2018 housing prices, you get that much more housing because of these changes in law.

[Supervisor Rafael Mandelman]: Okay. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. So before I go back to you, supervisor Mahamuda, I also wanted to ask some questions. You mentioned during, your presentation that, you were not, the data that you have on the demolition of rent controlled units wasn't sufficient for you to do an analysis. So why is that?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: Well, the demolitions are not only of rent controlled units. That's the first hurdle, is we have an estimate of how many housing units are on each parcel, but I don't have an estimate of how many of them are subject to rent control.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Do you have an estimate of how many of the demolitions were of units that were built before 1979?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: I do not.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I see. Okay. What would be the increase in rents in San Francisco over the next twenty years if we were not to adopt the plan? I think that that's the right comparison to whether $125 is adequate or not.

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: Well, I would say that would be and again, that would be under the assumption that the current zoning just continues.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yes.

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: Yeah. Then we would be looking at somewhere between two and a half to 4% higher rents than we do now. And somewhere in the report, I believe it's on page 21, we sort of estimate that as between $900 and $1,500 a

[Marie Joyce]: year. An increase?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: Yes. Or, you know, a a reduction that is deferred is effectively an increase.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Correct. Yeah. Thank you so much. Yeah. So the other question that I had for you was when the last big rezoning that I remember us passing was the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan. Did we do an economic analysis when we passed that?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: Yes, I did.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: And how does that compare to this economic analysis?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: Well, it was many years ago. And one of the reasons we developed this model is because we didn't have a model like that to do Eastern neighborhoods. And I don't think it was the most fine grain analysis as a result of that. But we found that Eastern neighborhoods, you know, on a net was a down zoning, and the economic impact was negative. And this is a net up zoning, and the economic impact is positive.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you so much. You know, there's been lots of chatter in the press about this plan. I do, think that, I'm glad that folks understand a little better what the chief economist does, for our city, and I, I'm very appreciative of your work. I actually thought this was a very good report, and, sobering, also because, despite the attention and anxiety that this whole process has caused, with folks, what it says what your report says to me is that zoning is one factor in a lot of things that it takes to produce a housing and to build out a city. And those were not things that you necessarily put in as variables, like interest rates and, you know, the overall availability of affordable housing dollars, and many of the other things that need to happen, and that this body has a responsibility to make happen if we want to see the outcomes that we say we want to see. So thank you so much, for everything, in this report. I appreciate it. And I will go back to supervisor Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Forgive me for asking a couple more questions about the the nerd in me wants to go into the logistic regression model that you used. I'm just going through the appendix. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the logistic regression is looking at the past behavior to predict future behavior. Correct? And so it looks like, given the main component of this plan is predicated on the local density bonus program, is it correct to say that your estimates for you looked at how much housing is gonna be produced and agnostic to a plan b enforces, like, step one of the methodology. And then you looked at step two of the methodology, was to look at, based on the state density bonus program, how that has resulted in increased capacity historically. Correct? That's what the log regression looks into?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: The logistic regression covers every parcel year combination from 2004 to 'twenty four. During that period, the state density bonus is strengthened and has a significant impact on developability post 2016. So it is one regression that covers both periods.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: So then, given are we using the state density bonus program as a way to project how the local density bonus program is gonna behave?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: No, that is an excellent, nerdy question, supervisor, if I may say so. And that question, my consultants and I spent a lot of time debating. And the short answer is no, and you describe in the appendix, we came up with a rule that basically says whether a parcel would take under what conditions the parcel would take the state density bonus versus the local program. And the benefits of the local program for the purposes of our modeling is simply that they get the benefits of form based zoning, which are profound, and which accounts for a lot of the growth in housing, even when there isn't tight increase that happens there.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: So did you ask did this regression estimate a what is is there a different coefficient for a parcel that gets a local density versus a state density bonus program, and do we have an estimate what that factor difference is?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: It's actually a different calculation in terms of calculating the expected number of units, depending on whether they take the local program or the state density bonus. And that logic is on, like, page 37 of the report. It's in the appendix somewhere. And I'm happy to go through with you.

[Holden Weisman (Habitat for Humanity Greater SF)]: Humor me. Tell me

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: what is the differential between the local program and the state density bonus.

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: It's not

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: a differential in the sense that there's one coefficient that you could

[Supervisor Danny Sauter]: point to.

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: It's that when you when a parcel takes the state density bonus, the unit's calculation is a function of the envelope plus a bonus that's associated with the state density bonus, and plus, if if applicable, a penalty if the parcel is density restricted. Okay? If it takes the local program, it gets, actually, the local program height as the base height, and no state density bonus bonus, and no penalty for being density restricted, since the local program is all form based. So it's really two different ways of getting the calculation, depending on whether you take state density bonus or local. And what

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: is the relative coefficient for both?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: The coefficient for the building envelope is the same. If I recall correctly, the coefficient for the state density bonus is a little bit bigger than the coefficient for the envelope. It's actually, essentially a doubling. And then the penalty for density restriction is, is somewhat smaller than that. The issue, though, with the local program is we're giving the local program height as if it was base height, not as if it was bonus height. And and we just did that because we didn't want to assume that the local program was the same as the state density bonus, because we don't have evidence that it is. Right. Okay.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: So in your estimate that the primary difference of is the primary where is the majority of the capacity being increased? Is it from the local density bonus program? Is it from the decontrol?

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: Well, I think that table that I discussed earlier about the breakdown of the housing by and again, we're not measuring capacity, but units production on page 19 gives you a pretty good answer to that. The RH1, RH2, RH3, RM1 zones are, you know, together, maybe a third of it. And that is, by far, the majority of the parcels, and that's local program. It's the density restricted multifamily, many of which would avail themselves of the state density bonus and are getting height increases, as well as the public parcels that are producing the majority of the remainder.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Thanks for hearing my questions.

[Ted Egan (Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis)]: Thanks for asking them.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor Mahmoud, for mathing with us. So with that, I think that that's all the questions that we have for you, mister Egan. So now, colleagues, I would like us to be able to ask questions about the amendments that were introduced last time, or or even ask clarified questions at this point if it if, you know, that can be that can happen. And any remarks that you have, and any amendments that you would like to talk about before public comment.

[Unidentified speaker (d Forward)]: Yeah.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Supervisor Chan.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Okay. So, thank you again. I do have some amendments that I clarifying updates for the amendment that I make, on, last meeting. Mister Clerk, do you want me to read everything from my all the amendments?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: I believe the chair has invited you to discuss your amendments.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yes. Okay. If You don't need to read each amendment into the record, but you could talk about the amendments because, you know, we will add any amendments, and then people will have the the opportunity to, read them as included in the record. But I would like you to talk to them about them at high level, so that public commenters can respond to them Okay. When they come to public comment, if that's okay.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Yes. So for, item 10, the proposed amendment would incorporate, during unit mix standard for building under 10 units. It's recommended by the planning department, given that at section 207.7, it's what currently only applies to the building 10 units above. So, I would amend this, to include it, from five to nine units, as well. And then also for, the proposed amendment that would, limit the requirement for a feasibility study for 100% affordable housing in the SF Special Use District, only to those sites that meet the minimum specification for 100% affordable projects, as recommended by, SFMTA. And I think I we make some amendments on page 170, on line 19, especially on deed. It's a pre application requirement. And then also, with, number one point that should provide a feasibility study that the models, the development of the project site, as 100% affordable housing, as that term is defined in session four zero six b, one a, and c. And also, to make sure that the documentation that the project sponsor, in conjunction with San Francisco, MTA, has conducted at least one pre application meeting. And then I also have, amendments, for the proposed amendment that would establish the, first right the right of first refusal for qualified and non profits for the sale or lease of San Francisco, MTA sites within the SFMTA special use district for non profit, for non transit purpose. So the amendments also, it's read on page two, line one, that, the amendments, it will be amending the administrative code to set for a policy regarding the sale or lease for, pop sale or lease of properties within San Francisco, MTA, special SUD. And also, on page 471.93, section 2.6 dash four, policy for approval of the lease or sales of property within the non, within the non contiguous San Francisco municipal transportation agent site special use district.

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: And I think those

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: are some of the that it's on, sorry, that it's for item A. That's also a table of proposed amendment that would correct the discrepancy between some parcels in District 11 that, within the Department of Public Health area of vulnerability map, and therefore, should be categorized as priority equity geographies. But were not, in but were in but were in Abbotany, omitted from the priority equity geography, SUD, I would like to introduce the introduce an amendment, a new amendment, to also include those parcels in the exemption of the priority equity geography special use district, for the, family zoning plan. So those are the four that I'm making.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you, supervisor, Chen. Supervisor Sauter.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter]: Thank you, chair. You will remember that I was here a few weeks ago to introduce two amendments, and I was grateful to have, our amendment, on small business protections and preservation adopted, and that was work that, was done in partnership with the mayor's office and with the San Francisco Council of District Merchants. I wanna just briefly speak again to and ask for your support on an amendment that I've been working on in partnership with supervisor Cheryl, which will incentivize more homes for growing families. And we are seeking to do this by expanding a multi bedroom unit incentive program to provide a square footage bonus for additional two bedroom homes provided in new buildings, which will create more pathways to encourage the production of new homes that are sized for families. I think, by now we've heard loud and clear there's a lot of appetite for more units in this plan so that it can truly live up to the name of the family zoning plan. I think also, we would all agree that we've seen far too many families leave our city due to both the price and availability of homes. So our amendment, which would create more two bedroom homes, is a step forward that will allow young families to be able to afford to continue to call San Francisco home. And I know he just had to step out, but, this amendment is informed by supervisor Cheryl and I's own experiences, both raising young families in San Francisco. And, I hope that you will consider this today and adopt it so that more families can start, grow, and thrive in San Francisco through this amendment. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor Sauter. Supervisor Dorsey.

[Supervisor Matt Dorsey]: Thank you, chair Melgar. As one of the cosponsors of the family zoning plan, I wanna both express my support for this package and speak to how I am approaching the amendments. I see this plan as the minimum we need to do to right the wrongs of decades of stifled housing production. Our existing zoning is not the only barrier, of course, but it is a significant barrier, that we must address to meet the needs of our city and to comply with state law. This map and the local program proposed are thoughtful and reasonable changes, which scale up our development capacity while also preserving our ability to control our own destiny. While I don't serve on this committee, despite my, my many guest appearances, and I don't get a vote on individual amendments, I do believe that it's important for this committee to hear from, board members on how this legislation will affect our districts. For my district, the proposed up zoning is concentrated in the Hub. The Hub is a neighborhood I'm very bullish on, and I'm not alone in that. I've been to community meetings in the Hub, and I've talked to many residents there in and around this neighborhood. And what I have consistently heard is enthusiasm and and support, for new neighbors and new neighborhood amenities. Like many other parts of District 6, this is a community whose DNA is to say yes, to celebrate twenty first century urbanism, to invite height and density, and to welcome new neighbors. It's exactly the kind of place we should be prioritizing for development. It's transit rich and accessible, too many opportunities and amenities. So I'm disinclined to support amendments that reduce the capacity, in the hub specifically, or other parts of the city more generally, for a few reasons. One, I worry that we will tip ourselves out of compliance with what, what, HCD is expecting from us. Two, I worry about what a reduction of heights anywhere will do to our overall capacity, especially without additional areas proposed for increases. And three, every foot of height we take away is a real impact. Every foot of height is a reduction in units and affordable housing fees. I think this plan will be complemented and enriched by policies I'm proud to support, like supervisor Chen's tenant protection legislation, supervisor Melgar's amendments to protect rent control. These are sensible changes that protect communities from displacement and balance our housing production needs prudently. I've spoken with several of my colleagues about my hope to expand opportunities for new rent control housing, and I would welcome collaboration on that. We still have the underlying protections of the priority equity geographies. In fact, I was a cosponsor of the legislation in 2023 that implemented the SUD. The hub and other upzoned areas within the priority equity SUD still maintain existing neighborhood notification and dwelling unit demolition controls with a required conditional use to remove any dwelling unit. And I think it is wise that we are offering an alternative to the state density bonus in these sensitive areas. While we may have policy disagreements on some of its components, I wanna once again reiterate my support for a plan that gets us the capacity we need while balancing the city's needs. This plan, with the agreed two amendments from supervisors Melgar, Cheryl, and Sauter do that, And I appreciate their leadership and their hard work on this. Thanks so much.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor Dorsey. I'll just share some remarks before I go back to you, supervisor Mahmoud. So I wanted to, first of all, just provide some comments on the issue of rent control. This has been something that incites passion among the population of San Francisco, and rightly so. I have spent many years of my career fighting for rent control. And in fact, I think we need to expand it. Last week, my amendment to exclude buildings with three or more units of rent control from the local program went into the original file. We landed on that number of three or more buildings of three or more units after the planning department calculated that it would not affect the capacity goals in a substantial way. There is a separate amendment, brought by supervisor Chan to remove many types, many more types of buildings from the local program. The mathematical effect of that idea has not yet been signed off on, but it does live in the duplicate file. But what I would like everyone to understand is that both of these ideas are only tied to the local program. And that is really important to understand. An owner of a parcel can always use s b three thirty, the the state law, to redevelop their property. There is nothing that this zoning plan can do about that. So the trick is to make our plan as attractive as possible so that we can get all of the things that we believe in in San Francisco. Affordable housing, tenant protections, protections for small businesses. Those that that is what we're trying to do. In order to protect existing tenants and rent control units, we can do that through section three seventeen. And that is best done in the tenant protection ordinance that was introduced by supervisor Chen. In which I and eight other supervisors support. So I also want to thank supervisor Chen and her staff for all the hard work that has gone into it, and actually continues to go into that. So just because the family housing plan does not discuss demolition protections specifically, doesn't mean that they're not there. There is trailing legislation that I believe will help protect tenants, from displacement, and that will be at the planning commission on Thursday. So with that, I do have some, amendments as well. I have a one word edit to my previous amendment proposal to remove hotel conversions from the housing choice program. Other than removing the word tourist, this amendment is ready to be adopted. And as you know, we also have a duplicate to the zoning file, so that we can deliberate and review various amendment. I know that a lot of my colleagues are still working on language and issues, and I just want to thank you for all your hard work. There are many amendments that were proposed last week that do not have impact on capacity overall. So I am intending on acting on those later this meeting. But there are many other amendments that folks are introducing or still working on. And I want to provide time for those discussions to continue so they will remain in the duplicate file. So I will reiterate to everyone who's here today, paying attention to this process, that it is my intent to move as many amendments as we can into the original file. But we are not voting on anything today. We are gonna try to continue everything to the meeting on November 17, if my colleagues agree, as we move through the process. So with that, Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Unidentified public commenter]: Thank you, chair. Before we go

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: to public comment, I just wanted to, thank everyone from the planning department, as well as the city economists for their presentation and the conversation about the analysis that's been produced. And I wanna just kinda reiterate that the city economist report drives home that the family zoning plan is a net positive for housing affordability in San Francisco. The more housing that gets built, they've documented that it's gonna lower the rent and housing costs, and the more lower housing costs go as well. And it also indicates that why we are developing a broad coalition of support across labor, public safety, small business. Just this morning, the Building Trades Council, endorsed the family zoning plan. That's 27 construction and trade unions that actually build housing in San Francisco. On small business, there's a San Francisco Council District Merchant Association representing small business associations and merchant councils across the city. Public safety of the firefighters supporting this plan as well. Because of that coalition, though, we also know that there's a lot on the line. It confirms that we already know from the city economist's report that the HCD's letter, that we have no room for error if we want to pass a plan that meets our housing element goals and gets approval from Sacramento. As such, I wanna reiterate that I will not support items when we discuss after public comment for the amendments that have a negative effect on the estimated housing capacity, or create new development constraints that hold back our ability to meet our housing production goals. In the conversation going forward, I will be asking my colleagues and the planning department about the impact on our housing goals that any amendments that we have to vote on. And when it comes to proposals to remove areas from the family zoning plan, I also want to know what impact that will have with respect to S. B. 79 on those respective areas. I will also remind this committee that we don't have much time to get this passed before state imposed deadlines on December 21. So I ask that we move the family zoning plan to the board as fastidiously as possible. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. Supervisor Chan.

[Supervisor Connie Chan]: Thank you, chair Malgar. I think before we go to public comments, just wanted to understand a little bit about, what your thought process, is for today, and how should we continue to approach, just so that I can understand. And thank you. And we know that it's been very difficult, and you're being put in an impossible position to help us guide us through this process. And so I just wanted to understand today, you have mentioned and indicated that there are amendments that you'll be moving to adopt, and then allowing some to remain for discussion. But I I just wanted to understand sort of, one, what those are that you're intended to adopt and move forward. Particularly, I would say, probably concerning with the ones that I proposed. And then which ones are you intended to for continuing discussion? And for those that, you know, continuing for discussion, I I wanted to have a better understanding that from your perspective as our chair and, being in conversation with CD, what should we expect, and how should we approach this? Thank you, chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. You're welcome, supervisor Chan. So if I could answer that question before I go back to you, supervisor Chen. Is that okay? So in terms of the thought process, in the past, few weeks, we have been, you know, I asked all of my colleagues, including yourself, if we could see the amendments, look at the language. You were so kind as to share, like, the high level first and then the language as was drafted by the city attorney, which allowed us to crunch some numbers. So the the issue of capacity, as we saw today, is different than the issue of how many units do we think we will build. And the issue of capacity is, you know, how much zoning there is per parcel times the number of parcels that we are rezoning. And that yield is the number that HCD and their art and science, you know, will say, yeah, this complies with your housing element. So, the amendments that all of you, introduced run the entire gamut. There are some amendments that are just procedural in nature. Some of them are specific to a district. Some of them deal with rent control. Some of them are downzonings for specific areas. In some of your districts, some of them are up. So it's all over the place. And so we went through all of the amendments and looked at what is neutral. It's just procedure. Or it's, you know, it's not a constraint, but it's just like something that specifically addresses something in the district. So of those, I am suggesting today that we move those into the original file. Or the first file. That way, we can just get them out of the way because they don't have impact. And I don't think it or we collectively with the planning department and the sponsor of the legislation after looking at them, don't think it has an impact on the issue of compliance with HCD. The rest that I'm not proposing we move today do, which is why I am giving folks a chance to work on it some more, so that we can potentially, meet the goals that you all want with that legislation, and at the same time, not risk being out of compliance with HCD. So I'm just giving it a little time. But if you want me to read what it is right now, there are several of yours that are neutral. So I I would like to if that's okay. Please. I will save those now. And, so, section two zero six point one, housing choice San Francisco program. On page 11, lines 23 to 24, that's yours, supervisor Chan. On page 17, lines 15 through eight, add language to section 206.1, housing choice San Francisco program. As previously proposed by you again, supervisor Chan. On page 21, lines five through eight, and line 25 add language to section 206.1, housing choice program, as previously proposed by supervisor Cheryl N. Sauter, that incentivized two bedroom units. On page 27, lines eight through nine, amend section three three four. Housing choice San Francisco project authorization under administrative review. To add the following language, as I previously said, that it was a technical clarification affirming that other parts of the code applies. On page 29, lines 23 to 25. And on page 30. Lines one through nine. Section three forty four. Housing choice sustainability district. Alright. Amend language as previously proposed by supervisor Chan on alterations to historic resources. On page 31, line four, section three forty four, housing choice sustainability district. At the following language, as previously proposed by supervisor Malgar, with modification from the version presented on 10/20/2025, on hotel conversions. On page 189, lines nineteen twenty two through 22, delete language in section three seventeen, loss of residential and unauthorized units through demolition, merger, and conversion. As previously proposed by you, supervisor Chan, to strengthen the review of the residential flat demolition policy. And finally, on page 190, lines five through seven, delete language in section three seventeen, loss of residential and unauthorized units through demolition, merger, and conversion under residential demolition as previously proposed by you.

[Supervisor Connie Chan]: Thank you. If I may, my apologies, supervisor Chen. I just want to make sure I also understand. And with those that remain as a questions and debate about capacity, and and we wanted to have further discussion about what that actually looks like, could you help me understand better and help me, like, give me some guideline what we're looking for? And is this a conversation that planning staff will have and do a presentation specifically based on the amendments that we are now have question with and or or how would that process take place to just help us better understand those amendments?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Sure. Thank you for the question, supervisor Chan. So I am hoping that in the next two weeks you know, we have no meeting next week because it's Veterans Day, that in the next two weeks, you the sponsors, you or whoever didn't make it on that first list that has amendments, will sit with the planning department, with the mayor's office, who is the sponsor of this legislation, and perhaps with the city attorney, if some alternative language is required, to see if there's any way to negotiate whether you can still meet your goals in the legislation, while still maintaining compliance. So, I think that that is something that only the sponsor of the amendments can do. I certainly can't do it. And so I'm hoping that everyone and

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: I

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: think almost everyone on our board has had these amendments, that they want something or other will go through that exercise, and that we'll do it on time. So that by the time we come back on the seventeenth, and perhaps even on the first, we can get as much as possible from what you need for your district and for your constituents, and that we can still, be in compliance with state law.

[Supervisor Connie Chan]: Thank you. And and I this is not a question that but I just wanna be transparent and just be able to be on the record about, where we're

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: at or where I'm at at this moment with all the amendments that we have proposed.

[Supervisor Connie Chan]: And thank you, supervisor amendments that we have proposed. And thank you, supervisor Malgar, and thank you so much for going through that. First and foremost, you know, I think that the priority has been and always will be is the protection of rent control units to citywide. And that to that extent that it it will continue to be my position. And I'll do everything I can to work with planning department to really identify how we can protect those rent control units and while still increase capacity somewhere else. And it's most also that I think local coastal zone and that as I have heard from, I wanna say, you know, not just District 1, but also District 4 constituency, and and talking about just that 10 total lots that is now in the local coastal zone program is a concern. And so how can we, if we were to carve those out, increase capacity somewhere else? And, of course, you know, historic resources, protection, it's also really critical for the characteristic and, most importantly, the history of our neighborhood citywide and definitely for the West Side. And, again, how do we do that to to be able to protect those and then increase capacity somewhere else? Form based density, I I think that I really appreciate the economic economic impact report. Actually, it did mention form based density as a way to increase capacity and how it's actually one of the ways to be able to help us to build housing. And it's the reason why I still support it for it to be a local density program. But I think that for it to be either in a neighborhood commercial district or a residential transit oriented commercial zones or that is in its base zone, that is simply only going to encourage state density bonus utilizations instead of actually does not make the local density bonus program more attractive. So how do we reach that balance? I look forward to those conversation as well. While I see that my colleague, supervisor Dorsey, is here, if I may say, you know, I I I know that unlike me, he loves the density, and I'm gonna throw it out there. You know, I think if there were a room, because supervisor Dorsey is here, that, you know, there could be a conversation to reevaluate Central SoMa, given that there's a lot of office space, and what can we do to perhaps reconsider those spots and turn into residential and encourage density and and residential zoning for those areas and to maybe offset some of the challenges that we're seeing, be it protection for the rent control units, historical resources, as well as our coastal zone. Thank you, chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisors. So, finally, supervisor Chen, I think you had a correction to make. Okay.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Thank you, Chair Malga. I just want to make sure that I correct myself. For one of my amendments to restore the during unit mix for family size unit to the current citywide standard, I set, five to nine units, in my original, reading. And it should be, buildings of four to nine units, because they are currently not convert not covered by section 207.7. And and I also want to share a feeling of I know that we do have an obligation to meet the state requirement, but we do have other obligation that we also have to meet, locally. First, I think, it's building our accountability to the people of San Francisco, and the needs and the priority of our local community, it is also our obligation. Also, including the most vulnerable among us. It is also, I think, as a supervisor, it's the reason that I'm elected. It's because I want to make sure that we elevate community concerns and priorities, and that the family zoning legislation is not addressed effectively. So I want to make sure that we're not approaching this legislation simply because this is a math problem. We need to meet the number. But in my will, the Department of Housing Community Development's framework is really one-sided. It pressures us to prioritize mostly above moderate income housings over real workforce housings, and also to deliver a capacity outcome even if it means to incentivize displacement of tenants and small business, and eroding our stock of rent stabilized stabilized housing. So I I really want to con convince that we I am. I am always looking for partnership to my colleagues to really work together to find a pathway, find a map that can be more inclusive and more just to San Franciscans.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor Chen. So for the folks who are standing right in front of the door, please don't because that is a fire hazard. Please, find a seat. Or if you're in line for public comment, we're gonna go to public comment now.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item numbers six through 11. I understand that we have two gentlemen up front who have made prior arrangements for accessibility. Let's get those two through the line. And then otherwise, if you're waiting for your opportunity to provide public comment, you may, as you already have, line up to speak along that western wall and come forward to lectern when there is when it when it is your turn. Mister Wooding, if you wanna pull that mic down.

[George Wooding]: Good idea.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: And we'll start your time. Thank you so much.

[George Wooding]: Okay. Good afternoon, committee members. George Wooding. I first want to thank, specifically, supervisor Chan. I've read through her amendments, and I really think that they're valuable. I'd like to see I've heard that at least two or three have been mentioned, and I'd like to have the other two revisited. So specifically, the sacred cow is density decontrol. Now this was an address for when the mayor introduced his planning family zoning in June 25. And what it does, it allows developers free run over the city to control what they want to do. So if you build an eight foot or eight story building, you can put 40 units into it. Or you could put one unit into it. This is terrible for affordable housing, and nobody knows what is going to be happening because all the control is by the developers. This is a bad way for city planning to be running. I know that they have to do this because they have to read a quote unquote number, But the number may end up coming back to haunt the city as infrastructure, increased noise, overcrowding, tenant displacement, loss of community character, disproportionate impact on low income

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: has concluded. Thank you, mister Wooding, for sharing your comments to the committee. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Herbert F. Mintz II]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Herbert f Mintz the second. I live in I've lived in D Four for more than thirty years. Mayor Lohrey's family zoning plan does not make sense to me due to the fact that the city's emergency firefighting water system infrastructure does not extend much into the western and southern neighborhoods. Without this life saving infrastructure in place, first, hundreds of blocks of wood frame buildings will likely succumb to firestorms of unimaginable proportion, proportions immediately following the next great earthquake. City residents like seniors and the disabled will be the first to perish. Right outside of my living room window is a fire hydrant with a white cap. This piece of infrastructure will be useless in suppressing the conflagration expected after gas mains burst as this fire hydrant isn't hardened. What I understand, though, is that much or many of the eastern neighborhoods of the city currently have infrastructure that supports an emergency firefighting water system that acts as a kind of city funded infrastructure based fire insurance. So where is our on the Western and Southern neighborhoods, where is our infrastructure parity when it comes to fire protection? This means the mayor's family zoning plan cannot, in good conscience, be considered seriously or implemented in any way without Western and Southern neighborhood residents getting the fire protection that they need instead of being stuck without adequate fire protection at this moment. So first things first, complete the emergency firefighting water system infrastructure work before adding any upzoning infrastructure to our neighborhoods. Western And Southern neighborhood residents deserve parity.

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

[Ray LaRocca]: Good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors. My name is Ray LaRocca. I'm a resident for about forty years in Noy Valley. I'm a retired attorney. I started my career doing planning work in the city, California Academy's master plan, Presidio Planning, the failed attempt to do affordable housing at Balboa Reservoir, among other things. Our neighborhoods are really essential to the fabric of our communities. They are what make our city unique and different. We began in the seventies and eighties creating neighborhood commercial districts to protect and preserve them, recognizing their small scale character, and their small businesses. While there are many good aspects of the family zoning plan, its overemphasis on increased heights is not the way to go. I understand on four lane roads, to Visidero, Lombard, so forth, fine. I could do it. But on two lane commercial districts, like Noy Valley, you're gonna put them in a canyon of building in perpetual shade. The town square will never see sunlight. Most of those buildings are 15 to 30 feet. You're allowing 65 feet. So what's the solution? You've already alluded to it today. The form based density is one of the main factors that we can do, expand your capacity, and maybe exceed the capacity you have now. Right now, you're only allowing a narrow shoulder on each side of these neighborhood commercials. People will walk more than three or four blocks to get to transit. You could even make form based density citywide, and that would be one amendment, certainly. I would also say you can make RH one the genesis of our unaffordable building exclusionary, zoning, RH two. It's the most number of dwelling units, as mister Egan posed out. Number three, you need to amend it, simply to say that if you take advantage of the local plan, you must increase the number of dwelling units. You'll have people otherwise tearing down 40 foot, you know, two unit buildings and putting up a 65 unit, if a foot two unit building. Finally, your CEQA compliance

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Questionable. Speaker's time has concluded.

[Ray LaRocca]: Thank you for sharing your comments

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: with the committee. Opinion from the city. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Kim Evon (SEIU Local 2015)]: Cisco? Yeah. Good afternoon. Kim Yvonne with SEIU Local twenty fifteen. I'm here representing the concerns of 32,000 home care workers in the city, who are mostly women of color and immigrant women, and have been bearing the incredible oppression of this federal administration, whether it is the terrorizing of communities with ICE or the looming cliff of losing Medicaid, which means them losing their ability to live and take care of the people that they provide care to. I'm here to express that what they don't want to have to worry about is them losing housing security in this moment. They need it. They need they need housing security and safety to live with dignity, and they need it to provide dignity dignified care to every consumer of IHSS in this county. So, they have two imperatives for this leadership body. The first is to make sure you adopt in this family zoning plan. Absolutely do not touch rent control properties period full stop. Second, we wanna make sure that when we talk about affordable housing, there needs to be something in this plan that says we are committed to making sure that public lands are used to develop affordable housing. And I wanna be clear what affordable is. A home care worker, a hotel worker, a public sector worker, a teacher can afford housing.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: Thank you much. Next speaker, please.

[Naj (Nash) Daniels]: Good afternoon. Naj Daniels. I just wanted to make sure that we are focused on the fact that we need to support our our right to have excuse me. I'm sorry. I'm just going through a little bit of air and cold. But we need to just reserve the fact that we have a 100% affordable projects on public land, that we are protecting rent control, and that we are maintaining a high road for labor standards. We have work to do, but we do not want to leave out our working families who are going to be the most impacted. Please keep us in mind. We are doing the work. We are here to stay. We have done the work, and we want to be considered in the changes that are going to affect us. Thank you.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: Thank you, Marsh Nash Daniels. Next speaker.

[Kristen Hardy (SEIU Local 1021)]: Good afternoon. Kristen Hardy. I've been feel like I've just been all over San Francisco today just speaking. Anybody that doesn't know me, I'm a San Francisco native, born and raised. I grew here. I did not flew here. And I am also a city and county public sector worker out of San Francisco General Hospital, fourteen years. And right now, I am here in representing my 16,000 public sector workers that we represent here in San Francisco. And I am also a proud resident of District 7. And I also just wanna let you know that we're I'm also representing workers and working families. We all want more housing in San Francisco. This has been an issue with me being one of the last few of a lot of my schoolmates that have been gentrified out of the city and have not been able to afford that housing that protects the people who are already here, that we maintain housing to protect the people that are already here. And including let me just, make this clear that, you know, as we're talking about housing for low income families, we also need to talk about as me being a public sector worker that we need to talk about workforce housing. Majority of the public sector workers that kept this city running during COVID, the pandemic, and that's still keeping this city running, And that's been detrimental detrimentally, short staffed since prior to COVID are commuting as far as I have members coming from Reno. I have members coming from Sacramento. This is this needs to be changed. They grew up in San Francisco. They went to public schools out here. They're serving the city by working for all the public services. We need to make sure that we're listening to the communities. We're listening to the residents, and not just the contractors, and we're not letting this new administration in San Francisco take over and take away our right and re and reconstruct our city that has had these these incentives in place for a reason. Thank you, guys.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: Thank you much, Chris and Hardy. Next speaker.

[Mark Bruno]: My name is Mark Bruno. I wanna point out in reference to the controller's, report today and to some of the questions by chairman Melgar that we at Saint Vincent de Paul Society in North Beach in June asked, with an immediate disclosure request, for these same numbers. How many rent control units, we asked of the planning department, fall under the maps that are being proposed for the family zoning plan? How many rental units fall under these maps? We were told in person, in writing, in testimony, in front of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, these are unknowable. We cannot get these for you, was a long hearing. At the end of that hearing, in front of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force on August 19, one member said, it makes no sense to me to displace renters only to build affordable housing. The department, meaning the planning department who we oppose at the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, should know those figures. They seem to still not know those figures, and I think this is a lapse in their, their project because they've been working on it for many years, and that's something that should be knowable because it's a downside of their project. With this in mind, not knowing the figures, I appeal to our sense of fairness, and say that the criteria being used by land use to protect rent control units is no different than that that applies to non rent controlled units. These tenants also should be protected and with equal force in the code. Tenants in non rent controlled units are just as likely to be struggling to pay rent. They're just as likely to be seniors. They also may be new residents to our city. Artists, musicians, and writers graduate each year from college. They come here. They get rental units that might not might not be rent controlled. They have the same rights, I believe, and they offer the same to the city as those of us, I do, live in a rent controlled unit. So with this in mind, I ask you to offer the same protections to these renters, to all renters, whether they live in a renter, non controlled, uncontrolled unit, or a noncontrolled unit. Thank you so much.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: And thank you, Mark Bruno. Next speaker.

[Julie Fisher]: Thank you. I don't envy all these plans you're reading through. I'm Julie Fisher. Next month, I will have lived in my rental unit forty years. I'm a legacy myself. There are a lot of legacy residents here in this room and throughout the city, and like me, they went to movies at the Coronet. They bought pickles from Herman's salad, Herman's Deli on Geary. So if you don't know those, talk to your elders. I could not be here without my rent control, and I didn't hear any mention of this, and it's an old formula. Your rental or living expenses, your accommodations should be no more than one third of your income. That's what's affordable. So, please, I hope you'll work that in there. And one thing I also have not heard is new buildings need to have at least a couple ADA units, walkable showers, roll in showers. We have a senior population here. You all know that. Many of us are gonna need those accommodations, and we need to have that housing available. So there's something to build, and that still, I believe, meets the criteria of the state plan. Alright. Good luck. Thank you.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: And thank you much, Julie Fisher. Next speaker.

[Jessica Visnes]: My name is Jessica Visnes, and I'm from District 2. I'm speaking today in strong opposition to the current version of the proposed upzoning plan. I fully support more housing in my neighborhood. I just wanted to be thoughtful and in scale. I'm distressed about the increased heights in many parts of District 2. But with only two minutes to speak, I wanna focus on the proposed zoning for 14 story buildings on Lombard Street starting at Laguna and going east. This change in height seems to have only been added in 2025, and my understanding is that it occurred because heights were lowered at the West End Of Lombard near the Palace of Fine Arts. And as a result, they were simply popped up at the other end to 14 stories to maintain the count, which does not seem like a very thoughtful approach to rezoning Lombard Street. My understanding from talking with supervisor Cheryl is he expects about ten fourteen story buildings on the three blocks of Lombard from Laguna to Franklin. Many people, even those in favor of the zoning plan, view the Fontana Towers as eyesores. To me, 14 story towers on Lombard Street, while they're not the 18 story towers like the Fontana Towers, is just like putting possibly 10 eyesores in an area that would block some of the nicest views in San Francisco so only a privileged view can see them. And people living in the new luxury apartments on Floors 7 To 14 of these towers are probably unlikely to be taking the bus on the transit friendly Lombard Street that's the reason for allowing such tall buildings there in the first place. I live on Vallejo Street and have been paying attention as I walk around to the beautiful views of the intersections of Vallejo and Broadway with Laguna, Octavia, Goff, And Franklin Streets that will be obliterated with such tall buildings. Apart from residents enjoying views of the city by the bay, there go views for the tourists as they walk around Pacific Heights or drive around in those cute little yellow cars. Lowering heights on three blocks doesn't seem like it would upset the apple cart for this plan with the state, and I urge you to consider it. Thank you.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: And thank you, Jessica Business. Next speaker.

[Tony Hall]: Supervisors, Tony Hall here, the current or former supervisor of District 7. The current upzoning plan that calls for 84,000 new rental units here in San Francisco is the outgrowth of the one shoe fits all state mandated housing dictate in prop 79 that was designed not to meet our true housing needs, but to pad the reelection coffers of those running for higher office in collusion with chosen developers, and all on the backs of single family property owners, especially on the West Side. As none of the projected units is slated for home ownership, it does nothing for the 10% of renters that have left our city in the past few years, or the more than 3,000,000 people that have left the state in hopes of actually owning a home somewhere, somehow. It does nothing to address the multibillion dollar infrastructure needs that have plagued the Western end of the city since the early eighties, needs that must be met before any construction can take place. What it does do is totally destroy the very unique qualities that exist only in San Francisco's residential neighborhoods that no other city in The United States has. What it will do, if not amended or fought, is drastically change the landscape of San Francisco and destroy any true legacy that you, as our leaders, wanna leave behind. Thank you.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: And thank you, Tony Heilier. Next speaker.

[Romalyn Schmaltz]: Hello again, supervisors. I'm Romalyn Schmaltz, and I'm sorry to report that San Francisco has YIMBY cancer. It's an aggressive, move fast and break things cancer that, like all cancers, needs to destroy lives in order to keep growing, even when, as mister Egan's report says, more is not the answer, but more is all a cancer knows. Please stop making excuses for not making affordable housing a priority here, and please amend this plan to provide for affordable housing and middle income housing. This plan offers nothing to people making under, like, a $150,000 a year. And please, let's stop with this Stockholm Syndrome with state senator Scott Wiener. Some some board members pretend to be held hostage by legislation crafted by a man standing next to them as a friend in town halls, making sure that he's they scare us with his builder's remedy. Scott Wiener is not San Francisco's friend. Please, at a minimum, adopt all of San Fran supervisors Chen's and Chan's amendments, particularly zero demolitions of rent controlled apartments. There is no excuse to save some homes and not others. You at least are incumbent to try. And again, don't allow 16 blocks of walls on the waterfront. The were the voters roundly rejected a single building at 8 Washington, like, 1213 Years ago. I voted against it too. Put this on the ballot, and voters will save your names from going on those cancer towers that you're proposing. Thank you.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: And thank you much for your comments. Next speaker.

[Apollo (working musician)]: Good afternoon, and thank you again, supervisors. I'm still Apollo, a working musician and a North Beach resident. Nothing in the proposed, as I call it, one big billionaire's bill or 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 rate studios and one bedrooms. Even Ned Segal, mayor Lurry's handpicked housing czar, has gone on the record admitting that this plan isn't even for middle income residents or families. So please approve all of supervisor Chen's and Chan's amendments, especially the protection of all rent controlled units. Around 40,000 residents stand to lose their place in San Francisco forever without this amendment. They deserve protection as much as the residents in my, for the moment, protected triplex. And please, please spare our waterfront from upzoning. Treating it like the East Wing of the White House is not the unremovable stain you want on your legacy. Thank you.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: And thank you for addressing this committee. Next speaker.

[Jonathan Budiman (Northern Neighbors)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Jonathan Budiman. I live in District 2, and I'm with Northern Neighbors, a group focused on housing and transportation issues. I'll be honest. It's frustrating to give public comment on this again, and even more frustrating that the board intends to repeat this ritual on November 17. We've spent hours on this already, and it's fair to ask how representative this process really is for San Francisco as a whole. The city economist made it clear, this plan isn't even the bare minimum. It's not going to solve the housing crisis on its own, far from it, but it's a start and much more work is needed. Meanwhile, rents are up nearly 10% this year, and homes in San Francisco are selling faster than anywhere else in the country. The housing crisis is really is clear and is accelerating right now. Every round of suspicious potential poison pill amendments just chews up more time, and we don't have time to lose. Please pass this plan without watering it down further or delaying it. Thank you.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: And thank you much. Next speaker.

[Mike Casey (SF Labor Council)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Mike Casey. I'm president of the San Francisco Labor Council. I've spent over four decades representing workers in the workplace against bosses that treat people very unfairly. Unfortunately, I've also I've also spent a fair amount of time with our members who have been evicted from this city because they can no longer afford to live here. I get that this city seems hell bent on building more luxury housing, more market rate housing, none of which is gonna help working people in this city. What I don't get, and I'll be damned if I can understand, is why we are going to eliminate as many as 20,000 rent controlled units. Supervisor Melgar, I applaud you for the work that you've done in preserving and protecting those units that are three or more. However, we need to protect a 100%. I'm proud to be in a city where we push back regularly against an orange haired fascist in the White House. What I'd like to know is why we can't muster up the the chutzpah, the backbone to push back against neo neoliberal policies coming out of Sacramento that make it more difficult for working people to live here and will increase the number of people who are being evicted. We need to stop the erosion of affordability, what little there is here in this city. Thank you.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: And thank you, Mike Casey. Next speaker.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Hello.

[Rami (Ramey) Tan (Local Architect)]: It's Rami Tan again, architect and building owner at 2755 Sutter Street in San Francisco. I've wrote to the planning department several times and as well as, supervisor Mahmoud. Our property is basically surrounded by 65 foot, upzoned, properties. And, you know, we actually like to be included in that so we can add to the housing in the city, because, we're we're surrounded by multi units. We're a single unit. Our neighbor's a a a a duplex unit. There's plenty of capacity there. We also are within a quarter mile of the Gary BRT, so it's an ideal, you know, property to be up zone. And, you know, looking at, the zoning map, there are a lot of other properties that are similarly situated. They're near the transit, near BART or Muni Metro or the BRTs that could be upzoned. And this is really important because, unfortunately, the economic report that was just presented had less than half the units that are required by the HCD that would be projected to be built. So somehow, we need to, actually, unfortunately, add more units. And ideally, we add those units near transit as per s b 79, which is, I think is well written. And then, look carefully at reducing the amount of units where we don't have transit. We have a lot of single family houses, and also a step down, you know, from six stories down to the one, two story single family houses. And we also need to preserve all of the historic buildings we have in the city that brings the tourists and makes our city special. So I think there's there's a lot more work to be done in this family zoning plan to to really make it work. And you know, I hope the planning department and and the land use committee and the rest of the board, you know, work together, in the next months to make this

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: train, Kent.

[Rami (Ramey) Tan (Local Architect)]: Really be a great plan.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: Speaker time has expired. Next speaker, please.

[Holden Weisman (Habitat for Humanity Greater SF)]: Hello, supervisors. My name is Holden Weisman from Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco. It's a pleasure to speak to y'all again. I just wanna make sure that I have this opportunity to reemphasize for you all, as you consider the plan going forward, to not lose sight of including ways to increase affordable home ownership, throughout any of the deliberations. The development that we provide for the city is all 100% affordable development. By affordable, we mean it's income restricted. And none of our habitat, none of our homeowners that live in habitat built homes ever pay more than 30% of their income for homes. We want to be able to produce more of that in the city, and need the opportunities to do so. Part of that is, as was mentioned by several supervisors today, that this is just one step in the process. And we hope that you continue to look forward to ways to fund opportunities to provide these going forward. It's not just a matter of rezoning. It is definitely a matter of helping get this built. And just overall, I just want to make sure that I emphasize one more time that homeownership needs to be thought of throughout the process of zoning. And if there's any way to, through these amendments, that we are going to be supportive of anything to provide opportunities for additional homeownership affordable homeownership opportunities, particularly as it relates to public properties that become available. Thank you.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: And thank you for addressing this committee. Next speaker.

[Pat Huey]: Hello. This is, Pat Huey again. I've still been here for forty years. I ask you to seriously rethink these dreadful zone rezoning upzoning ideas. Mayor Lohrey's plan will demolish existing homes, displace renters and small businesses, and turn our neighborhoods into unaffordable high rise corridors. I urge you to adopt supervisor's Chans and Chans amendments to these plans. The current project has no detailed plan for infrastructure and certainly no concern for historic preservation. Most of the units are one to or one to one bedroom or studios without parking. This is not family housing. There isn't even any concern for safety. The up zone eyesore at 26th Avenue in Irving is built on toxic landfill, and we have Scott Wiener to thank for that. What will we get? We will get blocks of uninhabited housing that no one can afford and certainly no one wants to look at. This housing crisis is a myth from greedy real estate developers. We have plenty of housing. The Park Merced apartments have some 3,200 units, apartments that are available for renting. What will we lose? We'll lose a thriving community full of beautiful, charming, historic neighborhoods that people from all over the world come to visit. Please rethink please adopt the the the amendments from supervisors Chen and Chang. Thank you.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: Thank you much, Peggy. Next speaker.

[Unidentified public commenter]: Good afternoon, supervisors. I'm here to oppose the UPZoning plan because it won't help families or housing affordability. Taking away local zoning regulations on real estate developers to deal with high housing costs is an anti democratic authoritarian strategy. Giving real estate developers free rein is like putting a very well funded fox in charge of guarding the hen house. There are much better and more direct ways to address affordability without risking displacement of residential and commercial tenants or destroying the historic resources that are the heart of our communities and a tourism draw, but here we are. I do appreciate the amendments to improve this flood plan, including amendments to exclude all rent controlled buildings, to protect legacy businesses, to exclude priority equity geographies, to exclude historic resources, to limit density decontrol and height increases to the local plan, and to require 100% truly affordable housing on publicly owned land. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: Thank you much. Next speaker.

[Andy Katz]: Hello, supervisors. My name is Andy Katz, and I'm a native of North Beach. I'm here to support our small scale village like communities and to oppose the developer and real estate speculator driven Lurie Wiener Sauter so called family plan. This plan will cause a great deal of harm to our unique neighborhoods, despite the various proposed amendments. First of all, remove all of the rent controlled buildings from the upzoning plan. This is vital to support workers and the elderly in our city, and address their very real fears that they won't be able to stay in their homes. The plan does not focus on affordable housing, but instead on market rate development, which we need more of like a hole in the head. The required affordable housing percentages are too low. Also, there is no actual plan to build affordable housing in the family zoning plan. We need to house our SF workers hanging on by their fingernails, rather than building still more housing for the rich and investors. Many already built existing luxury units sit empty as we speak. The state of California now projects that in 2030 and even in 2050, thousands fewer people will live in San Francisco than in 2020. Why are we rushing through this ruthless upzoning, and why now? Developers sense an opening, period. Lastly, other amendments are needed in the plan. One, require that all publicly owned parcels, like the SFMTA ones, be 100% affordable housing. And two, exclude all historic resources from the upzoning plan, including local historic districts and those eligible for the California and national registers. Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: And thank you, Andy Katz. Next speaker.

[Carol Burberg]: Carol Burberg. I live in North Beach. I first moved to San Francisco in 1971. I've lived all over the city. I'm I've also been a landlord. I wanna focus on points that have not been made for the most part by my fellow San Francisco residents, but I also wanna remind you that for each of us who was able or and willing to take the entire afternoon off work and not get paid, as you all are doing, there are probably 50 others who would like to be here and would probably say the same thing that we're saying. I when I first came here, the reason that that North Beach area got the transportation that it now has and the infrastructure is because it was the densest North Beach and Chinatown residential area in the city. The transportation followed the density. Now you're proposing to have more density follow the transportation. It's circular. It doesn't work that way. But then most of the figures I've seen today don't reflect reality as I have experienced it as living in San Francisco since several years before the numerical part of this presentation was started and several years after it ended. You know that the factors even now are changing. Interest rates, demand for housing, types of work, places that people need to be, kinds of workers that need to live near, the heart of the city, all are changing. Please do not do a My Lai. Do not do a central subway. Don't destroy the village in order to save it.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: Thank you much. Next speaker.

[Laurie Brook (Cal Hollow Association, Neighborhoods United SF)]: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Laurie Brook. I'm president of the Cal Hollow Association and cofounder of Neighborhoods United SF. Let's be honest, many in city hall are listening only to YIMBY lobbyists and the politicians who profit from them, while tuning out actual housing experts. Experts that have shown blanket upzoning in a dense built out city like San Francisco does not create affordability. It fuels speculation, demolishes sound homes, displaces tenants and small businesses, and drives prices even higher. Your authority over land use has been stripped away by Senator Scott Wiener's overreach and his enforcers at HCD. Yet, we all pretend a few amendments can fix it. They can't. Not while the entire system is broken. Senator Wiener weaponized the RHNA process, inflating targets, imposing penalties, and silencing community voices. The state's 82,000 unit mandate was never real. It's detached from population trends, construction costs, and economic reality. The result is a punitive top down framework that rewards developers and punishes communities. RHNA must be completely overhauled to become a planning tool rooted in data, not politics, a process cities can actually use to plan responsibly. That's the bigger fight ahead. But today, you have a choice. Stand with your constituents, not the lobbyists. Support your colleagues' amendments as the last guardrail left to protect our neighborhoods, our small businesses, our residents from irreversible damage. San Franciscans are awake now. They don't feel heard and they're stepping off the sidelines to take their city back. You were elected to lead, not to follow. Do so. It's not too late.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: Thank you, Laurie Brook. Next speaker.

[Bridget Maley (Neighborhoods United SF)]: Hi. Good afternoon. Bridget Maley representing, Neighborhoods United SF. On behalf of our over 60 neighborhood and community groups, NUSF adamantly opposes Mayor Lori's family zoning plan, which will be anything but family friendly. This plan extensively expands the rezoning envisioned in the 2022 housing element. Therefore, it is wholly inadequate to issue only an addendum to the previously certified housing element environmental impact report. Unfortunately, this plan encourages demolition of existing sound building stock, promotes excessive and unnecessary height and density increases along thriving neighborhood commercial corridors and in established, residential neighborhoods. It disregards the historic buildings and districts that draw tourists to our city. It will displace small and legacy businesses, cause tremendous transit disruptions, and require extensive but unfunded infrastructure investment. Further, this plan will fail to protect rent control units in both the plan area and across the city, including in the priority equity geographies identified in the housing element. The housing element was a component of the general plan, and it specifically called for tenant protections. Since rezoning proposals must be consistent with the general plan, the mayor's plan creates an unlawful general plan inconsistency. In short, this plan is a series of confusing maps and poorly conceived policies that will fundamentally fail San Franciscans and deliver no real solutions to our housing affordability crisis.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: Thank you much for addressing this committee. Next speaker.

[Donna Hurwitz]: Good evening. My name is Donna Hurwitz. I've been a resident of the city for over four forty years. Most of that time I've been in the Sunset District. I spent many years being a renter while I saved up money to buy a house in this very expensive city. In the sunset, all of the years I was there, there were two small apartment houses built in my immediate neighborhood. One of them on my block was only two stories. I think one two blocks up was four stories. In both those cases, I think they made the block look much improved. They were nice looking. Today, I agree with those who say we could have a number of other apartment houses of modest size in several reasonably close chosen areas in the sunset. Mister Egan mentioned how we need new people in the city. We need them for our customers, but general vitality. And he also mentioned, we lose people. I owned a small business, so I had a small staff. I can recall one patient saying she liked me. She liked the city, but she wanted to buy a house. She wanted to have children. So she and her husband were moving to North Carolina. That was not uncommon. Having staff and retaining staff was always a problem because of the high cost of housing. I can remember mayor Lee once saying, this is a problem of our own making.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Time is concluded. Thank you for sharing your comments. We have to go move on to the next speaker. Thank you so much.

[Catherine Howard]: Still afternoon. Good afternoon, supervisors. Catherine Howard, District four Sunset Parkside. I'm here on the behalf of, d Forward. The entire city voted on the Great Highway, a District 4 issue, but because no one has been appointed to replace mister En Gardio, District 4 has no voice in this upzoning legislation, which could bulldoze our entire neighborhood. This is upzoning without representation, and you should postpone these votes until a mayor acts. And that new supervisor should not only be here to hear our comments, but also in our neighborhood. We are tired of being ignored. Many changes must be made to the legislation. Eliminate in lieu fees. The fees delay affordable housing, and they create exclusive enclaves of luxury housing. Dedicate all suitable public land, excluding parks and public open space, to 100% affordable housing. Preserve the coastal zone as it is today and prohibit upzoning in the tsunami zone. I mean, who is proposing increasing building heights or density in the tsunami zone? It doesn't make sense. Repair and reactivate our local tsunami warning system. The cell phones failed recently. We don't have a warning system. All category a and a eligible historic buildings and districts should be exempted from up zoning. We have many mid century homes and other buildings that reflect our unique cultural heritage. Prevent height increases near parks and schools. Casting shadows on open spaces and class classrooms undermines the quote, unquote, well resourced character of our district. And please install the emergency firefighting system before more density is built. With a major quake and ocean winds, you are going to have an unstoppable fire, and it's not gonna start with our neighborhood. It's gonna start at the ocean and go over the hill and engulf the whole city, and San Francisco is not capable of fighting it at this time. Thank you.

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: This

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: time has concluded. Thank you for sharing your comments. To the next speaker,

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: please.

[Nick Farris (Telegraph Hill Dwellers President)]: Good afternoon, committee members. Chen, Mahmood, and supervisor Chan. My name is Nick Farris. I serve as president of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, and speak on behalf of our nearly 600 residents and small business owners. The proposed family zoning plan will not work. Financing, construction, and land costs, not zoning are what primarily limit housing creation. This plan relies on trickle down economics and we all know how that story ends. It won't build affordable housing for most San Franciscans and this plan contains no plan to actually fund affordable housing. The plan is also based on outdated and inflated population data. The state of California now projects that by 2030, and even by 2050, thousands fewer will live in San Francisco than they did in 2020. So why are we letting Sacramento and Scott Wiener's mandates push us to build 82,000 new units with no funding for affordability? It's unfair and unacceptable. Some of the deepest, densest neighborhoods in this city, especially in the Northeast Waterfront, North Beach, Telegraph Hill, and the waterfront, are being asked to take on far more than their fair share, and they were never part of the original housing element plan. We urge you to remove these neighborhoods from the upzoning plan. If the plan does move forward, we strongly support supervisors Chan and Chen's amendments to make it fair and responsible. Specifically, exclude priority equity geography parcels and all rent controlled housing with two or more units. Require publicly owned land to be 100% affordable. Protect historic districts and local landmarks. Limit density and height increases to local plans and require affordable housing to be built on-site or nearby. Please do not more move forward with this plan. It's not family zoning. This is fantasy zoning.

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

[Niels Pearson]: Board and, and staff. My name is, excuse me, Niels Pearson. I'm the president of Bel Air Tower Homeowners Association. We represent 64 owner residents at the peak of Russian Hill. Our building has been called, variously, the Jewel, the Superman Building in, Armistead Maupin's book, and we recently obtained a historical evaluation review and soon will be a state and national landmark. I'm not telling you this as an aside. This is part of my presentation. I am filing now, and lodging with the, the clerk of the court our written response.

[Unidentified public commenter]: Thank you. You can leave that up front. I'll pick it up.

[Niels Pearson]: Thank you. To complete, we only have a small and discreet ask that is historically correct in two major respects. We are asking that the six square block area that is our northern perimeter, Leavenworth to the North I'm sorry. Leavenworth to the East, Filbert to the North, Vallejo to the South, and Larkin to the East. Six block area be rezoned. That was its legacy classic. I say historically correct, because up until the 2024, the planning department had our zoning maintained at 40 square 40 feet. We're asking that be restored, and that should be restored because that was the legacy, and we comprise a historic district that deserves to have that restored.

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

[Kathleen Courtney (Russian Hill Community Association)]: Kathleen Courtney, Rushnil Community Association District four. Congratulations for the three of you for the all that you've done. And particularly, our leadership team wanted to thank, supervisor Chen for reminding the supervisors that you're elected to preserve and protect your districts, as well as the city at Hall. I have our basic mantra that I keep on repeating. One, we want to we ask you to reduce the allowable heights on alleys in District 3 and throughout the city from six stories to four stories and prohibit off street parking in these alleys. Two, exempt historic designation category a buildings from up zoning. Three, my colleague, Robin Tucker from the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association, Hannah was totally blindsided by what was done by the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District. And so we're asking that you preserve the 40 foot height limit in forty five year rear yard that they had negotiated over two years ago. Restore the 40 foot, height limit for the six blocks on the top of Russian Hill. And, you know, this is ridiculous, but we'd give you anything if you could void the consolidation of the North Beach Special Use District and neighborhood commerce Districts in District 3. The supervisor was not listening to his constituents. Thank you.

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

[Eileen Hirst]: Good evening, supervisors. I'm Eileen Hurst. I live on Russian Hill. So, I I would like to support my neighbors in, restoring the original zoning of that six block area, smack in the middle of Russian Hill. It makes no sense. We have asked planning why they keep including it. I haven't received an answer. I don't know anyone who has. Since I have been involved in this, I have now heard two experts say that very little is going to be built as a result of this upzoning plan. One was in a public meeting, a statement made by a planning staffer, and now the city economist has said the same thing. So I have to ask you, why aren't you listening? You need to listen to that. We need workforce, affordable, family appropriate housing, an amendment that calls for two bedrooms as family housing is not adequate. Family doesn't live in two bedrooms, and there's nothing in there about it being affordable. I urge you also, after hearing, from the person from the, sunset, y'all should read Denial of Disaster by Gladys Hansen, written specifically about what happens in an earthquake and fire, and specifically what's gonna happen to the sunset unless the infrastructure is upgraded. I also urge you to take a look at the three-dimensional map that is making the rounds, the the one that planning said they couldn't produce. If you say that you are voting for this plan to encourage future generations to live here, see if you'd wanna live here after looking at that map. Thank you very much.

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

[George Seery]: Good afternoon. My name is George Seery, 47 year resident of San Francisco, currently living in D 2. I'm for affordable housing, but this family zoning plan will not lower housing costs and improve affordability. Its supply and demand argument is behind it. Build enough supply, you're gonna get the prices down. But recent studies have shown when the demand is driven by a rap rapid population increase of high a high salaried workforce, high rents are sustained independent of supply. That's recent study. New housing supply can't keep up. But on the flip side, when take example, the COVID workforce from home showed up, we had a rapid population vacancy rate increase because people could work from home anywhere. Rents did come down slightly in San Francisco, but not for long. So supply and demand really isn't a symmetric operation. They're very dependent on what's causing the demand, what the population is. Demand fluctuations do a tech boom and bust cycle. Has been here before, beginning with the .com event. But work from home following COVID was devastating to downtown and reduced our population. Don't expect that to recover. Smart businesses realize that they can cut back on expensive office lease costs with the modern compute capabilities that's business savvy. And don't count on San Francisco as the AI capital of the world to solve that problem either. AI has already triggered layoffs in tech, including in AI companies. White collar jobs are vulnerable. Department of finances show the San Francisco population forecast is down considerably from the early ones that set our targets. San Francisco needs to appeal for dramatically reduced housing targets, build what is already in the pipeline, not this plan. It provides no guarantee guaranteed afford improvement and affordability while negatively impacting the character of our neighborhoods and the city.

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

[Frank Reedy]: Good afternoon, committee. My name is Frank Reedy. I've lived in San Francisco for eleven years, all of which in District 3, formerly North Beach and now Russian Hill. I love San Francisco and I love its community, but it's clear that our city and our state's housing choices over the past fifty years have led us to fall behind other major cities in The US and abroad. Within the past year and a half, I've become both a first time homeowner in Russian Hill and a first time parent. Even though my family won't personally be able to benefit from lower rents now that we're homeowners, we support the family zoning plan because it's a forward looking, inclusive step towards creating a city for the next generation. From 2010 to 2019, jobs in San Francisco grew by 39%, while housing grew by only 8%. That gap has driven up both rents and pushed out young families like our own out to suburbs or other cities. Family zoning introduces the opportunity for multifamily sized housing where only single family houses are now permitted. It further addresses climate change by allowing for population growth along our important corridors of our transit rich city. I wanna share my love of San Francisco with the current and future residents like myself and make sure that the next generation like my sons can can build their lives here too. Please forward this broadly supported proposal with your recommendation to the full board so our city can remain a place where everyone can thrive for generations to come. Thank you.

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

[Lee Sargis]: My name is Lisa Arjes. I'm a District 4 resident. District 4 voters resoundingly recall Joel and Guardio for lack of representation. More than forty five days later, we still lack representation, and so we're trying to figure out how we participate in this process. Chairman, Melgar, you mentioned earlier that, amendments could be worked with through the mayor's office. I guess I would like to understand how District 4 might work through those amendments and make sure that our voices are heard. In lieu of that, I'm gonna talk about a few of these things now. What's very important to us is the coastal zone protections. Mayor Loury's plan makes legislative code changes to the city and to the city's general plan, which undermines protections specifically stated in the California Coastal Act. It includes more than 10 parcels that are zoned for high rise development. These changes must be removed and the parcels deleted. It's important that the changes to the general plan and the legislative code, those changes, those proposed changes be rejected. This is introducing a local zoning ordinance into the coastal zone, which is not acceptable to District 4. We also priority of first things first. We are very vulnerable on the West Side and the Southeast Side as well to Auxiliary Water Supply System has not been extended. In spite of three bond measures, 2010, 2014, 2020, over $312,000,000 and two civil grand juries, both of which recommended the AWSS be extended and urgently. This has not been done. So this needs to be done, as well as other critical infrastructure. Thank you.

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

[Lila Holzman]: Hello. My name is Lila Holzman. I am speaking in support of the family zoning plan. I'm a native Californian and have lived in San Francisco for about a decade, first in North Beach for many years and more recently as a homeowner in District 5. I lost my job at a climate change nonprofit a few months ago, a sign of the scary times we are in nationally, and I've been getting more and more involved in my local communities, and I love San Francisco. So I'm somewhat new to this space and have been learning a lot through coming to these hearings and getting to know folks and reading up on it. And as complicated as it is and even with all the buzz that arose with The Economist report that we heard about today, it still seems clear to me that passing this zoning plan makes sense as an important step with lots of other factors that will continue to need addressing, but that can't be addressed through a zoning plan regardless. I do hear that we need to make sure folks from here can continue to live here. San Francisco is a rapidly aging city. But that also means we need to make sure younger generations can also live and work and have kids and families here to continue to ensure our city can thrive. Right now, we are driving millennials and lung younger generations away. That's a recipe for an unsustainable city. Please support this item. Thank you so much for your time.

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

[Unidentified public commenter]: I urge you to vote against this destructive and useless useless legislation. The upzoning plan devastates your constituents and benefits only the investor class. It is solely a land and power grab. The trickle down economic justifications for the plan are absurd. The RHNA numbers are bogus. The plan is Byzantine. The planning department can't or won't fully explain it. The monster successes, 800,000,000 new unit capacity in fifty year time frame, are megalomaniacal. It is a sellout of the small business, cultural, architectural, and social fabric of the city. It plunders rent control, which is the largest, most successful, and most important program the city has for affordable, stable housing. The amendments, they only cover the local program, and the so called tenant protections are inadequate. The plan remains a betrayal of the half century of tenants rights on which your constituents have relied and built their lives. City government is abdicating its responsibility to its constituents. It is abusing the power of government to regulate for big business and against the people. Big business gets free range for profit. The people get insecurity, financial and personal loss, and displacement. The upzoning will not deliver an adequately house city. It will deliver only real estate speculation and misery to the majority of your constituents. It destroys trust in city government. Grow up and stand up to the wiener boogeyman. Vote no on this dishonest and destructive upstanding.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Thank you for also not interrupting the speaker with applause or any kind of audible expressions of support or disparagement. We'll hear from you if you are next to give public comment. Please begin.

[Theresa Doolala Suid Songkhan]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Theresa Doolala, Suid Songkhan. Upzoning is framed as a solution, but in truth, it accelerates displacement, deepens inequity, and repeats the same planning failures that destroyed Manila Town, where our entire Filipino community lost homes and identity in the name of redevelopment. We must protect all rent controlled housing, affordable housing, and small businesses from one story and above, not reward them to to weak into weak amendments that just serve up zoning's agenda. We want strong tenant and small businesses protections. I've lived through four eviction struggles with my family. No one should ever have to face the same. It's easy for proponents to say build and expand. But what happens to the people directly affected? So it's okay to displace rent controlled buildings in order to build new affordable housing? A big question mark. No matter how big or small, you know, the businesses and buildings are, the negative economic impact of people and business are tremendous in their own rights and situations. Upzoning is taking advantage of what the housing element requires for states. Commissioners, please, I ask that you also demand also the figures on how much affordable means to print.

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

[Reina Teo (PODER)]: Good evening to those of you who are left in this chambers. My name is Reina Teo with Poder, and I just wanna say we appreciate supervisor Chan and Chen's leadership in introducing critical amendments to strengthen tenant protections, prioritize affordable housing, support small businesses, create real family sized housing, and ensure sustainable, affordable development. We urge the committee to move these amendments forward. Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to say hands off our public lands. Public lands should be for affordable housing, a 100% deeply affordable housing, to be able to stabilize the community. And as a personal note, where is the housing for single parents with multiple kids? Because that does decrease the AMI and the ability to qualify for housing. So as we talk about affordability, I really appreciated the comments earlier about defining what that looks like. Because one twenty AMI may not be what's affordable for me. So thank you.

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

[Dane Willett]: Hello. My name is Dane Willett. I live in Coal Valley, and I'm here to ask y'all to support the family zoning plan. My wife and I recently moved here from Texas. We are trying to start a family soon. And as you may be aware, in Texas, it's not necessarily a safe place at the moment to start families. There's a lot of laws and rules that get in the way of safe family creation there. Unfortunately for us, housing prices are incredibly high here in San Francisco, So the family zoning plan is a good start to get these housing costs under control. As we heard earlier from the report of the City Economist, it paints a stark picture on our goal of meeting those 36,000 units. But there are some good things in it as well. It points out that even with this relatively small increase in housing, we will see a decrease in housing prices. Those decreases will be even bigger if we are able to build even more. And that is gonna be good for bringing down prices, which is gonna help me and people like me. Again, I hope that you support the family zoning plan, and I hope you do it without the amendments that could endanger hitting any kind of increased building goals. And thank you for your time.

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

[Divya Singh (Grow The Richmond)]: Hello, everybody. My name is Divya Singh, and I'm with Grow The Richmond. Also, separately, this is the earliest that I've ever spoken in public comments, so I'm really gonna savor this. I I feel like a lot of the comments that have been made today have had kind of a a doom and gloom flavor. So I'm just gonna talk about things that I'm excited about. I'm excited by the prospect of newer buildings, potentially ones with elevators so my neighbors don't have to take the stairs to get to where they need to be if they're mobility challenged. I'm excited by newer buildings with potentially energy efficient appliances such that we can pay lower energy bills, as I know that's, like, at the top of mind for a lot of people right now. And, you know, just based on the conversations that I've had with bar and restaurant owners in this in the Richmond, particularly where I live, people are just excited to have more liveliness and more foot traffic come through to actually come support and ensure that their establishment thrives. So, with all that said, I support the family zoning plan. I acknowledge that it's one step in, like, the broad coalescence of things that actually needs to happen to ensure that rents come down and, units actually get constructed. But, I trust that, you know, it's gonna set us in the right direction. Thank you.

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

[Philip Raffel]: Good evening, supervisors. My name's Philip Raffel. I'm SFEMV, and I reside in Noe Valley. I'm here to support the necessity of the family zoning plan, oppose any amendments that delay construction for for the housing that we need, and acknowledge that there are additional steps needed to be taken. Throughout the hearing today, much has been worn about the perils of developers and luxury housing and pricing out workers who are keeping the city functioning. Our housing is a luxury in a way that clean water is a luxury after a hurricane. It's become scarce because but but and it becomes a luxury. We can't blame nature for our shortage. Like, it's a history just of bad policies and which has created unaffordable housing, which the family zoning plan is one of many things at the local level and and at the state level, like s P 79, which are we need to fix. Rent control is strong in SF, and it will be and as studies have shown, rent control rent control will protect how as it stands, will protect housing without zoning. My story is that I was only able to afford a house in like, SF because of the pandemic of twenty twenty and family support. I shouldn't have gone through that, and no one else should go have to depend on family or a pandemic. And it's my belief that this will plan will help the legacy businesses that we all love and share that will that will keep these businesses running for the next thirty, fifty, and a hundred years, support FZP, the family zoning plan, and oppose any legislation that doesn't meet our housing goals.

[Francisco Da Costa]: Thank you.

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

[Howard Wong]: Howard Wong. I'm an architect and a native of San Francisco and North Beach. I hope that San Francisco citizens and political power work with the state to really create a real regional and statewide plan to increase housing. San Francisco has always been the largest one of the largest developers of housing and the projects in the state and in the country. Look at all the, buildings we have throughout the South Of Market and the waterfront that we didn't have when I was growing up. In particular, the Northern Waterfront needs to be protected. In the dark of night, I don't understand why we suddenly introduced tall buildings along the waterfront in contradiction to the waterfront battles of generations, the freeway battles, the many developments along the water, the 40 foot height limits. The 40 and the ballot initiatives, urban design elements, the codes, all of that contradicts development in the northern part Northeastern part of the city, which is the densest pure neighborhood in The United States. Also, things have changed depending how you count housing, the time frame. We already have fulfilled arenas. AB six seventy, which was passed recently, allows us to count preservation of affordable how certain types of affordable housing in the count. We have new housing being proposed each day in the procedure. There are unmet untitled projects yet to be built in Pier 70, Mission Rock, Park Merced,

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Bayview, Los Angeles. Has concluded. Thank you for sharing your comments with the committee. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Gwen McLaughlin (Small Business Forward)]: Hello, supervisors. My name is Gwen McLaughlin. I'm here today speaking on behalf of Small Business Forward. Small Business Forward supports supervisor Chan's amendments to the family zoning plan. As it stands, the proposed upzoning along neighborhood commercial corridors places hundreds of small businesses at the risk of displacement with no financial support in place for their successful relocation. Small businesses are likely to be displaced with a non renewal of lease. With no right of return or financial commitment to their continuation, we know there will be small business workers that will lose their livelihood. Small businesses are being sacrificed for housing development, affordable only to the most affluent in this city. The housing that will be built under this plan will not be affordable and will not be accessible to small business workers. We support supervisor Connie Chan's amendments to preserve all housing, including all rent controlled units from being demolished. And we support demolition and impact fees that luxury housing developers pay into a fund which assists with small business relocation programs. Furthermore, we support the elimination of density control from the MCDs and ROTCs because San Francisco needs family housing, not just dorms. Thank you so much for your time.

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

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: I'm Paul Conroy, president of Ingleside Terrace Homes Association. Not a homeowners association. We include renters and homeowners. We strongly oppose the so called family zoning plan as it will dismantle existing vibrant communities through speculative redevelopment and demolition. It will drive up land values and displace families. If you do pass this plan, which in its present form is an unnecessary demolition and relocation plan, we ask that it first be amended in the following respects, Remove density decontrol. The plan should maintain setbacks, height transitions, and massing rules to maintain green space crucial for environmental sustainability. Remove provisions that allow 65 foot heights on interior residential street corner lots and 8,000 square foot lots in RH 1 districts. This provision will result in randomly placed towers with no relationship to neighborhood form or any broader planning vision. Provide for a 40 foot height limit on commercial corridors adjoining low scale residences, similar to an amendment already provoked proposed for District 1. Protect historic resources and prohibit demolition of existing housing stock. And finally, provide housing choices scaled for families with children and increase the required family housing units consistent with the city's family friendly policies. And please stop blaming the state's arbitrary mandate for this proposal. Ask the city attorney's office, which is well staffed, to represent San Francisco as a charter city with home rule authority, unlike the many general law cities in California, and challenged the state's attempt to dictate land use policy.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Concluded. Thank you

[Philip Raffel]: for sharing your comments

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: with the committee. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[P. Siegel]: Hello, supervisors. My name is P. Siegel. You've probably read letters from me. I am the director of a small nonprofit trying to get housing for artists in San Francisco. I've been trying for nine years. And very recently, when I was trying to figure out why this hasn't happened, I discovered that I have been ignoring about ten years of sheer unadulterated cronyism and corruption in city hall. It's almost staggering how much there is. And the board of supervisors is active as our protection from a very corrupt city hall for many years. And so I am hoping that you will oppose this project completely because almost a dozen or perhaps even more of the neighborhood associations in the Northeast quadrant of the city have said, we hate this. Don't do it. So if somehow it manages to happen, one really has to ask, who are our representatives working for? Thank you.

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

[Ruth Ferguson (District 9 Neighbors for Housing)]: My name is Ruth Ferguson, and I'm here with District nine Neighbors for Housing. For the past six months, I've come to this podium to urge you to pass this plan. Along the way, I've shared personal stories about why I support it, about my parents who risked everything to build a small business that's lasted thirty one years, about my sister, an ICU nurse that lives in a rent controlled duplex that will be rezoned by this plan, yet still supports this plan to give working people like her a fighting chance, and about the young San Franciscans who shared heart wrenching stories with me who overwhelmingly support building housing to provide a home for their generation, their aging parents, and their community. I support the family zoning plan because it gives us a path forward toward shared prosperity, one that's possible when we invest in affordable housing, transit, public education, including community college, and a strong social safety net. I also support family zoning for my family. My husband and I couldn't be prouder to be San Franciscans. We hope to grow old in our neighborhood, and we wanna raise a family who cares as deeply for our community as we do. We wanna know that our tax dollars are building a more inclusive future, one that extends to our unhoused neighbors and to the generations who will come after me, us. I love this city. I don't care what anyone else thinks about whether San Francisco is doomed or not. The people who get it get it, and San Francisco is the most extraordinary community I've ever known. We are resilient, creative, kooky, and full of people who care deeply about each other in the world. Change is never easy. The implementation of this plan will take persistence and an equity focused North Star. An editorial in Jacobin Magazine this week, just this week, noted that we need zoning reform for things like social housing. So we'll keep showing up to organize and to make this city more affordable for working people, low income residents, and future generations. Please pass this plan soon so we can build a San Francisco of opportunity and belonging for everyone. I promise I'll be back at this podium to fight for that future and to ask you once again to please rezone Bernal Heights to improve

[Lee Sargis]: our housing affordability. Thank

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

[Charlie Natoli]: Hi. My name is Charlie Natoli. I live in District 6, and I wanted to speak in strong support of the family zoning plan. I also wanted to thank the board and the planning department for all the hard work, revisions, and details in walking a very, difficult tight rope for all this time. So I think, you know, I think this recent city economic report noted that even while the plan would fall short of its goal, it would still create around 3,000 to 5,000 new jobs and have massive benefits, which is really great. I think we could create an even better future if we added more, considering, you know, more height height increases in more places, reducing impact fees, more financing and grants, especially for, below market rate housing in every neighborhood. I think that there's a lot of great stuff, and we can absolutely build a better s f. That said, I was here last hearing, and what bothered me is how much of the debate seemed to be around not so much around whether or not we're building how much housing we're building, but how much was market rate versus affordable, or family versus studios, or how much we need to kind of raise up our hands because, you know, we can't control interest rates, so there's nothing we can do, or demonizing home building companies in the middle of a housing shortage. To me, there's something very revealing about how this debate has been framed or at least misleading. Right? Many of our neighborhoods are largely single family or duplex. The average cost of a house like that is around 1,500,000.0, which is a mind bendingly high number. And yet, again, the debate keeps being framed around what types of apartment buildings do we wanna have in our most exclusionary neighborhoods. Fundamentally, I think that we need a lot of everything. I also wonder if this framing serves a purpose. Right? When opponents make the debate about certain types of apartments versus others, they don't have to defend the fact that our zoning policies have turbocharged wealth inequality and forced out so many people from our city over the last thirty years. So I wanted to give credit to everyone again, for working so hard and walking this political tight rope. But I think this is a true crisis, and we need to do as much as we can, to make as much housing as we can. Thank you so much for all your work.

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

[Mozu]: Hello. My name is Mozu. I'm here, to urge you to to support the family zoning plan. I am, in the process of starting a family, and we are looking, very much at the daunting prospect of, raising a child here in San Francisco, where we would like to stay. And so I think that this family zoning plan will be a really great step towards that. I know that the recent report indicated that we will be falling short of our goals under

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: this

[Mozu]: plan. But looking further and deeper into that, I observe that, over the course of the next twenty years or so, we will have, slightly declining rents when falling short. We're going to have a lot many more neighbors for our businesses to be customers. And we are going to generate a lot more jobs and economic activity, all of which will not be going to our landlords. Instead, we'll be staying in our pockets because of that because of the reduced rent. So I urge you guys to pass this family zoning plan and also make it bigger by including Bernal Heights as well as, more areas, near public amenities, such as schools, parks, and, and, commercial corridors. Increasing, density around there will allow us to meet, our actual target and also further reduce the rents and the house prices. Thank you.

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

[Unidentified public commenter]: Okay. I said earlier, I spent the last five days showing people from the East Coast around San Francisco. Another thing they absolutely loved is the cable cars. In 1947, the mayor tried to get rid of the cable cars, and the people said no. Thank God. You have a chance now to save the character of this city as being the equivalent of Paris and Rome. Okay? Trees are disappearing wherever you put those new buildings. I live right off of Van Ness, and my rent control building is being, zoned 14 stories when it's currently six, which means the incentive is to demolish it. So I support the amendments of, supervisors Chan and and, Chen to, to protect the rent controlled buildings. Now the young people are complaining about how unaffordable this is. The plan does nothing to preserve affordability. So it's very frustrating because, it there should be overwhelming support by supervisor Mahood to mhmm. I'm sorry. All the supervisors to support the amendment that would 100%, make the anything developed on public land affordable. Another thing, the 38 Gary is already too crowded, and you're gonna put more people on that line.

[Unidentified speaker (d Forward)]: Okay. Alright.

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: Thank you

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

[Annie Fryman (SPUR)]: Hello, supervisors. Annie Fryman here with Spur, also a renter in the sunset. I'll be short and sweet. You all have heard plenty from me over the past number of months. This plan represents years of work from the planning department, from supervisors, from our former mayor, from our current mayor, and yet it's still the bare minimum of what we need to pass, and it is still very worthy of a swift passage. This was reiterated earlier today in the presentation from the city economist report that showed that although we are not in an economic position right now to have this plan in the very short term spur the degree of housing construction that would address forty, fifty years of compounding housing shortage, we still need to get it passed and get to work because all housing is a benefit to San Francisco. Spur also supports Cheryl and Souder's, proposed amendment to expand the incentive for building more two and three bedroom units. And so we look forward and urge the committee to adopt that amendment, and also reject any amendments that weaken or dilute the plan, and also prepare to pass additional legislation in 2026 that supplement, not just the zoning, but also some of the policies and programs that will spur housing construction. So thank you very much.

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

[Deborah Solomon]: Hi. Thank you, supervisors, staff. Really appreciate all the hard work that's gone into this. My name is Deborah Solomon. I'm a resident of District 7 in Sunset. I strongly support the family zoning plan. I think it's fantastic. It's a great start. And support amendments that also support the increase in the supply of housing. And I really discourage amendments that would decrease the supply of housing. I did wanna mention that sometimes my children come and comment at these, venues. They are both very strong supporters of more housing in San Francisco. They're teenagers. They would like to stay in San Francisco. Unfortunately, my 17 year old is applying to college. She couldn't come. My 14 year old is at a model UN meeting, but they did want me to express their support for the family zoning plan. Thank you.

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

[Sean Burgess]: Hello, everyone. My name is Sean Burgess, and I support the family zoning plan. I have two children who will grow up, move out, and look for a place of their own. I'd love for them to stay nearby, but if we keep stifling housing growth, I doubt they'll be able to. San Francisco didn't always prevent growth. Many neighborhoods we celebrate today were born from their ability to grow and densify. In the 1930s, it was flexible housing that allowed older homes in the Fillmore to be subdivided into denser, affordable units. Housing the musicians who turned it into Harlem of the West. Later, North Beach's cheap split up Edwardians housed the beat generation, shared Victorians in the Haight Ashbury fueled the hippie movement, and subdivided homes in the Castro became the foundation of one of the world's first openly LGBTQ communities. All of these movements share the same pattern, cheap, flexible housing that could densify. But in 1978, zoning changed. Housing flexibility was outlawed, replaced by rules modeled on suburbs designed to exclude lower income and non white families. Those rules didn't just reinforce segregation. They stopped the kind of cultural movements the city is known for, and they're still stopping whatever might come next. That's why keeping our current zoning isn't neutral. It's a choice to keep exclusion alive. Let me repeat that. Our existing loan zoning laws reinforce racial and income based segregation. We should ask ourselves, if we give large swaths of building historic designation, whose new history are we denying? If we pass amendments that water down this plan, remember who the status quo was designed to exclude. So I wonder, when my children are old enough to find a place of their own, what will they find? A neighborhood that preserved its buildings but left no room for them, or one that preserved its values by making space for people? I hope it's the latter, and that's why we should pass this plan. Thank you.

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

[Marie Joyce]: Good evening. My name is Marie Joyce. I am a thirteen year homeowner in the Outer Richmond. First of all, I wanna thank chairman Melgar and her committee for all the hard work they've been doing around this very, very complex issue, as well as supervisors Chan, who's my supervisor, and Chen for the the amendments they proposed that I think are are are really strong. I also wanna say, one thing that's concerned me about this whole issue is how polarizing it has been. You're either a YIMBY or you're a NIMBY. Well, I speak to you today as a Simbi, smart in my own backyard. And this plan as it stands now is not that smart. I wanna bring to your attention an excellent article that came out in the New York Times last March and was said the headline was, how does Paris remain Paris? By investing billions into public housing. In the article, it says, quote, Paris is being buffeted by the same market forces vexing other so called superstar cities like London, San Francisco, and New York. A sanctum for the world's wealthiest to park their money and buy a piece of a living museum. And unfortunately, the way this upzoning plan stands now, I'm very concerned that is what is gonna happen. I don't think it's an accident that so much of the upzoning is crammed into the northern and western parts of our city where we have the iconic views that developers crave for luxury housing. Views of our parks, our beaches, our landmarks, our waterfronts, These are the things that belong to all of us. These are public vistas. And it's what makes our city so great and so special.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: The committee.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you.

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

[Unidentified speaker (d Forward)]: I'm speaking for the group d forward. I've lived in, D 4 for fifty years. When I moved to California in the early seventies and San Francisco, it was extremely hard to get an apartment then too as a young person, but we have a bunch of young people. They wrote about them. They're the entitled class, and they became entitled adults, and they think they don't have to put years in at work to be able to live in the most extensive city in the country. But anyway, I I want to tell you that I was at a meeting where we were trying to come to unanimity at ND 4, and there was a 100% unanimity on protecting the coastal zone. That is a, be very, very careful how you vote on that. Because everybody is watching that. Not just in D 4, in D 4, but, throughout the city. We need to protect the coastal zone. We totally support, Chan and Chen's, amendments if we have to live with this at all, by the way. And the more I listen to it today, I've been here many, many times. You've heard all of these points before. And yet none of the points, from the people's point of view, the affordable housing didn't really get into this plan. The protect the protections for, rent controlled and small businesses didn't make the plan. They all had to become amendments, and we we're and we have to push and beg for them. So you're addressing the wealthy. This is the rich zoning plan for rich people and speculation. And our planning department, they've come out of education system that teaches

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: the Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Future comments with the committee. We'll hear from the next speaker now. Next speaker, please.

[Brianna Morales (SF Housing Action Coalition)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition as their community organizer. The plan before the board of supervisors today is a compromise and a fairly modest one at that, shaped by years of negotiation, technical analysis, and community input. Now the prep the plan is ready to move forward, and the city cannot afford to delay it any further. The new report from the city economist makes one thing undeniable. The map the map before you is a start to bring homes to a city that was affected by decades of housing shortage. Delaying is not an option. Delaying means seniors, families, workers will will continue to struggle, and the city will remain vulnerable to state intervention, loss of funding, and the Builders' Remedy. We urge city leaders to pass the plan and immediately commit to expanding it. We're supportive of thoughtful amendments that protect small businesses, like supervisor Melgar's legislation, and supervisor Cheryl and Souder's push for larger family sized units. These make the plan stronger. And the bigger picture remains. San Francisco San Francisco must stop settling for symbolic action when the data shows we can and must do more. And I wanna be clear. The status quo is displacement. The status quo is unaffordability. The status quo is not working. But we have an opportunity in front of us to make the change of a new status quo for more neighbors and families and transit and small businesses and neighborhoods where people of all ages can remain and live. So please pass the plan today and make it bolder. Our city really depends on it. Thank you.

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

[Whit Turner (SF Housing Action Coalition)]: So nice you have to hear us twice. Whit Turner on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, also coming to you as a District 3 resident and speaking on behalf of my grandmother, Linda Muir, who is a twenty year Russian Hill resident. What's clear from this process is how much work has gone into getting us here. But what also is clear is that San Francisco can't afford another cycle of uncertainty. We need a housing framework that gives clarity to both communities and builders. The data shows that currently we are not on track to meet our housing goals, and the cost of that shortfall isn't abstract. It's lost jobs, lost homes, and lost opportunity for people who want to stay in the city. The city has to treat this as a foundation, not a finish line. Use this as a chance to bring predictability and momentum back to our housing process, and I thank you for your time.

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

[Jatin (District 6 resident)]: Good evening, supervisors. My name is Jatin. I'm a resident of District 6, and I'm here in strong support of the family zoning plan. I moved to San Francisco about a decade ago and have in the years since fallen in love with the city and set to make it my home for the long haul. I wanna share something personal here. San Francisco is where my career began. It is where I met my wife, and in under two months, we will be welcoming our first child at UCSF in Mission Bay. I wanna raise my son in this city. I want him to grow up feeling like he can afford to live in the city that he was born in without needing to win the lottery to do so. The only way we can make that a reality is by building far more housing than we do today. That means allowing the construction of duplexes, triplexes, small apartment buildings in neighborhoods where it's currently illegal to build anything except low density single family homes. The city economist report last week only underscores the urgent need to make it legal to build more housing. It also reinforces why we must pass the family zoning plan without any amendments that would reduce the housing capacity that this plan creates. I urge you to pass the family zoning plan and to reject any amendments that would reduce the housing capacity created by this plan. Thank you.

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

[Cynthia Gomez (UNITE HERE Local 2)]: Good evening, supervisors Chen, Melgar, and Mahmoud. I hope I've got the pronunciation correct. My remarks will just be very brief. I want to congratulate and thank supervisor Melgar for what is hopefully the smallest amendment that has ever been made, in the form of removing one key, crucial word that, in turn, would forestall a potential huge problem that really would have threatened the tourist identity of Fisherman's Wharf, and created an unintended consequence that would have harmed a lot of jobs. So, fingers crossed that all commas make their way in. And thank you, and have a good evening.

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

[Stan Hayes (Telegraph Hill Dwellers)]: Hello, everyone. I'm Stan Hayes. I'm also from the Telegraph. Hildwellers, and I had a kind of funny thing happen to me tonight. I was listening, and I found that one of my friends inadvertently read my speech. I have no speech, but I liked it. I spent time on it. I know you probably are tired of hearing this from anybody. But I'm gonna say it again. Let's see if you can tell whether this is the same speech. Most of all, this plan will not work. Financing and construction costs are limiting housing, not zoning. This plan will not build housing affordable to most San Franciscans. This plan is a major overreach, with its RHNA housing target based on outdated, overstated, pre pandemic population data that no longer applies. The State of California now projects that in 2030, and even in 2050, thousands fewer people are going to live in San Francisco than live there in 2020. So why is it we're letting Sacramento force us to build 82,000 new units? This plan is unfair. Some of the densest parts of San Francisco will bear far more than their fair share, especially North Beach, Telegraph Hill, and the Northern Waterfront. Put them back where they were in the housing element. You should not move forward with this plan, Ned. But if you do, please adopt the amendments proposed by supervisors Chan and Chan. And I won't read all those. Please make this plan better. Make it work. Above all, do no harm. See, it wasn't that bad. Thank you for your patience.

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

[Honest Charlie Bodkin (D5 renter, SF for Social Housing)]: Good evening. Honest Charlie Bodkin, d five renter, cofounder of San Franciscans for Social Housing, also a member of SFUMB. At the October 20 meeting of land use, I talked about the market conditions that make building cost prohibitive right now. So I wasn't surprised to read the headline in the Chronicle last Wednesday. Lori's family zoning would fall far short of state housing goals, new report says. Referring to our chief economist's new report that shows this zoning plan won't meaningfully add enough new housing. If we want to stay compliant with state law, we need to fund what voters were told in 2020 we were going to fund, a robust social housing program. Last month on October 6, at a town hall in the sunset, Mayor Lohrey was asked by a resident there if he would use 2020 Prop I funds for social housing. And the mayor said he would look into it. Voters want more housing. But when presented with the facts that the market isn't building it, they're asking you, our elected leaders, to present a real plan for funding and building social housing. Now is the time for government action. I'm asking you to take action. I'm asking you to follow-up with the legislation's author, Mayor Lohrey, to seek assurances that we'll put actual money into social housing as was promised by the board in 2020.

[Jatin (District 6 resident)]: If the

[Honest Charlie Bodkin (D5 renter, SF for Social Housing)]: people can't trust San Francisco City Government to live up to its stated intent, how can the state? Now is the time to build social housing. Now is the time to build housing. Now is the time for my fellow YIMBYs who are excited for more housing to call on you, our lawmakers, to actually fund housing, to fund social housing. Come on. Where are my shimbees at? Alright.

[Deputy Clerk/Meeting Facilitator]: Thank you.

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: Thank you

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

[Mike Chen]: Good evening, supervisors. My name is Mike Chen. I'm a renter in District 2. I support a strong, family housing plan that builds homes and meets our state law obligations. I was really excited to look at The Economist's Report, to talk about how this plan could save renters money. And, you know, especially when affordability and cost of living are really key issues, it's amazing to think that this is a plan, this is a way that we don't have to raise taxes. We don't have to, like, pull from the city budget. We can save renters and working working class folks over a thousand dollars a year. That's money that doesn't have to go to landlords that can go to other things that can help, like, you know, help with food security, with making sure that people can get to enrichment, with with lots of other stuff, especially when we know that San Francisco is an expensive place to live. And I was really heartened to see that. And to know that, also, if we build more, then we can also help renters save more. You know, I've lived through, I've lived through very competitive renter markets, like, ten years ago, when everybody was trying to find a place. And my landlord did raise the price from his list price because he was like, look, there's a lot of demand. Would you would you take would you take this place for $200 And me and my roommate said, yeah, because it was a crazy market. And we know that this year, like, the market stuff is back. Renters are competing for not that many homes. And this is one way we can build more supply to make sure that we can create more affordability, put more money into the pockets of renters and not landlords. Thank you.

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

[Diane Josephs]: Hello. My name is Diane Josephs, and I live in Russian Hill between Van Ness and Polk On Union. And, I've heard all about the free for all with the builder's remedy, where skyscrapers would be where 40 foot heights used to be. That's what our supervisor keeps telling us. Well, my neighborhood is going to be that way, irrespective of Builders' Remedy. In fact, Builders' Remedy at least puts affordability in. It won't even do that. It will replace my 40 foot going up union with a 114 story buildings because we are off of Van Ness. It also is in Upper Van Ness. It's just not the area to have that kind of high rise. It feels almost like a redo of nineteen o six, where they tore down all the East Side from Filbert to Clay. Skyscrapers are not this simple social solution. They are huge steel that has to go down into the ground a 100 feet to go up, especially when you're dealing with the Upper Van Ness area with the geophysical conditions that exist there. They're not gonna happen quickly. They're gonna be extremely expensive, not for affordable housing, and they're going to take five, six, seven years, if we're lucky, and they even work. But please, putting them on the intersecting side streets, where would the cranes go? Also, what I'm concerned with that no one really has brought up is that the new amendments to the builder's remedy would make it very difficult to fix things once this zoning is approved, because they will just go in and say, here's the zoning. You've approved it. There is no room for for corrections. They will say that's causing, problems for them that are unnecessary. So when you do this, please do it right. Also, I'm in support of Speaker of supervisors. Of supervisor Janet Chishn.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Comments with the committee. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Unidentified public commenter]: Good evening, supervisors. Jane Natoli. I'm the San Francisco organizing director for YIMBY Action, here to speak in support of the family zoning plan, with amendments that won't water it down. You heard from some of our members today on behalf of the other 1,300 or so who couldn't make it and provide comment. I wanted to make sure that you know that there are a lot of people who support this and who could not be here today. Someone mentioned earlier that you were elected to lead. And isn't that the truth in this moment? Wouldn't true leadership be reversing our decades long crippling housing shortage? True leadership is creating a city that does not drive out all of its young people due to exorbitant housing costs. True leadership is creating a city where you can stay if your living situation changes, not, you know, being forced to move to another area just because you're having a family or because you can't find the kind of building that you can age in place in. I said this to someone earlier, and and I I it feels more and more true as we have this discussion. We're in this to solve a housing shortage, not a math problem. There's so many debates about what number means what, and I think that's what we have to keep in mind. This plan can't simultaneously do nothing and destroy our city, and yet that's the kind of conversation we're having. When folks are mentioning that our population might decline, that's because we have not built housing. We've not done this for almost five decades. And you can see examples of what happens when you welcome new people and when you build new homes. We can look at other cities in other places and see that. Right? Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis, all show us these kinds of paths are possible. It's going to take more than just this plan to solve our housing shortage. This is necessary, but not sufficient. And it's folly to expect any one law or rule change to dig out of a five decade hole. Please pass this plan expeditiously, so we can get to work on the rest. Thank you.

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

[Monica Morse (West of Twin Peaks Central Council)]: Supervisors, I'm Monica Morse, chair of land use for the west of Twin Peaks Central Council representing over 40,000 residents. San Francisco is on a path to recovery, so why are we threatening to destroy the stable livable family neighborhoods that anchor this city? Our focus should be clear, revive downtown's economy, confront the humanitarian crises of homelessness and addiction head on, and streamline the building of 70,000 housing units already approved in the pipeline. That's how we fuel real growth, not by leaving a legacy of unnecessary demolition. The Economist report exposed the truth. This plan doesn't even close half the housing gap for the next five years and relies on high higher rents to incentivize construction. So much for affordability. And the supposed urgency is hollow. Builders Remedy requires affordable units exactly what deliver developers aren't lining up to build. And any move to decertify the housing element will take another year. So let's try a smarter path. Zoning alone doesn't build housing. Everybody has said this. Zoning alone doesn't build housing. Delivering the 70,000 approved homes does. We can support duplexes, unlock fourplexes and sixplexes while protecting neighborhood character by removing density control in residential neighborhoods and safeguarding eligible historic resources. We urge you to strongly we urge you to strongly move forward with wisdom and not demolition. Thank you.

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

[Bridie Newman]: Hello. My name is Bridie Newman. I live in District 1. According to the planning commission, 65% of all San Franciscans are renters. In his report, Ted Egan says, without any way to meaningfully estimate the number of evictions or demolitions of rent controlled units or the financial impact on tenants, this report does not attempt to quantify these potential costs. Great. Families and businesses displaced by this plan will not be returning. Ask the 45,000 people displaced during the 2009 Mission District upzoning. Ask the thousands displaced during the Western Addition redevelopment, which was not some really beautiful thing. The housing plan is being rammed down our throats, complete with coercive threats, before most West Side and North Side residents have even heard of it, without any meaningful official estimate of the number of evictions, demolitions, or financial impact on current tenants. Yet it proposes demolishing the homes, businesses, and communities of current residents, while offering developers countless incentives to avoid building affordable housing if they just build bigger, wider, taller, uglier? Great. How are we San Franciscans here and now to see this housing plan as anything other than a plan to dispossess and replace us? Scott Wiener has boxed us into an ugly and unnecessary scenario. San Francisco is a beautiful city to live in. Now, those of us who live here want to stay in our homes. Thank you to supervisors Chan and Chen for your tenacity and your loyalty to your constituents. I urge the board and the mayor to accept the amendments offered to exempt all current housing. Otherwise, call it the demolition plan, not the family housing plan.

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

[Eric Brooks (SF CEQA Defenders/Our City SF)]: Good evening, supervisors. Eric Brooks, coordinator of of San Francisco CEQA defenders and also our city, San Francisco. I've spent the last two decades of my life fighting for housing justice in San Francisco. Most of my full time job has wound up being that. And while it's great that you're protecting affordable housing, some affordable housing and some of the existing units, that doesn't solve the problem. The problem that supervisor Chris Daley talked about twenty years ago, which is that every year without fail, on average, we build 12% affordable housing in San Francisco and 88% market rate housing that never changes. It's been the same way for decades. And that is what's driving the situation where now we've got a 150% oversupply of market rate housing and a 50% undersupply of affordable housing, and that's throwing people out onto the streets, and it's what's causing the homeless homelessness crisis. The the this legislation and its findings in the first two pages starts out with a lie. It says we do not have a capacity to provide the housing that the state, requires. There are 70,000 units in the pipeline. There are 40,000 vacancies in San Francisco. That's a 10% vacancy rate, and there are thousands of units available where there is currently empty office space. This plan in front of you is not is gonna perpetuate those problems. It perpetuates all those numbers that I just put out. The only way to solve this is for you to dramatically rewrite this legislation so that you're focusing specifically on those 70,040 and office units and show the state that we can actually build those.

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

[Greg Giacchino]: Hello. My name is Greg Giacchino, and I am a District 3 resident. I urge you to support the Chan and Chen amendments. They are much needed to triage this deeply flawed upzoning plan. The so called family zoning plan is built on a flawed RHNA numbers that are frozen in amber in pre pandemic twenty nineteen. At the time, they were grossly inflated. Today, they are comically ridiculous. Those numbers ignore current realities of housing demand, infrastructure, and economics, yet they are being used to justify permanent deregulation. We need to protect all rent controlled units, including two unit buildings. Otherwise, this plan is nothing more than a cynical urban renewal redevelopment plan that serves only capital. This is a plan the city crafted with the indie lobbyists instead of the community That should be chilling for all San Franciscans. San Francisco desperately needs thoughtful, data driven planning rooted in affordability, community, and context, not a top down upzoning plan that is about deregulation for profits rather than housing for people. Fisherman's Wharf and Columbus Avenue must be removed. They were never identified in the housing element for upzoning, and they are not appropriate for upzoning or density decontrol. Please support the Chan and Chan amendments to restore balance to this flawed plan, integrity, and accountability to the process. Thank you.

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

[Eileen Bogan]: Excuse me. Eileen Bogan with speak, opposing unless amended. This up zoning plan seems to be detached from reality and seeks to colonize the West Side. Even the city's chief economist report can be seen as, minimal impacts over twenty years. That being said, should the mayor put on his big boy pants to sue the state, countersue the MBs, and begin to get rid of London breed's cronies on boards and commissions? The planning department is, pretending that it can down zone next year when SB three thirty expressly prohibits it. Planning is also pretending that it can amend the California State Public Resources Code, especially 30,604 gs. Statewide RHNA numbers are inflated because of Wiener's SB eight twenty eight. Hundreds of state housing bills in recent years haven't moved the needle. Wiener's most recent bill, SB 79, is based on transit oriented development, a concept which has come and gone. Residents in luxury housing don't take transit. And at the end of the day, Emperor Wiener has no clothes. Wiener's crony was dethroned because he seemed to be to bastardize the district. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number six through 11 called together? Madam chair, it appears we have no further speakers.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Public comment is now closed. Thank you to everyone who came out to provide comments for this ongoing process. I am going to call on my colleagues to provide any, or to respond to any comments that were given during public comment, or ask questions before we move any amendments. Okay, Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Unidentified public commenter]: Thank you, Chair. I wanted to ask

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: the planning department a couple questions about the list of amendments that the chair mentioned before public comment as the ones we're gonna be voting on today. And I wanted to ask, kind of three questions, about any of the amendments that are proceeding, and get your assessment. Firstly, do any of the amendments that are proposed today to be, moved, impact housing capacity in any way, or add constraints to housing development? Two, what has HCD specifically said in respect to these amendments since our last meeting? And three, if any don't pass, or say these amendments do go forward or don't go forward, how will SB 79 be taken into effect, or is SB 79 not relevant for these amendments as well?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Thank you, supervisor. Lisa Chen with planning staff. So to answer your first question, it's a mix, right? We have a couple dozen amendments. Some of them are neutral, as supervisor Melgar noted at the beginning. Some of them do have an impact on capacity or on constraints. And then the impact varies depending on what the amendment is. Some of them are quite minimal. Some of them are more moderate. Some of them are bigger moves that could have serious implications for our capacity and our compliance with state law. And then, to answer your question about SB sorry, the second question was about

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Let's let's stay on the first question.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Oh, sure.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Can you walk us through which amendments that we're gonna vote on today that Chair Malgar mentioned that we're not voting on all the amendments, we're just voting on a couple of them. Can you walk us through, of the amendments that we're gonna vote on today, which ones have a neutral impact on capacity or constraints? Which ones do you have more concerns about?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Sure. So, you know, maybe we won't go line by line, but I could just maybe start with some of the neutral ones. So, kind of broadly, ones that tend to be more neutral are ones that are kind of referring to other elements of our code. So, for example, ones that reinforce, you know, here are the requirements under Article four, around fees or other affordability requirements. But they're not actually changing those requirements, per se. There are also, scrolling through. Yeah, so I think that's also under that same. There's also some amendments to our housing sustainability district, the HSD, which is a ministerial program. So I think there were, a couple amendments that were really related to the eligibility for that program. That is a additional ministerial program. There are other state ministerial programs. So this is just really, you know, playing with which pro which projects are eligible for this kind of local version, which is the HSD. But that's not really impacting necessarily

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: HSC refers to?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Yeah. Sorry. The housing sustainability district.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Got it.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Which is a, basically, another ministerial approval pathway. There were some changes to section three seventeen around our residential flats policy. So that is basically making some amendments that would apply a conditional use authorization to slightly more projects. But it's not really impacting our capacity calculations. So I think those were the main policies that were neutral. I will say there were also, I didn't mention there were a few amendments that could have a positive impact on capacity. So those were the ones that had, you know, basically bonuses for various community benefits, like family size units, or, you know, different commercial incentives. We haven't quantified, you know, how many, projects might take those incentives. In terms of the ones that have, kind of more, negative impacts, in terms of the numbers on for either capacity or impacts on development constraints, you know, there as I mentioned, some of them were, you know, maybe more modest, especially if it's just affecting one parcel or a couple couple parcels. There were some that implicated either broad geographies or, categories. So, you know, for example, different types of historic properties or, you know, all residential units, you know, things like that. If it's, you know, you could kind of just tell by reading the language whether it's something that is pretty broad or, pretty specific in how it's applied. In terms of the ones that were affecting constraints, I'm just gonna look through real quick.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: So I'm sorry to interject. Perhaps it would

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: be

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: helpful. We're gonna vote on these amendments to move them from the duplicated file onto the original file, one by one. So perhaps we could, just before we vote, turn to you and say, do you think that this because I think that we're not getting

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: Yeah, we're not

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: going to get lost. I think you Yeah, I think you went through all of the amendments, including the ones that we're not going to touch today. So would that be Okay, supervisor? Okay. All right. So with that Can I

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: ask you a question? Yes, of course. I would like to ask a question for the planning department. For the house family sized housing standards. So if we if the SP 79, if the developer chooses a state density program, do they still need to apply and follow our city standards?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: So this is in reference to the unit mix requirements.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Unit mix requirement.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Yes. So if a project chooses the state density bonus, they could choose to use one of their waivers or incentives to get out of those unit mix requirements. So that is another reason why we're trying to incentivize projects to use our local program. Got it. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. So, I think that we are at the point that we can make, some motions. Again, thank you to everyone who came out to public comment. I think we saw the entire, spectrum of feelings, about this plan, from folks in the community. And, you know, our job here as supervisors is to do the best we can in a very diverse city with, lots of differences of opinion, from different neighborhoods, but also, generations of folks who, see our land use, needs in different ways. So with that, supervisor Chen, I think that I'm going to let you make the motion for your amendments first.

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: And then I

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: will move on with us.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: So I'm going to also do it one by one. For item number 10, file number 25,173, I would like to make a motion to adopt a new drawing unit mix, amendments for buildings of four to nine units into file number twenty five thousand

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: one zero seven three. And let's be clear. This is to the second file. Right.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: 251073. And this is the amendment hang on just a moment.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: I can say it one more time. This is

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: gonna be very slow.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: I know. Yeah. It's okay. We're here.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: This is the dwelling unit mix standard?

[Romalyn Schmaltz]: Yeah. Yes.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Give me just a moment. I wanna make sure that I don't miss where the details are located for the summary. So just a moment, please.

[Pat Huey]: Two five one zero seven three.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: I've recorded that motion. Do you wanna take the roll call vote on that motion first? Okay.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Sorry. We're gonna take them one by one.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Motion by vice chair Chen to agenda item number 10 on that motion. Vice chair Chen?

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Chen, aye. Member Mahmoud? Makhmoud, aye. Chair Malgar? Aye. Malgar, aye. Madam chair, there are three ayes on that amendment.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. That motion passes.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: And, mister Clerk, I would like to make a motion for item number 10, file number two five one zero seven three, to, adopt the provisions for right of first refusal in this SFMTA special use district amendments.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Just a Moment, please, while I identify where I've got that in my notes. Recording a motion offered by vice chair Chen to adopt the amendment to agenda item number 10 regarding the right of first refusal for qualified nonprofits for the sale of SFMTA sites within the SFMTA special use district for non transit purposes. Madam chair, are we taking a roll call vote on that amendment now?

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On that motion, vice chair Chen?

[Mike Chen]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Chen, aye. Member Mahmoud. Mahmoud, aye. Chair Melgar?

[Marie Joyce]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, aye. Madam chair, there are three ayes on that amendment.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. That motion passes.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Mister Claire, another one for another amendment for number for item number 10. I would like to make a motion to adopt additional provisions for pre application requirements in the SFMTA special use district to limit the required feasibility study for 100% affordable projects only to those sites that meet the minimum specifications for 100% affordable projects into file number 251073.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Recording in the book, the motion offered by vice chair Chen related to the feasibility study for 100 affordable 100% affordable housing in the SFMTA Special Use District. This is the one the second bullet on the document that I have here. And you wanna take a roll call vote on that motion now as well on that motion offered by vice chair Chen. Vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood Mahmood, I. Chair Malgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Malgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes on that amendment as well.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: That motion passes.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Just to recap where I'm at as far as my documentation right here. So I was provided with a document that has three bulleted amendments to agenda item number 10 proposed by supervisor Chen, and the committee has adopted all three of those amendments.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, mister Cook. For item number eight, I would like to make a motion to adopt the additional district 11 parcels into the exemption for priority equity geographies amendment into file number two five one zero seven one.

[Gwen McLaughlin (Small Business Forward)]: No.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yeah. That's the original file.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: And madam chair, would you like to take a roll call vote on that motion to amend?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yes. I'll take because you already made the motion, so we have to vote on it. Right?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: 25101.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: This is agenda item number eight.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: It it's a file File number 250701. Isn't that the original file?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: The, the document that I have here is referencing an amendment to the file that was duplicated on October 20.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yes.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: This is the duplicate version of the zoning map family zoning plan ordinance with adjustments that were offered by all of the supervisors that brought them on the twentieth. That is agenda item number eight.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Got it. I'm sorry. Yeah. Sorry. I'm just trying to be careful. Thank you. Yes. Yeah. Can can you make the motion again, please? Just so I can hear it.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: So for item number eight, I would like to make a motion to adopt additional district 11 parcels into the exemption for priority equity geographies amendment into file number 25,171.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Just before we vote on it, I want to ask the planning department if this is what if this is correct, if this is what we agreed upon, Or the mayor's office, if they're here.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Is the question that is it the correct file, or is Yes. We're not sure that that's the correct file.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: That's why I'm second guessing this.

[Joshua Switzky (Planning Department)]: I think I guess this is a question for the clerk. I believe two five zero seven zero one is the original planning code text amendment file.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Two five zero seven zero one was the planning code ordinance that was then duplicated twice after various amendments. Two five zero seven hundred was the zoning map amendment item. And Agenda item number eight is two five one zero seven one, which is a duplicate version of the zoning map amendment item.

[Jonathan Budiman (Northern Neighbors)]: Thank you.

[Joshua Switzky (Planning Department)]: There was an extra one in there we didn't hear.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. All right. I'm sorry. It's all confusing. I'm just trying to be careful. I think it's Okay. We can proceed.

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: Oh, good. Yes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: We're ready to vote.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yes. We're ready

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: to vote.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor Chan.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: And and the amendment itself is a change to the parcels in this table

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (Vice Chair)]: as provided.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: And that is in the duplicate version.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yes. And, again, we're not voting on anything today. We're just amending it. Moving. Moving it.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. On that motion offered by vice chair Chen to amend agenda item number eight. Vice chair Chen? Aye. Chen, I am member, Mahmood. Mahmood, I. Chair Malgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Malgar, I. Madam Chair, there are three ayes on that motion to amend.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. That motion passes. Okay. So now I would like to propose the following amendments to item nine. File number 250,701, planning, business, and tax regulation codes, Family zoning plan. So that is the original file. Okay. So first on page 11, lines 23 through 24, add language to section 206.1, housing choice, San Francisco program, under a purpose as previously proposed by supervisor Chan. I would like to hear before we vote from miss Chen, whether this has an impact on the overall numbers.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Supervisor, this would not have an impact on capacity or compliance. Okay.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: How did HCD respond to that amendment as well?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: The you know, we have not gotten, you know, official word from HCD on all of the amendments, but, you know, we kind of went through them generally, and explained which ones have, no impact or limited impact. And this one we noted would have a limited impact, or or actually no no impact. It's just stating current law.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. So going forward, she can just state Yeah. Alright. Go ahead and call the roll, please, mister Clark.

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: On the

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: motion to amend as offered by chair chair Melgar to agenda item number nine two five zero seven zero one, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmoud.

[George Seery]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Chair Melgar? Aye. Alright. Madam chair, there are three ayes on that amendment.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. That motion passes. Then on page 17, lines 15 through 18, add language to section 206.1, housing choice, San Francisco program, as previously proposed by supervisor Chan. Miss Chen, would that have an impact?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: No. Similarly, this is just restating current law.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Mister Clerk, please call the roll.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On that motion to amend offered by the chair, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmoud. Aye. Mahmoud, I. Chair Melgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes on that second amendment to two five zero seven zero one.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Then on page 21, lines five through eight and line 25, add language to section two zero six point one zero, housing choice, San Francisco program, as previously proposed by supervisor Cheryl Ann Sauter. Ms. Chen?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Supervisors, this would actually potentially have a positive impact on capacity because it's adding to the bonuses that are available to projects.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On that third motion to amend two five zero seven zero one, vice chair Chen. Chen, aye. Member Mahmoud Mahmoud, aye. Chair Malgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Malgar, aye. Madam chair, there are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Then on page 27, lines eight through nine, and then section three thirty four, housing choice, San Francisco project authorization, under administrative review to add the following language as I previously proposed. Miss Chen, would this have an impact?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Supervisor, this, again, would be a neutral impact. Thank you. Mister Clerk, please call the roll.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On that motion offered by the chair to further amend two five zero seven zero one, vice chair Chen Chen, I. Member Mahmood Mahmood, I. Chair Malgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Malgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes once again on that fourth amendment.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, mister Clerk. Then on pages 29, lines 23 through 25, and on page 30, lines one through nine, section three four four, housing choice, housing sustainability district, amend language as previously proposed by supervisor Chan. Miss Chen, does this have an impact on the numbers?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Supervisor, this would be neutral or minimal in its impact.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. Mister Clerk, please call the roll.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On that fifth amendment to two five zero seven zero one as offered by the chair, vice chair Chen. Chen, I, member Mahmood. Mahmood, I, Chair Malgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Malgar, I. Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. Then on page 31, line four in section three four four, housing choice, housing sustainability district, at the following language as I previously proposed, with a modification from the version presented on 10/20/2025. Miss Chen?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Supervisors, the staff reviewed this and found that this would have a minimal impact on, capacity. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Mister Clerk, please call the roll.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On that motion to amend offered by the chair, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmoud. Mahmoud, I. Chair Malgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Or aye. Madam chair, there are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Then on page one eighty nine, lines 19 through 22, Delete language in section three seventeen. Loss of residential and unauthorized units through demolition, merger, and conversion. Under applicability, exemptions as previously proposed by supervisor Chan. Miss Chen.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: So, this would, represent a a new constraint, applicable to some projects that are proposing to either demolish or substantially alter, residential flats, but it would not impact capacity calculations. Okay. Thank you.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: And a follow-up question then?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. I've already made the motion, so

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Clarification. I'm

[Unidentified meeting aide/SFGovTV]: just gonna

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: touch that. Just the clarification, but

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Can you elucidate so it's not affecting capacity, but it is adding constraints?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: That that's correct. So it would not have an impact on capacity. But what this this amendment would be doing is essentially saying that certain projects, that are proposing certain types of demolitions or remodels, would have to go up to the planning commission to have it reviewed. These projects are already reviewed under pretty strict, guidelines, but this is basically adding, you know, another level of public scrutiny through the hearing.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Got it.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Let's please call the roll on this.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On that seventh motion to amend two five zero seven zero one, vice chair Chen. Chen, aye. Member Mahmoud? No. No. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Madam chair, there are two ayes and one no with member Mahmoud in the dissent.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. That motion passes. And then on page one nine zero, lines five through seven, delete language in section three seventeen, loss of residential and unauthorized units through demolition, merger, and conversion under six, residential demolition, as previously proposed by supervisor Chan. Again, Ms. Chen.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: So similarly, this would be neutral, or basically a limited constraint. Okay.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. Please call the roll, mister Clerk.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On that motion to amend offered by Chair Melgar, vice chair Chen. Chen, aye. Member Mahmood? No. Mahmood, no. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Madam chair, there are two ayes and one no with member Mahmood in the dissent.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. That motion passes. Okay, colleagues. We're almost there. I would like to make a motion to continue item six, file number 250966. Item seven, file number 250700. The family zoning map is amended. Item number eight, file number 251071. Item nine, file number 250701, as amended. Item 10, file number 250701, the duplicated planning zoning plan file as amended. And item 11, file number 250,985, resolution on the local coastal program amendment family zoning plan, to the meeting on Monday, 11/17/2025.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Just a moment, madam chair, while I make sure that my notes reflect that motion. The chair has offered a motion that the balance of all of these items be continued or continued as amended for consideration by Land Use and Transportation Committee at its next meeting on 11/17/2025. On that motion, vice chair Chen Chen, I member Mahmood Mahmood I, chair Milgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Milgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: K. Thank you. That motion passes. Mister Clerk, is there any more business before us today?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: There's no further business.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. We're adjourned. SFGOV TV. San Francisco government television.