San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thanks. This meeting will come to order. Good afternoon. Welcome to the 11/17/2025 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I'm supervisor Myrna Melgar, chair of the committee joined by vice chair supervisor Cheyenne Chen, and supervisor Bilal Mahmood. The committee clerk today is mister John Carroll. And, I also wanna thank Sus Enos, from SFGov TV for staffing us and helping us broadcast this meeting to the public. 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 to me. Public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda. When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak along your right hand side of this room. I'm pointing it out with my left hand. Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways. First, you may send your written public comment to me via email at johnperiodcarroll@sfgov.org. Or you may send your written public comment via US postal service to our office in City Hall. That is the clerk's office. 1 Doctor Carlton B Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102. If you submit public comment in writing, I will forward your comments to the members of this committee and also include your comments as part of the official file on which you are commenting. Items on our agenda are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of 12/02/2025 unless otherwise stated.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much, mister Clerk. I appreciate all the members of the public that are here today. We have to, get through a lot in the agenda today. So for items one and through three, the tenant protection ordinance that is the work of vice chair Chen, the public comment will be two minutes per speaker. For the rezoning items, which are items four through six, Since this is the third hearing at this committee, we will be taking public comment and limiting it to one minute per speaker. Mister Clerk, please call item number one.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the building code to revise the timing of expiration of certain building permits and building permit applications. It also affirms the planning department's secret determination on file.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much. Supervisor Mahmoud, thank you for introducing this item. The floor is yours.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Thank you, chair, and thank you, colleagues. As you sure by as I'm sure you by now, you know, I'm deeply interested in both good governance and helping housing get built. This item does both of those things. Currently, San Francisco's permit renewal framework is out of sync with nearby jurisdictions. Our system, in which permits renew on different timelines based on building valuation as unnecessary confusion, especially for those with projects in nearby cities. It also means that no matter how much progress is being made on a project, and no matter how little has changed in their planning, builders have to renew their permits at arbitrary milestones, adding additional burdensome costs in the process. This legislation streamlines this process by adding a flat two year expiration date for permit applications and one year expiration date from when permits are issued to when work can start. The one year deadline resets when any progress is made, whether whether that's an inspection or a site permit addendum. This means that builders can continue their work as long as progress is being made without being required to return for permits. In addition, we are introducing a substantive amendment to modify another aspect of building permit timelines, reaffirming the validity of the building code that was valid at the time of application. There's no rule against using the building code under which an application was submitted. And yet, due to a current provision in the code that allows for DBI to require projects to update their plans to new codes, projects in our city have faced increased costs, often resulting in further delays to building much needed housing. As an example, a project in my district located at 400 Divisidero has been delayed for several years due to challenging financial environment many projects face, further exacerbated by a DBI request to update the project building codes and their plans to match the newer codes implemented by the city since the time the project was originally submitted. Not only would the changes requested have been costly for the final construction, but the request itself would have cost time and effort at a very pivotal point in the project's development, estimating an additional $4,000,000 This amendment would align our local code with existing state building code and provide increased stability for project planning. And then we know any delay can be costly for projects, creating more delays, an endless cycle of preventing new units in our city. We hope this amendment reduces headaches on projects like 400 of Isadero that are working their way through the development process across the city in this difficult climate for a horrible affordable housing financing. Additionally, we are amending the findings to demonstrate legality under s b one three zero, which limits some changes to building codes and amends the procedures around application deadlines to clarify those tie timelines per consultation with DBI staff. We're pleased to have work with Tay Hanna from DBI and Peter Milanich from the city attorney's office on this legislation, as well as Madison Tam and supervisor Dorsey's office. And we thank supervisor Dorsey for his cosponsorship of

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: this legislation. I ask for your support of this legislation as well. And Tehana from DBI and I will be here to answer any questions.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor Mahmoud. Is Tehana here? I saw him.

[Tate Hanna (DBI Legislative Affairs Manager)]: Him. Tate Hanna, legislative affairs manager at DBI. Happy to answer any questions about the ordinance.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: So you don't have a presentation, mister Mann?

[Tate Hanna (DBI Legislative Affairs Manager)]: If you'd like, I have a presentation on a hard drive, but I defer to the supervisor who I think largely had it covered.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. And I don't see anyone on the roster with questions. So, thank you so much for being available for questions. So with that, let's go to public comment on this item, please, mister Clerk.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation. We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number one, an ordinance making changes to the building permit expiration timelines. If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern at this time. We may have one speaker or two. Please begin.

[Joseph Smook (REP SF/REP Coalition)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Joseph Smook with the Rep Coalition. This legislation has one extremely problematic provision. If one of the primary goals of the city is to build more housing, why is this legislation proposing to eliminate deadlines for completing construction after receiving a building or site permit? All such a provision does is encourage speculation. We've seen for years that developers will secure entitlements, then sell at inflated values. Recently, we've started to see developers secure building permits for the same speculative behavior. This legislation will simply encourage this type of speculation. And furthermore, tenants will suffer most because per s p three thirty, the most relocation assistance our tenant protection ordinance, which you'll be hearing later on the agenda, can provide is forty two months. If a developer has no deadline at the back end of their building permit, it's just a setup for tenants to be permanently displaced. So please amend or reject this legislation. Thank you.

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

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Supervisor Mahmut, did you want to address the public comment in any way? Okay. So I I actually do want to ask you about that because, you know, there has been a long standing policy, at least at the planning department, about, you know, providing a limit to entitlements. It's not often enforced, but there's definitely been discussion over the years.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: The intention of this legislation is that when we have long gestating projects, it puts undue burden a lot of development projects that if they are going to have, a shot clock and have to reapply costs, the two things we heard from the department is that this adds strain on our own departments to have to constantly reapply the same application. And it takes staff time, so this will save staff time on perfunctory applications, renewals. And instead, we do require that there has been progress to prove that you need an extension. So every year, you have to prove that there's some progress being made on the project, and as a result, then you get that extension. But, the goal is to minimize costs for our own staff, unnecessary costs, and also, amidst, San Francisco being the slowest city to build in the entire Bay Area or the entire state, not making it harder for projects to continue when they're when we have over, 50,000 units already entitled.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: So you're saying that this continues the policy as as it's been implemented, not necessarily codify it a different way?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: More or less, I think. Yeah. SPEAKER

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: one: Okay. Thank you. Did I say public comment is closed? Yes. Okay. Did you want to make a motion, supervisor Mahmoud?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Yeah. I'd like to introduce a motion to move the amendments, as as requested, and then vote, yeah, for initialing that. Yeah.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. We're so we're voting on the motion to adopt the amendments.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: A motion to amend from member Mac Moon.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: And then, and then a motion to, continue the item to December 1.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: You wanna continue it to the next meeting? I'm I didn't hear that clearly.

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: Because

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: it's a substantive amendment,

[Joshua Switzke (Deputy Director, Citywide Planning)]: so it

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: has to be continued.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: So you're choosing specifically the December 1 meeting?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: That would be the request. Yeah.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion to amend the ordinance and then continue the ordinance as amended to December 1, vice chair Chen. Chen, aye. Member Mogwin?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Mogwin, aye. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Madam chair, there are three ayes on each of those motions.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. That motion passes. Mister Clerk, please call item number two.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number two is an ordinance amending the planning code to expand the boundaries of the central neighborhood's large resident special use district and to apply its controls to all lots within the special use district with some exceptions, to delete the Corona Heights large residence SUD, and as a result, to merge it into the central neighborhood's large residence SUD, Amended the zoning map to reflect the deletion and boundary expansion and affirming the planning department's secret determination and making findings of necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code section three zero two, as well as findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code section one zero one point one.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you, mister Clerk. We are joined by, president Rafael Mandelmann. Welcome to the Land Use and Transportation Committee. The floor is yours.

[President Rafael Mandelman]: Thank you, Chair Melgar and committee members. This is not the first time this, piece of legislation has been in this committee. It was last year in September 2024, but I think at that point, only one of you was here. So, this legislation relates to the central neighborhood's large SUD, which was my effort, many, many years ago, to address the proliferation of monster homes in District 8. And, it was not the first effort to address, monster homes in District 8. In fact, my predecessor, Scott Wiener, had, had established, the Corona Heights SUD to try to address that problem. We amended the SUD provisions two years ago, I think, as part of our constraints reduction legislation. And this but at the time, either we Cole Valley was either not yet included in District 8 or had just recently been added. So the purpose of this legislation was pretty simple, which was to bring Coal Valley, into the rest of what is essentially a District 8 special use district. In the year that, we have been waiting for an upzoning to come along to pair this with, The city attorney identified some challenges in the complexity of the language in the legislation, particularly related to conditional uses, which the, which had been anticipated to expire in the constraints reduction ordinance. And so the amendments that I've passed out to you today, basically, are cleanup, to, not make any sub particular substantive changes, but just be clearer about how this district works and what the limitations are. So I'm hoping you'll, accept make those amendments because I think it makes sense to have a cleaner and clearer code. And then I'm hoping that you will forward this to the full well, I think, probably, continue it to the to the to the meeting at which the upzoning will be continue will be finally considered, which I guess is December 1, we hope. And, and getting well, as I figure out what I'm asking this committee to do, why don't we have Aaron Starr come up from the planning department and make his presentation?

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Aaron Starr, manager of legislative affairs for the planning department. The planning commission heard this item on 08/01/2024. So over a year ago, at that hearing, the planning commission voted to recommend approval with modifications. Those modifications include first, do not include accessory garage space in the calculations for gross floor area. And second, specify that the, for the proposed purpose of calculating a unit's gross square footage in multi unit building, shared spaces shall not be included. We thank supervisor Mandolin for including those two amendments into the revised ordinance, and staff has also reviews the proposed changes to clean up, and we believe they, help further improve the ordinance by making the code clearer and easier to implement. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much, mister Star. President Mandelmann, would you please come back? Thank you. Before we go to public comment, I just was hoping that you would explain to us in laypeople's term what the goal is of this legislation, and what is the problem that you're trying to solve?

[President Rafael Mandelman]: Yeah. Well, the, the problem that we were trying to solve, when we established the SUD was the proliferation of monster homes in District 8, which is still

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: What does that mean?

[President Rafael Mandelman]: And so, as they happened in my district, you would often see a modestly sized, building acquired, demolished, and replaced with single family homes that might be as large as 6,000 square feet or 8,000 square feet. This had been a challenge that prior supervisors had identified, the community certainly had identified, going back to, probably, at least, Mark Leno days representing District 8, and different supervisors had taken different approaches to trying to address it. Then supervisor Wiener established the Corbett Heights the Corona Heights Special Use District, which established a conditional use for buildings greater than 3,000 square feet, which meant that those buildings, not necessarily individual units, but those buildings would have to come forward, and, and get a conditional use authorization in order to be approved. Conditional uses in San Francisco are no longer really a thing. Also, I think, you know, since since the time of the Corona Heights SUD, I think, I, at least, am less concerned about, I mean, having apartments is great. And we actually you know, we introduced the four fourplex, sixplex legislation at the same time around the same time that we did this. But if you're going to be adding many, many thousands of square feet in District 8 at this point, My view, and I think the view of my constituents, is that we don't need more housing for the super wealthy. We'd like more housing for people who are somewhere below super duper duper wealthy, and that that limitation on square footage is intended to get to get at that.

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

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: I agree.

[President Rafael Mandelman]: So this this all this would do is extend that SUD that exists in the rest of District 8 to Cole Valley, which has only been part of District 8 since 2022, and also do a little cleanup on language that this has gotten muddied over multiple amendments of the legislation since since we first passed it.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I appreciate that very much, president Mandelmann. Thank you for the explanation. I, of course, was on the planning commission when you were, and former, supervisor, Weiner, were dealing with this issue. And there there was an evolution. We did see, you know, after we started implementing, you know, the policy of wanting to add units when you were adding bulk and height, that folks put in, you know, a tiny little room, you know, for the help in the back. And thus met, you know, the definition of multifamily, which was not okay. So thank you so much for tackling it and for, being thoughtful, and deliberate about this. Okay. So with that, mister Clerk, please go to public comment on this item, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation. We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number two, Central neighborhoods large residence SUD and Corona Heights large residence SUD. If you have public comment for this item, please come to the lectern now.

[Georgia Shutish]: Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Georgia Shutish. I'd like to draw the supervisor's attention to, page 26 in the packet for this, board file. The thing that's has always struck me about this is the staff's honest the planning staff's honest assessment. And it says staff remains skeptical about these ADUs because they put in the ADU with the big unit. Whether built to circumvent the CUA or through its approval, we'll initially rent it as separate units. I think if you if you're building a big house and it's 5,000,000 and you have an ADU, you're not gonna rent it. That's just that's just the reality. But I think this raises some other questions. It raises issue of s b four twenty three, which is two to nine units, and that's a big loophole. I really think a couple things about that, that this legislation could jump off of this legislation. SB four twenty three should not apply to the priority equity geographies, and SB four twenty three should be for units four to nine, not two or three. So I'll just leave it at that. I guess, you know, I can think about a lot of houses that would have fallen under this that should have been caught by this, that have these little ADUs, don't count, but I just have to mention what happened last week at the planning commission. 45 Montclair, I guess that's in Supervisor Souder's district. It was s b three thirty project, so the commission was hamstrung, handcuffed because of s b three thirty at the Doctor hearing, and it's an 8,000 square foot house, nearly 8,000 square feet, with a 665 square foot ADU. It's a demolition of a house built by Albert Farr, master architect San Francisco. They're not building any more Albert Farr houses. So I just think keep that in mind as you go forward with the rezoning or whatever you do or expansion, and certainly with historic preservation, because I don't know why it was downgraded to a c from a b. But that's the way it goes. Thank you very much.

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

[Paul Wormer]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Paul Wormer. Hearing this, subject brought to mind a remodel back, oh, must be fifteen years or more ago in Pacific Heights, where someone had bought a large building with seven large units in it. And they were going to convert it to a single family house. And this was rejected because that was a dwelling unit removal. What they did was a very, very large main house with six very, very small equivalent ADUs. This predated the ADU language. I think this is not just a problem in one district. I think this is a bigger problem, and maybe we should be looking at that, more widely. Yeah. Thanks.

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

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: Hello. Quickly, my name is Ramey Tan, local architect. I agree with the the two folks, you know, that just spoke. I think this is a thing that's not only, you know, you know, Center Route District 8, but it applies to all districts. And, you know, it should be, you know, it should be, you know, ordinance. But, you know, we have to think carefully. Let's say, for example, the other gentleman gave, if that house, that seven unit building was originally a single family house, there may be some precedence to turn it back. And, you know, them creating six small units, you know, could be affordable housing, because those units are smaller. I mean, something like my daughter could actually afford to live in. You know? And so, you know, we have to look at each project, you know, thoughtfully. You know, and again, if it preserves a historic house, brings it back to its original intent, it might not be a bad thing. So but I think overall, the idea is good to make sure we don't lose, you know, you know, affordable housing throughout the city, you know, in for mansions for billionaires. Okay. Thank you.

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

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. I would like to make a motion that we adopt the amendments as proposed by supervisor by president Mandelmann, And then we continue this item to our meeting on December 1.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motions, each effort by the chair that the ordinance be amended and then continued as amended to December 1. Vice chair Chen Chen, I. Member Mahmoud Mahmoud, I. Chair Melgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

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

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. That motion passes. Congratulations, president Minnell. Okay. Thank you. Let's please go you ready? Okay. To item number three. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number three is an ordinance amending the planning code to first, require property owners seeking to demolish residential units to replace all units that are being demolished. Second, require relocation assistance to affected occupants of those units with additional assistance and protections for lower income tenants. Third, modify the conditional use criteria that apply to projects to demolish residential units. And amending the administrative code to, fourth, require landlords to provide additional relocation assistance to lower income tenants who are being required to vacate temporarily due to capital improvements or rehabilitation work. Fifth hang on just a moment. Fifth, update the standards and procedures for hearings related to tenant harassment. Sixth, require additional disclosures and buyout agreements. And seventh, making the various non substantive changes and clarifications needed as well as affirming the planning department's secret determination, making findings for consistency with with planning code sections three zero two and one zero one point one.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, mister Clerk. I think that, the in the decades that I have, watched housing affordable housing tenant protections in San Francisco, This is one of the largest and most impactful pieces of legislation, that we're putting through. And it's being done by, you know, a fairly freshman supervisor. So I just have to say kudos to you, supervisor Chen. And thank you for the enormous amount of work you and your staff have done, with the community and the planning department and the rest of us to, you know, fine tune this, get the details right. It's really complicated with, our state legislation, our local ordinances. And so, I just wanted to say thank you from the bottom of my heart, and well done. And now, the floor is yours.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Chair Munga, for those kind words. Colleagues, before you is the Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance. We have this ordinance because there are so many recent law passed by the state of California. Tenants are now exposed to a lot more new displacement risks. No tenant should have to have their home bulldozed. But the reality is that SB three thirty, the Housing Crisis Act of California, created a pathway for developers to demolish existing homes and evict existing residents. There has been so much focus at the state and local level on housing production and entitlement. This legislation makes room for much needed conversation to address the impacts to existing tenants. This ordinance expands the rights of tenants who face displacement when a developer or landlord pursue the demolition of a property that house tenants, or may have in the past in order to build new housing. It creates a safety net for those tenants, and provides a pathway to return when their homes are rebuilt. It established common sense rules for developers, and common sense protection for residential tenants. The ordinance applies citywide, and creates a set of new policies and systems of enforcement. The legislation would provide for an extensive tenant notification that is linguistically accessible at all steps of entitlement. Relocation assistance for all displaced tenants, with additional assistance to low income tenants. A relocation plan and specialist to facilitate the implementation of required protections. A right for tenants to remain in their homes for at least six months with time specific notification. A right to return at prior rental rate if demolition does not proceeds, and units are returned to the market to the rental market. A right of first refusal for lower income tenants to move into newly developed units at prior rent or an affordable rent, whichever is lower. Replacement of all protected units with a combination of rent control and below market rate units. Updated finding in the conditional use process to ensure objective standards that consider the impacts to tenants, additional tools to protect the rights of tenants in the event that landlords seek to avoid these requirements. The legislation designate tenants who may have been displaced as a result of harassment from landlords, owner move in evictions, or buyout agreements, all as current occupants, thus conferring the same rights as existing tenants when this development occurred. Additional relocation assistance tenants and community based organizations. Development, this legislation has been development of, this legislation has been extremely collaborative process. I am very proud to say this legislation is shaped by, on the ground of expertise and knowledge of our community experts. And my office is very grateful for the opportunity to have worked so closely with organizations, counselors, lawyers, and advocates, so that they can ensure the strongest possible protections. Charlie Simons of my staff has worked weekly calls over the last five months, stewarding this legislation. Thank you, Charlie. And I will be introducing additional amendments that include, amending the demolition of existing occupants in planning code section 317.2, to include tenants displaced by Alex Act eviction within the past five years. Amending the rent ordinance so tenants displaced by the Alex Act are notified of their rights under planning code section 317.2. Amending the proposed planning code section 317.2 to ensure that projects provide the relocation benefits required by section 317.2. Amend the proposed planning code section 317.2 to clarify that project sponsors will be required to contract with a relocation specialist from a list provided by the department. Amending the private rights of action in planning code section 317.2 to match language that currently exists in the rent ordinance for organizations representing tenants. Any organization with tax exempt status under United States code section five zero one c three, or five zero one c four, and with primary mission of protecting the rights of tenants in San Francisco. Amending administrative code section 37.9 to move criteria C from, subsection two to becoming a finding during tenant harassment hearing. I know that the planning department has additional amendments that they are recommending, which will be presented by the staff. And I am very grateful to the planning department for all your collaborations and technical expertise. And I also want to acknowledge, Melena Leonard, Leon Ferrera. Thank you for your, persistence and dedication to this ordinance. In addition, I also would like to appreciate Joey Komas of the rent board, and Manu Perhan, and Audrey Pierson with the city attorney's office. And I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the race and equity in all panel coalitions, and the San Francisco Anti displacement Coalition for their strong partnership in crafting this ordinance. This legislation provides the last line of defending for working families, which is why it is so critical that we get it right. I also know that Supervisor Melga has some additional amendment that you are proposing, and I really look forward to continue the discussion and making it a stronger protection for our tenants. And I also, look forward to all my colleagues for your support and consideration. And I will pass it along to the planning department to make their presentation.

[Malena (Malena León Ferreira), Planning Department]: Good afternoon, supervisors. I'm Malena Leon Ferrera, department staff. Thank you for the opportunity to present on the proposed tenant protections ordinance sponsored by supervisor Chen and cosponsored by seven other supervisors. For brevity, I will call the proposed ordinance the TPO. Supervisors, you have before you a complex, proposed ordinance. I will do my best to cover the most relevant parts. City staff are here to respond to any follow-up questions. I will first cover the background for the TPO, then I will go over the changes the TPO proposes to the planning and administrative code. Then I will talk about key topics that were discussed at the planning commission and that, require further discussion. And finally, I will, close with acknowledgments. Let's dive in. San Francisco already has some of the strongest demolition and tenant protection controls in the country. In 2019, the Housing Crisis Act, also known as s b three thirty, established requirements for replacement units and tenant protections when demolitions occur. This include no net loss of housing, one for one replacement of protected units, and protections for existing occupants. In particular, lower income tenants with a right of first refusal to an affordable unit. The TPO builds on these standards, responding to community advocacy during the family zoning plan process, and codifies stronger tenant protections in local law. The goal of the TPO is to establish clear, consistent, and transparent policies that strengthen implementation and enforcement of tenant protections and replacement unit requirements, while addressing broader tenant protection issues. The TPO was developed collaborative collaboratively by city leadership, tenant and housing advocacy organizations, and multiple city departments. Leadership came from supervisor Chai En Chan's office, the planning department, and the REN board, with coordination from the mayor's office. City leadership also worked closely with the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition, the San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition, and community members such as Georgia Tsutisch, alongside MOCD, DBI, and other planning divisions. On November 6, the planning commission adopted a recommendation for approval with modifications for the TPO, which included amendments raised by the sponsor, Supervisor Chen, and Supervisor Melgar, as well as the department recommended modifications. This presentation reflects the TPO as introduced in the substitute legislation with the recommended modifications. While SB three thirty establishes minimum requirements to be met, the goal of the TPO is to stretch and strengthen those requirements to better protect tenants and to ensure proper replacement housing. With this goal, the TPO proposes amendments to the planning code and the administrative code, namely the rent ordinance. The TPO proposes, amendments to the planning code that go beyond s p three thirty in three main areas, enforcement, tenant protections, and replacement units. Together, these changes close key gaps and ensure stronger, more consistent implementation of tenant protections and replacement of protected units citywide. In bold are the changes I will provide more details on. Before I discuss the most impactful full amendments, I want to clarify that when a project is submitted, the first thing we do is, it the the first thing we establish is if the project is a demolition. If it is, we then establish if the project requires a conditional use authorization, also known as a CUA. If the project is considered a demolition, then it must comply with the TPO requirements, regardless of whether or not the project requires a CUA. The TPO strengthens enforcement of SB three thirty requirements by making sure it is the planning code's demolition definition that is used for all state laws and projects, which identifies a lot more projects as demolitions. The department recommended a modification to the planning code's definition of demolition and how the calculations are made to trigger such definition. The proposed changes simplify and replace complex lineal foot measurements with square footage to make it easier to interpret by sponsors, analyze by planners, and enforce by inspectors. The proposed amendments allow you to partially lift the whole building without classifying it as a demolition, ensuring consistent treatment of projects of the kind. The proposed amend amend amendments not only simplify the demolition for better review and enforcement, but catches a lot more projects as demolitions, triggering the proposed tenant protections requirements. We want to emphasize that the TPO does not change the standards that trigger a conditional use authorization, or CUA. The only proposed modification is to extend the look back period from five years to ten years for affordable or rent controlled units last occupied by tenants. The planning commission would keep the same discretion it has today. The TPO formalizes this by creating 12 objective findings consistent with state law. Project sponsors must meet at least 80% of these findings, or the project would be denied. At the planning commission, recommended modifications included making some findings mandatory and adjusting the threshold accordingly. These changes will need to be reconciled with the proposed ordinance. This slide provides a summary of the these 12 findings and the 80% threshold as presented in the proposed legislation. Department recommend the department recommended merging, findings D and E into a single finding in support of smaller projects. We're also recommending a small change to what is now would be E, among other small edits to these findings. The recommendations that need to be reconciled include making the three findings shown here into requirements, and with less findings, lowering the threshold to 70%. The TPO strengthens accountability by tying tenant protections to the permitting process, making approvals contingent on meeting TPO requirements. For replacement units, the TPO proposes visibly tracking newly created protected units on PIM, increasing transparency. PIM is our, project information map, if I'm getting correct. Yeah. It's a tool that's online. To strengthen tenant protections, the TPO broadens the definition of existing occupants from those in occupancy at the time of an application to tenants in occupancy at the time of a preliminary application, which happened six months earlier, tenants who vacated due to a tenant harassment, a non compliant buyer agreement, or an owner moving eviction with different look backs for each, And tenants temporarily displaced for a capital improvement project that's now seeking demolition. A recommended modification from supervisor Chen would also include tenants evicted under the Ellis Act within the past five years. The TPO increases relocation benefits for lower income households. All tenants would receive local relocation payments equal to Ellis Act benefits, but lower income households would also receive up to thirty nine months of additional payments, covering the gap between section eight fair market rent and what's affordable at their income level. Tables showing these payments by AMI and unit size are included in your presentation packets. Finally, the TPO would require extensive tenant modification that is compliant with language access requirements, from application to lease up. Tenant notification would inform the tenants of their rights and necessary actions. The shaded boxes show show notifications that the planning department would be responsible for. The TPO strengthens other tenant protections through the planning code. Lower income tenants could return at their prior rental rate with future increases under rent control. Other tenants may return to market rate units, which would also be rent controlled. It also creates a private right of action for tenants and their representatives, and a recommended modification from supervisor Chen clarifies that project sponsors sponsors must hire a relocation specialist to support tenants. To strengthen the replacement of protected units, the TPO requires all protected units to be replaced with comparable units, meaning the same number of bedrooms and full bathrooms, at least 90% of the original square footage, and accessibility when applicable. Replacement would follow current local standards, which ensure one to one replacement with a mix of affordable and rent controlled units. But the TPO strengthens affordability by requiring all affordable replacement units to remain affordable for the life of the project, rather than fifty five years required under s p three thirty. To strengthen other tenant protections, the TPO also proposes amendments to the rent ordinance to strengthen protections around capital improvement and Ellis Act evictions, tenant harassment, and buyout agreements. For capital improvements, tenants would receive additional monthly payments if temporary evictions extend beyond three months, helping prevent renovictions. For Ellis Act evictions, a recommended amendment would require disclosure of redevelopment intent when filing to the withdraw units, and notices to tenants about their rights under the TPO. The TPO also gives the rent board stronger tools to find tenant harassment find to make tenant harassment findings when supported by evidence, preserving tenant rights in future redevelopment. A recommended change would require severe impact findings to be made during hearings, rather than a requirement for a hearing to happen. For buyout agreements, landlords must disclose how a buyout could affect a tenant's right under the TPO, both during negotiations and in the notice. These are just some of the provisions that strengthen and expand tenant protections. To close, I want to emphasize the significance of this ordinance, not only for its impact, but for the collaborative process behind it, involving elected officials, city agencies, and community partners. I want to acknowledge all those who contributed to its development, which supervisor Chen mentioned, from city leadership and community members to the broader city family. Today, I also would like to recognize Dylan Hamilton, who initiated this work last year and has provided support throughout the process. To everyone involved, thank you for your dedication, time, and commitment to advancing this important ordinance. The staff is here to respond to any follow-up questions.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you very much. Supervisor Mahmoud?

[Tate Hanna (DBI Legislative Affairs Manager)]: Just a couple of why

[Susan Marsh]: don't you

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: just I'm sorry. I just I have amendments as well. Can I go ahead and do that? And then you can ask the questions about everything, including my amendments? Okay. Thank you. So, as, vice chair Chen, alluded, I also have some amendments. They are friendly amendments. The Brown Act actually prevents supervisor Chen and I from talking about this legislation because we're both on the same committee. So we have to go through planning and our attorneys, which is why this process is like this, but they are friendly amendments. They are meant to enhance, not compete with this ordinance, and were drafted in partnership with the tenant advocates as well. As well as the experience of my staff, namely, Jennifer Feber, who is a former, organizing director for the tenants union, and, my own experience as a former tenant advocate, with, the conditional use hearings from when I was on the planning commission, and all of the real world problems that we were trying to solve. So the first amendment amends the administrative code section 37.9, also known as the rent ordinance. So that when a landlord files a notice of intent to withdraw rental units, they disclose whether they intend to redevelop the units being withdrawn, or instead turn them into condos or tenancies in common. The purpose of this is so that the city has better data to be able to plan for our affordability needs over time. Currently, we don't have a complete knowledge of what has happened to our rental stock if it comes if it becomes owner occupied or changes use. So, for example, how much of our rent controlled housing stock is now under owner occupied as tenancies in common? If this is a lot, the city might want to develop strategies to encourage the development of rental over condos, for example, in a specific area. The second amendment would amend planning code section three one seven, demolition of residential units, and when you are required to have a conditional use hearings. Over the course of time, the section in applicability three one seven c has become very confusing, and has not, kept up with the new the newer concepts in state law. For example, s b four twenty three passed in 2023, and that says you can't get streamlined approval if tenants have lived in a building in the past ten years, but our own, codes say something different. So we modeled, on s b four twenty three, and, I would amend planning code section three seventeen c two b to also have the same look back ten years for tenant occupancy if a building is affordable housing units, or, the units are subject to our rent stabilization ordinance. The ten years outside of the priority equity geography areas inside the PEG would remain the same as it is today. PEG is priority equity geographies. The final amendment I would like to discuss, is to just rejigger the conditional use criteria that the planning commissioners use when making a decision on whether to grant a demolition permit. There are legitimate reasons to allow for demolition, Sometimes such as when a building is unoccupied, fallow, blighted, could be put to better use, or where there's life and safety issues. There are currently 12 objective criteria in section three seventeen of the TPO, which were defining collaboration with the planning department staff and the advocates. The purpose of having a range of optional criteria is to judge whether projects contribute to our housing stock goals, while also being sensitive to preserving the types of buildings we want to protect, such as historic resources and rent controlled housing. For section G, the conditional use criteria, I am suggesting that we move three of the criteria, G, I, and J, which are already required in other parts of the law. So that it is clear that they must be met. So we pull those out and make them a requirement, rather than counting towards the percentage of the objective standards that make a project desirable. And then we would still have the existing nine criteria, accounting for the threshold calculation to approve or reject projects. So after running through the different possible scenarios, I have to say that I'm not completely satisfied with the exact language of the criteria, but it's still a debate that it would be between 7080% of the threshold. So we could pass it today as written, or adopt it into the, you know, file as written. We're gonna take some more time to discuss. And also, I know, supervisor Chen is still working on some issues. And so, after we adopt the amendments that are ready and approved ESSA form today, you know, we can continue this to our next meeting so that the entire package goes together. And I think that works for everyone. So, with that, thank you, for indulging me, supervisor Mahmoud. Go ahead.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: I just wanna thank supervisor Chen and, chair Melgar for, all the work on this ordinance and the continued work. Just wanted to ask the planning department, would the amendments that I proposed today by both supervisor Chen and supervisor Melgar, Have you had a chance to review these amendments, and any thoughts, or are you all okay with the amendments that are approved to form and introduced today?

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: Thank you. Rachel Tanner, department staff. We have been working very closely with Supervisor Chen on the amendments, and also AFWA Planning Commission, have been able to take in, the suggestions and amendments from Supervisor Melgar. I would say, to date, and Ms. Melena Leonfair can add more color, I think we feel very confident that we're almost at alignment. I think some of it has been, I think the spirit of the amendments are all going the same direction, which is really, really great. And it's just figuring out the exact words and language, and are some of them requirements? And if so, what's the right language? And time periods, for example, as, Chair Melgar has recommended some of the CUA findings become requirements. And then, would the remaining findings to make sure that as we look at projects, and we've done a lot of great work, kind of saying, well, will projects actually be able to go forward? You know, if we have just the remaining, I think it would be nine, items. And and then there's been some recommendations around combining them. So I think that's what we're still fine fine tuning. But I think directionally, so far, the amendments are going in the same direction, and the department is supportive.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: So you're generally supportive of the amendments today, but there might be some non substantive amendments at the next meeting.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Exactly.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: And then, lastly, Chair Mulgah, I had a question about, really appreciated one of the amendments you had to the family zoning plan, a couple weeks back around exempting three units and above from, upzoning, in that context. Just to better understand the amendments you're proposing today to the TPO, are there anything that maybe to that concern about two units and below, anything in the in this TPO that helps to address that concern that we've heard a lot from the public as well?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yes. So, you know, what I am precisely grateful to, supervisor Chen, on this enormous piece of legislation is that it, does a couple things. First, it extends the, tenant protections that are required by s b three thirty to all tenants, in San Francisco, including those that are, in the smaller buildings. But it also, goes further than that. Actually, a lot further than that. It includes all tenants, not just low income tenants. And it covers a lot of the areas that are not covered under other state legislation, and also our own rezoning efforts, so that we can, do both things. Add housing, and also protect the tenants that are in the existing housing, and have a process to ensure that not just tenant protections, but issues around relocation, around around relocation, around right of first refusal, all those things are implemented in the same way that we have come to expect with our own rental ordinance. I don't know if Milena wanted to add to that explanation, but that certainly was our intent.

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: I mean, I think, Chair Meldar, you covered it quite well. And thank you for sharing all that with us. Yeah. I think what I would say is, we've been looking, and Melina's been setting this issue, is we think about this ordinance, but also in the context of our broader set of existing tenant protections that we have in the city. And so I think what, supervisor Chen has done so well is really look at where are the gaps. Right? What does s b three thirty allow us to do that maybe we just hadn't done yet? As, Charmelda was saying, extending benefits to, you know, low income, but also higher income households as well, so that they, have less threat of displacement. So if we think if we look at what we're adding, along with all the other rules that we already have in place, I think overall, we have a package of legislation that deters people from doing the wrong thing, that encourages folks who are landowners and property owners to do the right thing, and then again, having backstops to make sure that if they haven't followed our rules or our laws, they're not able to, advance certain things, or there's ways that we can identify that and take corrective action as a city. So I think this really is a huge step forward for our city's tenant protections.

[Malena (Malena León Ferreira), Planning Department]: And one thing that I would like to add is that with the help of the community advocates, we were also able to close loopholes that are not treated by s b three thirty. And a lot of those are what you're seeing reflected in rent ordinance amendments as well.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Appreciate it. So just to clarify, pedantically, we're saying that this will make because of supervisor Chen's ordinance and the amendments that both have introduced today, this will make San Francisco one of the strongest in the entire state on tenant protections. And then two, that in the context of rezoning, with the combination of more stringent requirements for proving, that that zoning might have an effect, but also right of return, as well as components of, replacement units and getting the same rent control that they had, but we probably we're effectively saying that no tenants will be displaced.

[Malena (Malena León Ferreira), Planning Department]: I I mean, we cannot assure that no tenants will be displaced. That's always a risk. We are seeking to mitigate the displacement of tenants. Obviously, if a building converts into a condo, then there's a higher risk of a tenant being replaced sorry, displaced. And then there are also you know, moderate income tenants are not part of the state legislation, so it's hard to extend the rights to that particular population who are also vulnerable. But the but we believe the ordinance creates enough, you know, protections that it'll help mitigate the risks. And, you know, we looked at other jurisdictions and best practices, and I we we go beyond every in multiple ways, we go beyond every jurisdiction we looked at. We try to grab the best of all of the ones we looked at, and and I think that comes through through the legislation.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Got it. Understood. Thank you.

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: Maybe if you just sorry. Just one thing to add, supervisor. I think it's important for the conversation that we're gonna have today on this topic, but you'll also be talking about family zoning plan, as well. And so I think you've heard this department say, frequently, that housing development is not a driver of eviction. A lot of eviction, one, we don't demolish much housing in San Francisco, generally speaking. Only, you know, 18 units on average per year. We don't have a lot of demolition. That doesn't mean that there aren't evictions happening, and that there aren't sources of eviction. The biggest sources, though, tend to be Ellis Act evictions or owner move in evictions, and not someone directly saying, in this moment, I would like to redevelop this property. Part of what the legislation does is closed loopholes, so that someone is encouraged to say exactly at the moment that they're doing something. What are they doing? Are they actually an owner moving in? Are they planning to redevelop? What's the story here? So that the decision makers can make decisions, as well as tenants and other folks associated with the property are aware of all the rights that they're entitled to, so that they can make choices as well. Do they want to move back to that unit when it's replaced? Do they want

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: to do this? Do they

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: want to do that? And they really can be informed. So I think this helps to ensure that, one, again, discouraging displacement, in the first place. But two, if someone is asked to leave their unit for housing development, or Ellis Act, or owner move an eviction, we have some ways to help make, so we can take care of that household, and take care of that housing unit, as well. Thank you, miss Tanner.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: I just wanna say thank you, Supervisor Chan and Supervisor Malgar, for working on this complex piece of legislation. And I do think in the context of the family zoning plan and the fears that have been circulating, this is an important piece of legislation to show that we're protecting our renters and, creating some of the strongest protections in the entire state. So I commend your leadership and I will be supporting the ordinance and adding my name as a cosponsor as well. Thank

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: you so much. With that, let's go to public comment on this side of please, mister Clark.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation. We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number three, the tenant protections related to residential demolitions and renovations ordinance. If you have public comment for this item, please line up to speak along that western wall that I'm pointing out with my left hand. And it looks like we have a speaker who's ready to go. Please come forward with the lecture now.

[Mark Bruno]: Thank you, madam chair, supervisor Chen, supervisor Mahmood. I'm for, in very in many ways, the protections, of course, for tenants. We can't fault that. My name is Mark Bruno, and I'm from North Beach. But I would just like to ask, by a show of hands silently, not from people who work for the government, how many of us in the room understand where the replacement units will be? Will they be back where they originally were? Do you understand that? Because I read it three times. If you understand where the replacement units will be, please raise your hand in silence. Nobody knows. And I think that we deserve an answer by the end of this hearing from the supervisors, particularly from supervisor Chen, who, legislated this, where they will be because this is nothing more in that one aspect of this, because it was referred to many times, replacement unit, replacement, replacement. Nothing more than lipstick on a pig of redevelopment. You're basically telling somebody, you can't live in the Fillmore anymore. That's what happened in the city. You can't live in Noe Valley anymore. We have a replacement unit. It's at the edge of the city. You don't know anybody there. You don't speak their language. It's hard for you to get to work or bus. I know because I've been working for twenty five years with the homeless. Who are they? Everyone. Everyone in this room, any one of us could be homeless. They are not all people who have been evicted, believe me. But many of them are. I would say 50% of them are. They are people who have been displaced. So when you talk about displacement, I take it to heart because I know many people who have been displaced and end up on the street. They can't take advantage of all the things you're offering, and they particularly would be a put off and never find a place to live again if your so called replacement units are not real replacement units, but just a way of moving people out of their old neighborhoods, which I find unfair. Thank you.

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

[Mark Solomon]: Good afternoon. My name is Mark Solomon. I served on the Western SoMa Citizens Planning Task Force, and I'm a cofounder of the Community Land Trust. I came here armed for bear until I heard the magic words, citywide. I think it's great this applies citywide. As a mission resident, we got up zone seventeen years ago, and none of the advocates working for the city funded nonprofits crafted up yet another coalition of nonprofiteers to demand that the mission get these protections seventeen years ago. Now, I was expecting Jim Crow planning on that regard. Unfortunately, it's not. So I'm kind of armed for deer now. Speaking about equity, you know, presupposing the subsequent conversation, what's the deal with exempting parcels with rent control units on them from upzoning, when the Mission had all of her parcels, except a handful, upzoned with rent control units on it. This is Jim Crow planning. We need one standard for all neighborhoods, not just a worse one for black and brown neighborhoods, and a better one for more Asian American and white neighborhoods. So I would like for you guys to retroactively apply that to the mission. Or if that can't be done because it would cost the city hundreds of billions of dollars to go ahead and make these these owners whole, exempt it from this family zoning plan. I think that we should have these exemptions, but the mission has not seen a rash of demolitions and eviction of rent control units over the past seventeen years. You think you might, but it hasn't. They've mostly been opportunity sites, soft sites, etcetera. So I think we need some sort of one standard citywide for all of this. It's time to democratize the pain, too. We have to take pressure off the mission for taking the burden of this city's pain. And I want other neighborhoods who voted supervisor for supervisor, planning commissioner for planning commissioner, to take the East Side and throw it to the wolves. I told him we'd hang together or hang separately once housing prices met around 1,500,000.0 to 2,000. Well, guess what? Here we are. And it's time to make sure we have one standard, one city. Thank you.

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

[Fred Sherburn‑Zimmer (Housing Rights Committee)]: Hello. Fred Sherbenzimmer, Housing Rights Committee. We need this TPO citywide because the state is stripping us of our displacement protections. Evictions are the highest they have been in years. Thank God we have rent control and eviction protections. But if any politician says we have plenty of eviction protections in the city. They haven't read the newspaper in the last ten years. They haven't talked to the tenants in their neighborhoods. The state's been stripping protections while rewarding landlords and investors for bulldozing. And if you do make it so investors can make millions from bulldozing a building, they might because they do it when they can make it they evict people for other reasons they can make money, and they don't care what it does to our city. We see all housing rights committee, we see all the ways corporate and other landlords, but especially corporate landlords who have bought up thousands of units backed by private equity, harassed tenants out. We saw Veritas cover windows for months, turn off power and water daily, block staircases, elevators, and hallways, give immigrant tenants notice after notice in languages they couldn't read. We need this TPO, and I wanna thank you supervisors. Like, both, we need the TPO with the amendments. Thank you for your work. It still doesn't make it okay to demolish apartment buildings that tenants call home, but it does make it give tenants some hope they'll be able to return. Thank you.

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

[David Harlan]: Good afternoon. My name is David Harlan. I'm a District 3 resident and a member of the senior disability action. I'm speaking today in support of protections for existing affordable and rent controlled housing. We have a deep need for affordable housing right now. Displacement of current affordable housing for new development means current residents have no place to go. Current protections under tenant law does not adequately address the real impact impact of being displaced by the upzoning plans. I have lived in a six unit rent controlled building for twenty nine years. I live on a limited income from social security and a small pension. My landlord wants to evict all the tenants for development. I do not have the luxury of waiting four years to get onto an affordable housing list that is already seven years long. Existing affordable rent controlled housing needs to be protected because there is not enough existing affordable housing now, and displaced residents have no place to go. Especially because most developers pay into a fund and do not build on-site, and no affordable housing is currently being built to meet our current demand or the impacts of displaced residents who due to the development under this up zoning plan. Thank you.

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

[Meg Heisler (San Francisco Anti‑Displacement Coalition)]: Good afternoon, chair Melgar and members of the committee. I'm Meg Heisler here on behalf of the San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition. I wanna start by thanking supervisor Chen, Charlie Shama, senior planner, Milena Liam Ferrera, who have been deep in the weeds with us, working with and listening to community needs and concerns. Thank you also to supervisor Melgar and her staff, Jen Feber, for jumping into the fray more recently. As a result of this collective effort, there are many important interventions for tenants in the TPO, including stronger noticing and language requirements, enhanced relocation assistance, and a right to return among others. These supports will be available to those tenants who are still living in their homes when a developer submits an application to demolish a building. But we know that when the vast majority of projects come before the planning commission, there are no tenants left. Most have already accepted under the table buyouts, often within the context of threatened evictions. Despite this, after months of alignment with supervisors Chen and Melgar, we have still not seen approved language that says simply and unequivocally that developers must comply with the buyout ordinance to be approved for a demolition permit. The stakes are too high for us to let up on this, so we're grateful to have more time to get it right and to review the language of the amendments presented today. We also just wanna be clear that the TPO may limit, but will not prevent the many demolitions that will be incentivized by the state density bonus program and the proposed family zoning plan. Without further restrictions on the demolition of tenant tenant occupied rent controlled housing, those threats will remain. Thank you again, supervisor Chen, for taking this on and for your leadership over the last several months. We look forward to getting this over the finish line together.

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

[Unidentified public commenter (buyout disclosures)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Thank you also to supervisors Chen, Melgar, as well as Chan with amendments. I want to just focus on the buyouts, which is a an issue yet to be further dealt with. It is essential to require the owners comply with all mandatory disclosures in our buyout ordinance of 2015. There's also the requirement to collect data that we wanna see continue. It includes right to counseling, provides a list of tenant rights organizations, and above all, the right to not enter into an agreement. Again, not everyone is being presented with a disclosure form. People have called me and said, I had no idea that I actually had a choice in this. I'm going to tell you one story which is about Norbert and his wife, a 79 year old couple who lived in a three unit building home times thirty years. And the new owners, when they came in, they then asked them to take buyouts, which they declined. They do not want they did not want to leave their social support network, but the new owners continued to badger them on a regular basis over a period of one and a half years until Norbert said, we just can't do it anymore. This home, this three unit building is now actually a three unit, three units and a penthouse, which have been converted into a single family monster home. Loss of rent controlled housing, loss of our neighbors. So I look forward to working with you again, supervisor Chen, so that we are not complicit in circumventing our own buyout law. Thank you so much.

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

[Theresa Dolalas (SAMCAN)]: Hello. Hello, supervisors. My name is Theresa Dolalas with SamCan. I want to echo commissioner William's comment. The bottom line, we're talking about human cost here. The bottom line is that people and small businesses will be displaced, and we are already hearing it loud and clear. Just recently at the KLW public event, one up zoning proponent said, well, we'll just have to accept that there will be people displaced. How dare we normalize that? How dare we treat families as collateral damage? As if their lives are a cost, we must accept to move policy forward. That is why TPO must be strengthened and enforced, because without strong protections, those words become real in real time for working families, seniors, and long time renters and businesses. So today, I ask you, if developers and some policy makers are comfortable accepting displacement, what will this committee choose to accept? We will not accept displacement as a normal or inevitable outcome, not after my own family survived four Ellis activation attempts, not after seeing neighbors cry, pack, and disappear from a city they loved, not after witnessing seniors ask whether they will end up homeless, not after businesses pack up after doing years of business and start all over again. Please strengthen the TPO. Enforce it strongest as you can. Protect the people and don't treat people and businesses as collateral damage because I don't care who you are.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Folks. Julie Fisher. The proceedings with, with applause, a snapping, or anything else. Let's hear from the next speaker, please.

[Julie Fisher]: Julie Fisher, a forty year renter in District 1. I'm a member of SDA and also SEIU twenty fifteen, both organizations you've heard speak here, and I'll speak on behalf of their members, as well as everybody out there who couldn't be here today, who also has lived for decades in a rent control apartment in the comfort of San Francisco. And with all these protections that are coming, we still need more. We're very nervous. We're worried about where we're going to wind up. We're worried about what it means to be temporarily displaced. And you have all been working really hard, but we're going to ask for more. So we want, as many people have mentioned today, we want full disclosure. We want notifications in the mail in our language. We wanna know what to expect. This is a very tough issue, and we appreciate what each of you have done, but we want more. Thank you.

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

[Kaye Walker]: Good afternoon. My name is Kaye Walker, and I'm, here to support tenants rights and, the rights of small businesses, which are fewer. I want to thank everyone that was a part of this amendment. I guess it's three to the tenants, right? Anyway, I also want more. I don't know. Maybe some of the, the things are in this ordinance cover some of the needs. I, I think our city needs, and I'm here for San Francisco. I'm a native. I saw what happened over and over with this displacement, due to many reasons. And I think we're not only, when I heard about this, I saw this wrecking ball just going through neighborhoods that have been untouched, Like I live in the West Side. And, what I'd like to see is all rent controlled, apartments or, housing, protect remain the same in terms of the amounts. And if the people are, are, displaced, whatever you can give them during that time, that they're allowed to return. That they can come to the exact same place, the same neighborhood, and have the same rents. And that, to me, is a sign of non replacement. In terms of small businesses, is this my time up, or is this You have twenty five seconds.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Twenty six seconds.

[Kaye Walker]: It's small businesses don't have protections, but I wanna as a San Franciscan, I wanna see our different cultural and village like, neighborhoods remain. The the places with the restaurants and the and the, other needs, the, hardware stores and the and, guests, I mean, gift shops, etcetera, remain.

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

[Avi (community representative)]: Good afternoon, chair chair Mairngar and members of the committee. My name is Avi, and I'm here today on behalf of Communities in Chinatown Mission and the Bayview. First, thank you to supervisor Chen for, putting forward this important legislation and strengthening tenant protection citywide. And thank you to supervisor Melgar for additional, and stronger amendments. We are grateful for your ongoing leadership, but we do believe that this ordinance should go further, especially when it comes to rent controlled and priority equity geographies. As you know, the pegs were identified through the city's housing element process, And these are areas most at risk of displacement where residents face lower incomes, persistent economic barriers, and housing instability. Strengthening demolition standards in these neighborhoods is crucial to ensuring that residents can stay and thrive in their communities. One concrete improvement that we asked the committee to make today, sorry, is a higher affordability requirement for replacement units in the pegs. Under state law, when prior tenant incomes are unknown, the default is to use a citywide formula that assumes lower income means up to 80% AMI. But in the PEGs, the median household income is closer to 50% AMI or below. This means that replacement units pegged at 80% AMI are simply not affordable to most PEG residents. So we urge the committee to adopt a higher standard, such as requiring at least 50% of replacement units in PEGs to be affordable to households earning at or below 50% AMI, and conditioning the demolition of rent controlled units on such higher standards. We also stand behind SFADC and, REP SF's concerns that demolition permits not be granted to owners who fail to comply with the city's buyout disclosure laws or who engage in harassment or other wrongful evictions. These protections must be mandatory, not optional, to prevent displacement long before households.

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

[Zach Weisenberg Burger (Young Community Developers)]: Good afternoon, chair Marlga and supervisors Chen and Mahmoud. I'm Zach Weisenberg Burger from Young Community Developers in Baby Hunters Point. We wanna express our strong support for supervisor Chen's legislation and all of the amendments she and supervisor Melgar discussed today. We share SFADC and reps' concerns about ensuring strong, clear controls on the demolition of rent controlled housing citywide, and we urge the city to make the most critical tenant protections mandatory conditions for demolition, not optional outcomes of the CUA process. We also ask the city to go even further in priority equity geographies or PEGs, PEGs, which were approved in the housing element because neighborhoods like Baby Hunters Point, Chinatown, Mission, and The Tenderloin have endured decades of redevelopment and still face the greatest barriers to stability. The disparities are stark. Median income in PEGs is 50,000 compared to a 111,000 outside of PEGS, leaving most households unable to absorb even modest rent increases or relocation shocks without risking permanent displacement. For that reason, we urge the city to strengthen demolition safeguards in PEGS consistent with the housing elements call for targeted anti displacement policies. This could include neighborhood specific standards and deeper affordability requirements. For example, requiring that require requiring, apologies, that any demolished protected units and pegs be replaced with homes affordable to households at or below 50% AMI rather than relying solely on the CHAS formula. These measures reflect the core purpose of PEGs, protecting communities that have long absorbed the city's growth while facing the greatest inequities, especially as they remain vulnerable to state driven up zoning and streamlining. YCD and other organizations in the PEGs would appreciate the opportunity to continue discussing how to incorporate stronger demolition protections in PEGs, ensuring residents have the tool they need tools they need to remain in their communities through the next development cycle. Thank you for your time.

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

[Aristos Kamiji (MEDA)]: Good afternoon, Chair Melgar and the members of the committee. My name is Aristos Kamiji. I serve as housing rights counsel with the Mission Economic Development Agency. First, I want to acknowledge the extensive work that you and community partners have put into this significant package of tenant protections. We strongly support the direction of the ordinance and we appreciate the effort to close long standing gaps in demolition oversight. Given the number of amendments still in development, we want to emphasize the importance of retaining strong mandatory baseline protections, not just optional conditional use criteria. In particular, we urge the committee to ensure that compliance with the city's buyout ordinance disclosure requirements remains a mandatory prerequisite. Recent discussion suggesting that this could be weakened or made optional would seriously undermine established tenant safeguards. Thus, we would like to better understand the basis for determining that these easily accessible and standardized disclosures cannot be a requisite of the process. We are also concerned about emerging limitations on demolition controls and PEGs. These neighborhoods, such as the Mission, are explicitly recognized in the housing element as requiring heightened anti displacement measures, Yet, we continue to see major losses of rent controlled units and the displacement of thousands of low income residents. For these areas, the ordinance must include stronger replacement requirements and mitigation measures. We look forward to working with you to make that happen as we go forward. Thank you all for your time and for your continued partnership in protecting San Francisco tenants. God bless San Francisco.

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

[Susan Marsh]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Susan Marsh. And the famous or infamous Stanford study, according to your particular point of view. Well, the authors of this study acknowledge that without rent control, virtually every unit rent controlled unit would have turned over. Basically, what that means is that the loss of rent to control or its undermining by by free rein for demolitions or anything else would have led to the class and ethnic cleansing of San Francisco with all that that entails, with all of the devastation that entails. So I'm here today to thank you for all of your excellent work on the tenant protection arguments, and to urge you to strengthen it to the fullest extent possible, including but not limited to full disclosure on buyout provisions and requiring that as and including that as a requirement for issue for approval and issuance of permits. Thank you for your time.

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

[Georgia Shutish]: Georgia Shutish. I wanna thank miss Leon Ferreira and her colleagues on the staff for all their work. I also wanna thank supervisor Chen and Charlie Shamus, and I think, they should all be commended. I wanna read something quickly, that I think is foundational to this, this ordinance, which I hope you approve and take to heart people's amendment suggestions. San Francisco faces a continuing shortage of affordable housing. There is a high ratio of rental to ownership tenure among the city's residents. The general plan recognizes that existing housing is the greatest stock of rental and financially accessible residential units and is a resource in need of protection. Those, three sentences are the findings of section three seventeen, which were written back in, 2008, by this board, by the, and the staff. So I really think that those are foundational and I think that this ordinance will hopefully make these findings real. The other thing I wanna say is that, besides being foundational, I think they really match the goals and the moral values of San Francisco, and they are the goals of the tenant protection ordinance in section three seventeen point two. If yeah. I don't know if you saw in the in the other, item supervisor Mandelmann's thing. I I had comments in there about 79 28th Street. That's where there was an Ellis Act eviction of an elderly couple, and it was a major alteration that was really a demolition, was approved there. So I think that this is ordinance will capture, hopefully, and protect people like that couple who were evicted years ago, and the property sit empty for years. And the, project sponsor didn't do use his entitlement that fast, and it just sat around. So it's something to consider. Thank you again very much.

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

[Gwen (District 1 resident)]: Hello, supervisors. My name is Gwen. I'm a District 1 resident and a born and raised San Franciscan. I wanted to speak today in support of supervisor Chen's tenant protection ordinance legislation and the amendments to strengthen it. As the mayor's family zoning plan moves closer to getting passed with the board, we know that there are still tens of thousands of tenants living in rent controlled units that will be vulnerable to eviction and permanent displacement. Changing zoning laws and allowing for increased heights without any plan for or funding for affordable housing development incentivizes real estate developers to buy up this land, evict the existing tenants, demolish the existing housing, all for the often empty promise that private developers will one day, when the profit motives are right, build market rate units that are completely unaffordable to our small business workers, our city workers, our teachers, our nurses, our community. Over the weekend, a video was captured and posted online of the mayor and author of the family zoning plan speaking gleefully about how the CEO of Blackstone was posting videos about, our San Francisco waterfront telling his followers to buy up land in San Francisco now. Like many young people watching as the wealth gap continuously grows in The United States and in San Francisco, I know that the CEO of Blackstone is not my friend. Blackstone is the largest private equity real estate developer and owner of 10% of all units across The United States and has driven the cost of rents way up in cities across the country. In fact, their CEO has bragged about their ability to drive up rents. Blackstone has raised the rent prices at double the market rate, even raising the rent up to 79% in one building in San Diego. I'm asking the members of this committee to think about their legacy and the struggle for affordable housing and tenant protections. If we go forward with a plan that is inviting developers like Blackstone with open arms to buy up land for more luxury condos, I ask that you support these stronger tenant protections put in place to hopefully prevent that inevitable displacement in the first place.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for sharing your comments to the committee. Let's have the next speaker, please. And just a reminder, once again, please don't interrupt the proceedings with your applause. Next speaker, please.

[Joseph Smook (REP SF/REP Coalition)]: Good afternoon, chair Melgar, supervisors. Joseph Smook with the Rep Coalition. I wanna recognize this milestone, the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition and the Anti Displacement Coalition have been working with planning and supervisor Chen's staff, especially Melina and Charlie, on this legislation since February. After these many months of hard work, we're excited for this TPO to be here before this committee. I also want to express gratitude for Chair Melgar's work to support this effort with important collaborative amendments. One item I wanna highlight that we're still working on is the definition of demolition. So tenants who would qualify for the measures provided in the TPO are in fact provided by the, provided by the project properly being ruled a demolition, as Melena mentioned in her staff presentation. When a project necessitates tenants moving out and the duration of the work is known upfront to be far longer than three months, it is a demolition. Therefore, whether the scope of work entails elevating a building by a partial or a full level, our position is that it must be considered a demolition. For similar reasons, rep is recommending further revisions, including revising three seventeen b two b to read a major alteration of a residential building that proposes the removal of 40% or more of the sum of the combined front facade and rear facade, or 40% or more of the horizontal elements, or 15% or more of the interior walls of the existing building as measured in square feet of the actual surface area. So reducing the threshold from 50% to 40% and also including a threshold for interior walls. These are important amendments in order to be able to get this right so that the threshold actually captures the projects that need to be captured. We wanna thank again, planning, supervisor Chen, and chair Mogar for all their hard work on the TPO to get it right. Thank you.

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

[Peter Stevens (Build Affordable Faster)]: Good afternoon. Peter Stevens, build affordable faster. I'd like to thank everyone who worked on this. It's been Herculean. We support chair Melgar's and supervisor Chen's amendments, and we do believe, just like everything we heard about every tenant advocate here, let's push this a little further. Thank you very much.

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

[Polly Marshall]: Hi. I'm Polly Marshall. I'm, one of the founding members of the Affordable Housing Alliance and a member of the Anti Displacement Coalition. And I served thirty five years as a tenant representative on the San Francisco rent board. So quite familiar with what displacement looks like. So I'm one of the people who worked, who met weekly for five months

[Susan Marsh]: on the

[Polly Marshall]: TPO. And I want to thank supervisor Chen and her staff for, an incredible, community collaboration. I want to thank Malena, from the planning department for her skill and knowledge. And I wanna say that the TPO includes a lot of really important tenant protections. It needs more. It's good that we have more time to craft the latest set of amendments. I hope that with the cooperation from everybody, especially the city attorney's office, we can get these amendments in shape, by the next hearing. Particularly, we need changes on, including people who were evicted under the Ellis Act. We need protection for tenants who have been bought out, and we need to further clarify the conditional use process, which for all my experience in the city for years and years on these issues, I still don't really get why we have to only have 70% of criteria met. So in conclusion, I strongly support the TPO, strongly support the proposed amendments, and look forward to working on it over the next few weeks. Thank you.

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

[Ken Fujioka (Chinatown CDC)]: Madam chair and members of the committee, my name is Ken Fujioka. I'm with Chinatown Community Development Center. I would also like to thank the supervisor Chen for working with the community and and supervisor Melgar and with your work on these additional amendments. We absolutely agree with and support the intentions expressed here and the overall arc of this legislation. However, we I I wanna address why we still have some hard hard time with some of the details of the legislation. Much of the TPO is right is rightfully about mitigating the impacts of evictions and demolition, but it still contains within it the mechanics for streamlining displacement. For example, as written in this legislation, this legislation removes from our existing demolition controls in 03/17 the goal of preserving rent controlled housing without replacing those goals with comparable standards. The result will be the near elimination of the hard one rights of tenants and communities to question the displacement impacts of new development. The TPL then adds to our rent ordinance a new grounds for eviction for tenants to make way for these new developments, evictions which will for which there'll be few, if any, defenses. Given these major changes, there was extensive conversation at the planning commission to address and and make revisions to the TPO. We're grateful for supervisor Chen and Malgor for their answering some of these concerns in the amendment, but we still think there needs to be work to be done. We only recently saw amendments, like, last hour. I I know you probably just saw them then too. So I think we need to work together. The devil is in the details, particularly when we're up against, you know, billionaire investors. And so thank you very much.

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

[Howard Williams]: Hello. My name is Howard Williams. I have lived in this city since 1982. Some of those years were in the Richmond. I'm happy to say that I got to move back to the Richmond a few months ago, and only to find out that one of the things that I learned about when I came here in 1982 was something called redevelopment. I think we all know what that means and what that meant. And this is something we do not want to happen to the Richmond, to the sunset where I have family living, and also to to the Western addition as I understand they're in the crosshairs of this plan. So I appreciate the motives behind these amendments, but I think the results have got to be that we do not have redevelopment happen to this city ever again.

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

[Heather Davies]: Good afternoon, chairwoman Al Gore, supervisors Chen, and Mahmoud. I wanna speak to a concern I have about transparency during early period of post notice on the over rezoning, and that is respect to a request that was made at a Sunshine Committee meeting for

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I'm sorry, mister Cook. I'm just gonna interrupt you. So we are taking comment on the tenant protection ordinance, not the, upzoning yet. That will be the next

[Mr. Cook (public commenter)]: items. Respects to being able to reach out and contact individuals who are in rent controlled housing. And I had spoke, in addition to Mark Bruno, at that sunshouting task force meeting, with regard to a data request for tenant, rent controlled units by address. And I just checked with him, he never got that. If there was ever any data that arrived on the open SF portal with rent control units identified by address, I don't know. But that enable, that prevented community, activists from being able to reach out and make sure these people understood what was going on, and enabled them to have their voice heard in this process. And I think that is a significant issue with how it moved forward. But I do, as a D4 member, want to say that we don't know how many rent controlled units are on the 10 plus miles of corridors on Terabelle, Noriega, Irving, Judah, Lincoln, 19th, Sloane, Vincente, Lawton, that are rent controlled units. And I believe there will be a very tragic and rapid displacement if of those units, and particularly with respect to under two stories, once this, once interest rates go down. And it will be a significant and epic disruption to our community. This is a very challenging and emotionally difficult moment in our city's history, and we really need to know where we are morally with respect to human rights for housing. Thank you.

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

[Ocean Blue Coast (Senior & Disability Action)]: Good afternoon. My name is Ocean Blue Coast. I'm a housing and transit community organizer with Senior and Disability Action. It should go without saying that we should have robust protections to keep seniors and disabled people of all income safe from the deadly consequences of traumatic housing uncertainty and neighborhood displacement. But we have to say it out loud. It should go without saying that we should protect all rent controlled housing and affordable housing from demolition and intentional community displacement, but we have to say it out loud because we are still not there yet. It should be mentioned often loud and clear how historic city planning led to whole community demolitions and displacement that have impacted communities of color in the film war, Chinatown, Soma, and others. And we know this history in this room, so we should do everything we can to actively protect against similar profit driven race and class displacement. We know that the impact of displacement is deadly on senior and disabled people. Only the strongest tenant protection language will stop these harms on our community and pop the bubble of speculator's dreams. Thank you for continuing to work through amendments and passing the strongest tenant protection ordinance we can so so that we can counter the forces of speculative displacement. Thank you.

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

[Zachary Friel (SomCAN)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Zachary Friel. I work with Somkant, a member of both Reposec and the Antidisplacement Coalition. As has already been stated, SP three thirty is not a tenant protection measure, but actually creates new threats for tenants, since it allows and streamlines the demolition of existing housing, including rent controlled and tenant occupied apartments. While SB three thirty does require developers to meet a set of minimum standards in exchange for permission to demolish someone's home, these standards are nowhere near sufficient, nor are they accompanied by any systems of enforcement or accountability. And this is the reason why we need the TPO. While the TPO cannot stop demolitions from happening, if it is passed, it will be our strongest defense to protect tenants from displacement that state laws like SP three thirty allow. However, there are still many loopholes with the TPO that need to be addressed. For example, project sponsors have been known to use harassment, undisclosed buyouts, and other legal means of forcing tenants out of their homes. Project sponsors will then take advantage of these eviction pathways to get around their obligations to pay tenants relocation benefits, and to avoid providing tenants the right to return. The project sponsor could then apply for a demolition permit, acting as if the building had always been vacant of tenants. There are several pending amendments that seek to prevent such displacement. And we urge this committee to continue working on these amendments in order to

[Unidentified public commenter (brief interjection)]: close the loopholes that would

[Zachary Friel (SomCAN)]: result these amendments in order to close the loopholes that would result in tenants not receiving the full rights they're entitled to, and

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: in

[Zachary Friel (SomCAN)]: sound affordable housing being destroyed. Thank you so much.

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

[Asia Nicole Duncan (Build Affordable Faster California)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Asia Nicole Duncan with Build Affordable Faster California. We are in full support of this legislation. Thank you to Rep SF, supervisor Chen, chair Melgar, and Charlie Seamus, and the planning department as well. We appreciate all the work that has gone in to tackle these complex issues and challenges for tenants. We ask that you pass this legislation through with amendments that have the strongest tenant protections. Thank you.

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

[Kristen Evans (Small Business Forward)]: Hello. Kristen Evans from Small Business Forward. Without the passage of supervisor Chan's amendments, an estimated forty, forty five thousand tenants, including those in two unit rent controlled housing, are at significant increased risk of displacement. These parcels, frankly, should never have been included on an upzoning map, which incentivizes demolition. By doing so, it incentivizes the displacement of long term tenants from rent tenants from rent controlled housing because, frankly, the profit upside for property owners, real estate speculators, and developers is huge. As we've heard today, real estate speculation is being actively encouraged, including most recently by the CEO of Blackstone. That is why we must remove these parcels entirely from the map. But in absence of doing just that, then we absolutely must strengthen tenant protections to ensure we do right by low and middle income San Franciscans. Many of these tenants are also small business workers, artists, caregivers, seniors, and working class families who were not in a position when they moved to San Francisco to acquire property. Those tenants have contributed to San Francisco's success, and we must ensure that they're able to stay in the community that they've helped create. Thanks so much.

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

[Reina Teo (PODER, member of REP SF)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Reina Teo with Poder, a member of Rep SF. Would like to give a huge thank you to Malena from the planning department, Charlie Shammus from Cheyenne Chen's office. I think it's been an eight month investment in trying to do the best that we can to protect tenants. But, and the reason I thank you is because it's really hard. There's a lot of things that tie hands, and I think that I encourage you as supervisors, and as the board of supervisors as a whole, to look into being able to untie those hands to protect tenants. Secondly, I would like to say that no rent controlled units should be demolished, because we know we won't get that affordability back. And we know that it's not comparable what we can offer to those tenants. And so we really need to protect anything that is rent controlled, just to ensure that we can provide that housing for those families and keep them stable. So again, please pass this with the strongest form of amendments. And let's look into the future and see how we can make them even stronger to protect San Francisco. Thank you.

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

[Mitchell Omenberg (Affordable Housing Alliance; Anti-Displacement Coalition)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. I'm Mitchell Omenberg with the Affordable Housing Alliance, and working with the Anti Displacement Coalition and also REP. There's really just two things that I would like to say today, but there's unfortunately a third that I also need to say. The first is to just say thank you so much to supervisor Chen, her staff, Melena at planning, and all the other people who worked on this very difficult to draft and very impressive piece of legislation, and supervisor Melgar for additional amendments. The second thing to say is we're not done. There's a half there's a dozen amendments out there, so we don't really know where we're at. The third thing that I need to say, unfortunately, is that as impressive as this package is, if we incentivize the demolition of tens of thousands of units by upzoning them, this package, even with all the pending amendments, is not really going to be up to the task. And to say that what we wanna do is compare what we have with other jurisdictions and say, well, this is the strongest, that may or may not be, but it will still be inadequate to the task like every tenant protection measure that we've ever passed. This is, you know, not my first rodeo. One one of the many examples of things that we cannot do anything about is that every new building that is built will have a subdivision map filed on it at the time it is built. It will be condominiums this is just one example. It will be condominiums even if operated as rental. In a relatively short order of time, those people will lose their rent control protection and their other protections when those units are converted to ownership. That's just one of a number of reasons why, given all the different state laws there are, we can't really protect tenants that well if we incentivize demolishing their units.

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

[Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition as their community organizer. We're here to support the proposed ordinance, especially at a time when we need to produce more housing and protect the homes that we already have. We support proposals like this that help keep long time residents in their communities while giving mission driven builders a clearer path to create new homes. This legislation builds on the protections established upon s b three thirty, the Statewide Housing Crisis Act, which we strongly support. Califran California set a strong baseline to ensure no net loss of homes, and this local update ensures San Francisco carries that out clearly and consistently with transparency standards for both tenants and builders. These updates reinforce the priorities already outlined in the housing element, producing more homes while protecting the ones we have, and ensuring residents aren't displaced in the process. By aligning local rules with state law, this proposal brings more clarity and predictability to the development process. Clear standards benefit everyone, tenants, builders, and city staff alike, and help us move toward the goal of shared priorities in San Francisco, like adding more housing to help solve the housing crisis and both, tenant stability, which are both big priorities for us at HACC. So thank you for your time. Thank you for the work for the supervisors and the planning department, and we would love to see this continue in the conversation. Thank you.

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

[Romalyn Schmaltz]: Thank you, supervisors, for agreeing to adopt these, this TPO today, and for Chairman Melgar's friendly amendments. That's fun to say. Thank you. Please gather your courage to strengthen this ordinance through the aforementioned suggestions by many of my friends and colleagues that have already said them here today. These include removing the streamlining of developments that imperil any tenant anywhere, enforcing requirements, not just offering incentives. That word incentive, oh my God. Enforcing compliance with buyout disclosures and protections from the Ellis Acts, and no demolitions in priority equity geographies, etcetera, etcetera. You've heard a lot of them, and I think that we can really make this a TPO worth, worth its weight. So last Wednesday, just to give you an example of of, of how other people are thinking, I got, I got YIMBY lobbyist Jane Natoli to admit on the radio that, potentially 45 that the potentially 45,000 people left behind without this TPO are simply the collateral casualties of change. Those San Franciscans are the broken eggs in her abundance omelette. And she also parroted the line about low demolitions that people keep saying, oh, there's almost no demolitions. But her baby, the family zoning plan, will incentivize wrecking balls literally, through the roof. So thank you again for for the for the, she, I mean, she's pretty proud of all that ice in her veins, is all I gotta say. I can't believe it. Thank you for not, like, not being like Jane today. Thank you for putting a little more heart into this, even if it makes some people cry. Tears of ice. Have a good one. Thank you.

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

[Unidentified public commenter (St. Francis anecdote)]: Thank you, supervisors. Chair Malgar, eight hundred years and two weeks ago, Saint Francis of Assisi died. Along with Catherine of Siena, Francis was designated patron saint of Italy. He is also the namesake of the city of San Francisco. Today we ask, do we deserve it? In a forsaken chapel outside his hometown of Assisi, the icon of a crucified Christ said to him, Francis, Francis, go and repair my church, which as you can see is falling into ruins. I want to say for the record this is Wikipedia speaking. When I say Francis, please please think middle and low income San Franciscos San Franciscans. And when I say my church, please think of my city. Disinherited, he wandered as a beggar. In Gubbio, he was given alms, a cloak, and a staff. John Prine once wrote and sang beautifully, when the heart is never open, That's how every empire falls. Back in Assisi, Francis begged stones for the restoration of San Damiano, and these he carried himself and rebuilt the chapel. He rebuilt several more including Saint Mary Of The Angels, which is now at Vallejo, and Columbus Avenue. He has exhorted his fellow Italians to a life of penance, brotherly love, and peace. There is no brotherly love yet in the amendments to this plan. They need to include that. The worst of the city's instincts, a gold rush of money laundering will be facilitated by this wealthy family plan. It is not too late. Listen to those you have ignored. The city we all know and love is about to be consumed by a gold rush of greed. No building constructed before 1979 shall be upzoned, vacated of tenants, or demolished.

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

[Alice Mosley (Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council)]: Hello. My name is Alice Mosley. I am in Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council. And I would like to ask, is this legislation aimed at providing housing for need for people who need it, or is it aimed at providing more housing which is going to result in it being an investment vehicle?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I'm sorry, miss Mosley. We're taking public comment on the tenant protection ordinance, not the rezoning plan.

[Alice Mosley (Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council)]: Okay. Yeah. Well

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: That fact is coming next.

[Alice Mosley (Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council)]: Oh, okay. Okay. Thanks. Actually,

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: just keep your comments on the tenant protection ordinance. I

[Alice Mosley (Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council)]: appreciate it. Well, I'll speak then when that's when that item comes up. I'll speak again. Thanks very much for pointing that. Thank you.

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

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: Hello. Good afternoon. My name's Rami Tan. I'm a local architect. I think this is a great ordinance. You guys worked really hard on that with the board of supervisors and the community. There's a lot of great things to protect tenants. But I do want to caution, you know, I, as an architect, work with many contractors, developers. And pre pandemic, many of the projects barely penciled out. They were barely profitable, unfortunately. So adding a lot of these protections will probably take that number that Rachel mentioned, I think it was 18 demolitions a year, probably be down to close to zero. So which is good, because then we'll keep all the tenants, you know, in in their units, and the ordinance will have, you know, achieved its purpose. The downside is, you know, we won't be building any more much needed housing in the city. So I would actually suggest that the planning department and the board of supervisors look at and survey, out of all the rent control units, how many are occupied by tenants who have adequate means? Wealthy people who are sitting on rent control units, using them as second units, pay out terrorists, and they have other housing options in and outside the city. And figure out how many units there, and amend this ordinance not to protect those people. This ordinance should be protecting the lower and middle class, working class, and correctly, so giving them the subsidies necessary to, you know, endure issues of relocation and displacement. But they should not be protecting wealthy tenants. And then, you know, figure out how many units are left good for

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for sharing your comments with the committee. Thank you so much. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number three? Madam chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Before I, go to you, supervisor Chen, to make the motions, I, as I previously mentioned, we still to do some, cleanup and reconciliation of various amendments. And as much as I'd like to adopt all the amendments today, and move them forward, I think that, one of the three of mine is not quite ready since it does require consolidation with, the language that you have come up with, supervisor Chen. So as such, I would like to come back at the next meeting with that cleaner language having, you know, just coordinated percentages, and, you know, what is a requirement in the objective standards, and what is, you know, the point criteria. So as such, I would like it if supervisor Chen, you could move forward two of my amendments. The look back for the CU, which is on pages 10, lines one through six. And also the declaration of intent with the rent board, when you file a notice to withdraw rental units on page three in line 23. And then leave the third amendment for when we come back to this item, if that's okay. And we will have it together by then.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, chair Mountcastle.

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: Yes. Go

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: ahead. Yeah. I also want to truly appreciate all the public comments that, shared today. This is a moment, and an opportunity to really work together to ensure that we have the strongest possible piece of legislation that we want to get it right to protect all the San Franciscans. I actually would like to respond to some of the commenters. One of the commenters actually asked clarifications about location of replacement units. This legislation required that tenants in protected units have the right of first refusal to move into a comparable unit in the new housing that is developed on the very same site. So it's the same site replacement. During the interim period, where a project sponsor begins construction, and before the new homes are complete, tenants are provided three options for interim housings. That is either include a comparable replacement unit, or a relocation payment for up to forty two months. For low income tenants, this legislation provides a right of first refusal for tenants to move into a new unit on the very same site, at the same rent they were paying prior to vacating their unit, or an affordable rent, whichever is lower. Unfortunately for above moderate income tenants, due to state law pre preemptions, we are not able to guarantee that tenants have the right to the same rent that they were they were paying prior to vacating their units. But they do, however, still have a right of first refusal to move into a comparable unit in the new development at the very same site. I also would like to respond to the concerns that were expressed around priority equity geographies. I am very supportive of additional protections. I understand that supervisor Melga, has initiated, discussions with the city attorney, and I also believe there is more time needed, and we and more work need to be done to able to craft the right language. So give us more time, and we're working on it together. I also know that there are ongoing discussions between the community stakeholder regarding the proposed amendments from supervisor Malaga, and its impact on its requirement related to a buyout ordinance. I fully support the community's goal to ensure that all required disclosures in the buyout ordinance are conditions that a project sponsor must satisfy when there is a buyout agreement negotiated with tenants on a property where the project sponsors propose to demolish and rebuild. I have amendment, language that is ready to go, around the Bay Al language and the CU finding, but have held off until community has really the opportunity to fine tune it, the CU process, and also the work that we can continue to clean up until the next hearing, which will be in December, to ensure that we are, all stakeholders, have sufficient time to review it. With that, may I make a motion to move my amendments, clear? I want to make sure that I am super, super clear. Like, the amendments that I read into the record earlier, and including supervisor Melga's two amendments, and also the planning department's amendments, all, in, as of a file to to to adopt for today.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I'm sorry. I, Supervisor Chen, I have to clarify, given by the city attorney, that the two amendments that I read into the record also include clarifying pages fifty and fifty two. They're essentially the same amendments, but I just wanted to say that for the record. And, yes, back to you.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Great. Claire, do we have the motion? Okay.

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: Great.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: I have

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: a motion to amend offered by vice chair Chen. Vice chair Chen? Chen, I. Member Mahmoud. Mahmoud, I. Chair Melgar?

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: I.

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

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: What's that part of the yeah.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: And I would like to make a motion to continue this on December 1.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by vice chair Chen that this ordinance be continued as amended to the December 1 meeting of this committee, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmoud. Mahmoud, I. Chair Melgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

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

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. That motion passes. Good work, supervisor Chen. Okay. So, now, mister Clark, let's go to items four through nine together, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number four 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 area plan, Western SoMa area plan, Western Shoreline area plan, Downtown area plan, and Land Use Index. To implement the family housing 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 changes in the city's coastal zone. This ordinance also directs the planning director to transmit the ordinance to the Coastal Commission upon enactment. It affirms the planning department's CEQA findings and makes other findings throughout. Agenda item number five is an ordinance amending the zoning map to implement the family zoning plan by amending the zoning use zoning use district maps to, first, reclassify certain properties currently zoned as various types of residential to residential transit oriented commercial RTOC. Second, reclassify properties currently zoned residential transit oriented RTO to residential transit oriented one. Third, reclassify certain districts other than RTO to RTO one. Fourth, reclassify certain properties currently zoned neighborhood commercial or public to community business two. And fifth, reclassify certain properties from public to mixed use or neighborhood commercial districts. This ordinance also amends the height and bulk map bulk map to, first, reclassify properties in the family zoning plan to r h excuse me, to R 4 Height And Bulk District. Second, change the height limits on certain lots in the R 4 Height And Bulk District. And third, designate various parcels to be included in the noncontiguous San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency site special use district. The ordinance also amends the coast the local coastal program to first, reclassify all properties in the coastal zone to R 4 Height And Bulk. Second, reclassify certain properties to RTOC and neighborhood commercial district. And third, designate one parcel as part of the SFMTA SUD. And fourth, it directs the planning director to transmit the ordinance to the Coastal Commission upon enactment and affirm's findings throughout the ordinance. Agenda item number six is an ordinance which was duplicated from agenda item number five and amended during the Land Use and Transportation Committee meetings on October 2. Sorry. October 20 and 11/03/2025 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 with RTO zoning in the Priority Equity Geography Special Use District shall be reclassified to RTO one. Second, remove the base zoning and height and bulk changes to parcels located in the coastal zone north of Fulton Street. Third, remove two parcels in the coastal zone from the SFMTA SUD. Fourth, adjust the base height for the r four height and bulk districts for the street segments in the Inner Clement NCD, Outer Balboa NCD, Geary Boulevard between 32nd And 43rd Avenues, and other portions of Geary Boulevard, portions of Marina Boulevard, portions of Northpointe, and portions of Block 0025 along Hyde Beach And Northpointe Streets. And fifth, it eliminates the proposed change from R H 2 to Geary Boulevard, NCD for assessor parcel block knot number ten seventy slash double o two. And sixth, delete certain parcels along Ocean Avenue from the changes elsewhere in the ordinance. There's more. Agenda item number seven is an ordinance amending the planning code to first create the Housing Choice San Francisco program and incent housing development through a local bonus program and by adopting a housing sustainability district. Second, modify height and bulk limits to provide for additional capacity in well resourced neighborhoods and allow additional height and bulk for projects within, using the local bonus program. Third, require only buildings taller than 85 feet in certain districts to reduce ground level wind currents. Fourth, make conforming changes in the RH, residential house, RM, residential mixed, and RC, residential commercial district zoning tables to reflect the changes to density controls and parking requirements made throughout the ordinance. Fifth, it creates the RTOC, residential transit oriented commercial district. Six, that 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 the noncontiguous San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency site special use district. Ninth, permit business displ businesses displaced by new construction to relocate without a conditional 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 the zoning tables in various districts, including the neighborhood commercial district and mixed use districts. And twelfth, reduce usable open space and bicycle parking requirements for senior housing, amending the business and tax regulations code regarding the board of appeals review of permits in the housing choice program housing sustainability district. Thirteenth, prohibit projects using the local program from demolition of hotel uses. Fourteenth, amend the local program to state that other city laws would apply to local program projects, such as article four development impact fees and requirements, displaced business requirements in new section two zero two dot 17, tenant protections in the planning code or SF rent ordinance or other permitting or licensing requirements outside of the planning code. Fifteenth, amend 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 hotel. Sixteenth, remove the exception to section three seventeen for residential demotion that did not require a conditional use authorization to merge, reconfigure, or reduce a residential flat if the project adds at least one unit. Also, the ordinance amends the local coastal program to implement the Housing Choice San Francisco program and other associated changes in the city's coastal zone. Like the other ordinances, it directs the planning director to transmit the ordinance to the Coastal Commission upon enactment to mix 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, amend the local program to ex 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 of the planning code. Third, require that projects comply with the inclusionary ordinance through off-site units or land dedication to provide those units within a half mile of the project. Fourth, amend the local program approvals to expire if the project sponsor fails to obtain a building permit within thirty days subject to six month extension. Fifth, amend the local program to provide additional bonus square footage of 250 additional square feet for each two bedroom unit in excess of the dwelling unit requirements of the local program. Sixth, amend the housing sustainability district to prohibit any projects using the Housing Sustainability District to streamlining from demolishing or substantially altering category a historic resources or demolishing or converting any portion of a tourist hotel. Seventh, amend the SFMTA SUD by adding findings regarding the purpose of the SUD, adding pre application requirements and excluding properties in the coastal zone. Eighth, remove the exception included in the ordinance in board file number 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 further amended. It was further amended on 11/03/2025 to add additional ninth and tenth amendments. Those incorporate additional changes to the SFMTA SUD to limit the pre application requirements to sites that the mayor's office of housing and community development has determined are suitable for affordable housing. And tenth, it adds a new section to the administrative code to set board policy related to the sale or lease of a site within the SFMTA SUD. And our final item is agenda item number nine. It is a resolution transmitting to the California Coastal Commission for review and certification these amendments to the implementation program and land use plan of the city's certified local coastal program to implement the family zoning plan. It also affirms the planning department's determination under CEQA. Madam chair, items four through nine.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you so much, mister Clerk. I want to welcome president Mandel Minh, supervisor Connie Chan, and supervisor Steven Sherrill to this committee. For all those folks who are standing to my left eager to provide public comment, please have a seat because we are gonna have a full presentation on every single one of the amendments and also a robust discussion with my colleagues, and questions and answers with the staff before we go to public comment. So it's going to be a while, and it's a hazard. So please have a seat. And when we get closer, the clerk will call public comment, and you can line up again so we are eager to hear what you have to say. So to that end, we will have a presentation from the planning department about their modeling, methodology, and analysis regarding amendments proposed, and the determination on what they deem to be compliant or not. I respectfully request that all my colleagues hold their questions and comments until after the presentations, are done. You can discuss any proposed amendments so that the members of the public are able to hear them. And then we will go to public comment, and they will have an opportunity to respond. So since this is the third time these items are coming to the committee, we and we do intend to continue, the items until December 1. I'm asking that public comment be limited to one, minute per speaker. So, I also will note that while amendments will be discussed, no motions will take place until after public comment. So, there are, no other, you know, instructions. I will turn it over to, first, Ali Bondi, who represents the sponsor, and then to the planning department. Thank you.

[Ali Bondi (Mayor’s Office)]: Thank you, supervisor. I just wanted to start with thanking everyone, for coming today and for being a part of this process on behalf of the mayor's office, particularly the supervisors who've been engaged and, land use chair Melgar for her leadership and, partnership in making sure that we're, incorporating as many voices as possible while maintaining a compliant housing element, throughout this process. And with that, I will turn it over to staff for their presentation. Thank you.

[Joshua Switzke (Deputy Director, Citywide Planning)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Joshua Switzke, deputy director of citywide planning. Can we get the slides up, please? Thank you. So we'll cover a few topics today. As Chair Melgar said, we'll cover, the question of how we calculate the capacity of the proposed family zoning plan and our conversations with HCD about that. Also cover, again, in a little more depth than we did before, questions around SB79 and the interface with the family zoning plan. And then, Lisa Chen will, conclude the presentation, with some remarks about the pending amendments. So first, just before we dive into the capacity numbers, we basically have three charges in relation to the rezoning that we have to complete by January. The first is the highest order of the numbers. We have to rezone for what's called realistic capacity, for our RHNA shortfall, which is 36,200 units. And we'll get into more what we consider realistic capacity in a moment. The next is an important geographic policy consideration, which is regarding the principle of affirmatively furthering fair housing, which is a core tenant of the housing element and of state law, which is that we primarily concentrate the rezoning in high opport in what the state considers high opportunity areas. And that is where the family zoning plan is primarily concentrated. And lastly, as part of this effort, we have to identify sites, that are suitable for low income development as part of this effort. So again, the total RENA target for this period was 82,000 units. And on top of that, we planned for a 15% buffer. So of that 94,000 units, we were able from our existing sites and the pipeline. So that left our gap of 36,200. So our housing element, 7.1.1, talks in a little bit more detail, about how we ought to go about, doing this rezoning and calculating it. And again, reiterates the premise of of state law and the intent that these are sites that are suitable and available for development, and that we use methods that account for the reasonable likelihood that these sites are developable. I'll go into those different methods in a moment. We did we have been in close communication with HCD over the last many months to go over these calculations and the various methods. And they have found them suitable they have found them sufficient. And as you've seen, the letter that they sent us on September 9 said that they find these methods in combination to be, sufficient and showing that our rezoning is adequate. No one method on its own they have found to be sufficient, but it's the combination of looking at at the capacity from these different lenses, that they, find to be to be adequate. So I'll cover these three different methods, and they each kind of take a different look, at capacity. The first we call the citywide method, which looks at the total zone capacity that we're creating, and a proportionate share of that likely to develop over time. The second, we call the soft sites method. And that's a more traditional method that we've used for many years in the planning department, which is looking individually at specific sites and using their characteristics to identify those that are more likely. And lastly is a is a more economic analysis of what sites might be feasible based on certain economic assumptions. So firstly, the citywide method. This is was this is a method that was inspired by, various, academic sources, as well as other states that that use this method, like the state of Colorado, which basically uses the concept of the zoning buffer. Basically, how much zoning capacity, legal zoning capacity, are you creating in the aggregate as a share or as a multiple of the target you're trying to hit? And so we adapted this method and looked back in San Francisco to recreate what was our total zone capacity over the last two decades and how much of that was entitled for housing. And then using that as a pro rata share, looking at how much legal zone capacity we are creating through this rezoning and then taking that same percentage for the remaining years of the RHNA period. So this rezoning is creating several 100 thousands of units of legal zone capacity. And based on our historic entitlement share of past zoning capacity, that totals about 39,000 units that we might expect this to to be created. Nextly is the soft sites method, which is our more, traditional method. We find it very reliable over time in terms of identifying the sites that are, suitable and available for development, and what capacity they might be built out for over time. This is really the only method that lets us meet the state requirements that we identify and submit specific sites with their appropriate capacities as they might be, potentially developed over time and identify those sites that are suitable for low income, development, which have to meet certain characteristics. So in this method, we filter out, a lot of the kind of sites that we really don't consider developable. A, they have various kinds of A, they have existing housing on them, primarily multifamily housing. They may be, government owned and have government facilities on them. They may be historic landmarks and not suitable for development. Or they may meet other characteristics, including that they are substantially developed relative to the zoning. And for this, we assume that sites that are built out to more than 30% of the zone capacity are unlikely to be developed. And then for sites that have existing housing on them, we look at ones that are, again, both very substantially underbuilt relative to the unit potential. Generally, underbuilt relative to the unit potential. Generally, they have not more than 20% of the allowed unit capacity. And then of that, because we know that, historically, very few sites with existing housing, including single family homes, do get developed over a period of time, we took a small percentage of that. So in this method, the rezoning has a range of capacity of 40,000 to 64,000 units, broken out by income. And then, lastly, we call this the financial feasibility method. With this, we actually contracted with, a sophisticated modeling firm that works with jurisdictions all around North America called UrbanSim. And they have created this very dynamic online tool that we were able to use, where we put in the rezoning and actually simulate, using economic parameters, how many units are actually financially feasible to be built, using the actual real world, indicators for, prices and costs and what's actually on the sites today and then putting in what we think the future might hold in terms of economics. And with this, again, there's a range because it depends what you think the future holds in terms of the economy. And this returns a range of 19,000 to over 40,000 units. Importantly, this method is really only useful for, for projecting or or estimating the capacity for, above moderate or market rate and and moderate units, because that is, generally what the market is producing, and that's what these pro form a economic analysis are studying. As we know, 100% affordable housing is primarily built with subsidy, so it's not subject to the same sort of financial feasibility considerations. So that's the totality of of how we go about, measuring capacity. As you can see, there's a range of estimates depending on the methodology, and HCD was comfortable that through the totality of looking at these altogether that the family zoning plan, meets our obligations. I did want to address a couple other questions that have come up from the supervisors, notably supervisor Chan, sent a letter asking about some other recent legislation that's been adopted since the housing element, was approved in 2023, and how those are considered. Firstly, there were some zoning changes approved in the Central SoMa Plan area about a year ago. And those do add some zoning capacity, though it's sort of a tricky question. Primarily, that zoning would allow housing on sites primarily that are all currently entitled for office development. Almost exclusively, they're all fully entitled. And as such, we don't really consider them available, for development. That's another category that is generally excluded from all of these methodologies, is sites that are already entitled for development. If they're already entitled for development, they're sort of not available anymore. And until such time as those entitlements are abandoned or sought to be reentitled for something else, they're not available. We have had one applicant come in to potentially seek to abandon their office entitlement at 88 Bloxham. Others have been inquiring. But as of yet, we haven't really seen project sponsors come forward to want to abandon their office entitlements. And actually, some are actually seeking to actually increase some of their office entitlements. So the other consideration there is affirmatively furthering fair housing. Central SoMa is in a low resource area. It's not in the high resource part of the city. HCD has explicitly expressed concerns through this process, particularly as we've been going through the board process, about potentially shifting capacity out of the high resource areas and putting them in low resource parts of the city. So, while this housing capacity might be good in the big picture in terms of meeting our rezoning obligations, HCD is not likely to favorably look at trading off housing capacity in SoMa for other parts of the high resource parts of the city. The other questions was about fourplex legislation. The board did adopt a couple variants of laws that allow four units, or even, in some cases, six units on corners around the city over the last couple years. Those largely overlap with the family zoning plan area, and that is already subsumed within what we are estimating here. So it is definitely not above and beyond what we are estimating here. Also, those fourplex bills have various constraints attached to them, including ownership requirements and other things that have proven challenging, we think, for, actual production. And we haven't really seen much in the way using those. And so, it's not likely that the state will look fondly on us counting that towards our obligations. And lastly, there was a bill that allowed different density rules on sites with automotive uses. Also, that substantially overlaps with the family zoning plan area, and that capacity has also been already incorporated into this analysis. And it's also tough to actually estimate that because we don't necessarily have data on where parking and other automotive uses are on all of these sites. So it would be a challenging calculation to make. So with that, I'll turn to SB 79. We presented a few maps at one of the previous hearings. So I'll recap a couple and go through in a little more detail. Again, SB79 kicks in in July. And it sets minimum heights and densities around a half mile around rail stops and bus rapid transit or bus rapid lines that have dedicated transit lanes. You can see on the screen where all those are. It covers a majority of the city and substantially overlaps with the family zoning plan as well as other parts of the city. And you can see here are the heights that SB79 would permit. They range from 55 feet to as much as 95 feet immediately adjacent to rail stops. So these heights are, for a lot of the geography, above what the family zoning plan and existing zoning would allow. In some places, our zoning is above there, particularly on commercial corridors and in commercial areas in downtown. So there are two ways that SB79 allows local jurisdictions to either delay effectuation of the bill or craft their own alternatives. And this falls into two periods of time. One is until our next housing element in 2032. And that actually allows what the bill calls delayed effectuation, in which if parcels meet certain criteria, they can be exempted for this period of time. Most parcels in the city, not all, but all of them in the family zoning plan, would meet this criteria. And the other is through what's called the alternative plan. And this is a more permanent and sweeping way to craft a local alternative to SB79. And that can be done immediately, or it could wait till 2032. And the requirements for the alternative plan are that the area that you're seeking to have the alternative plan qualify for, which could be the entire city, has to have equivalent zone capacity as SB79. As well, individual parcels have to be zoned to at least 50% of the zone density of SB79. So with the family zoning plan, we will we will meet this, generally meet the capacity target. I'll just put these maps up on the screen real quick to show that if we don't adopt the family zoning plan, the map on the left shows where, SB79 would allow higher height limits than our zoning would allow. And you can see it's the majority of parcels, would, have higher height limits, than ours if the family zoning plan is not adopted. The map on the right shows some parcels in orange. Those are the few parcels, and they're all exclusively outside the family zoning plan area, that don't quite meet the 50% density of SB79 standard. And so whether it's in the near term or the long term on the alternative plan, we would have to make some modest zoning tweaks to allow up to 50% of the SB79 densities on these parcels in order to have a qualifying alternative plan. But we're in good with the family zoning plan, we're in good shape in terms of the big hurdle, which is making sure that our zone capacity is surpassing that of SB 79. And this is a very complicated mathematical analysis, and we've run it, using our best, interpretations of the bill. And we calculate, citywide, SB79's capacity is about 763,000 units. And in these same areas, assuming adoption of the family zoning plan, we would have over 800,000 units. So we're in good shape on that front, provided the family zoning plan doesn't substantially change and parcels reduce in density or taken out, Because, obviously, that now would run as close to or potentially under SB79, and we would not have an alternative plan in that case. So, there's, there's still more work to do after adoption of the of the family zoning plan. We do need to wait for MTC, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, to publish the final authoritative map on which are the qualifying stops and their exact geographies. We think we have a good handle on it, but they do need to publish that. We have been collaborating with other cities, ranging from Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, Oakland. We were in close communication with them about how everyone is interpreting SB79, and getting all on the same page. And we will need to work with HCD, to review and approve, an ordinance which the Board of Supervisors will have to adopt in 2026 if we want our alternative plan to be blessed. And so the board will have to take up an ordinance to say, this is our alternative plan. This is our math. These are the parcels we are counting. These are the parcels we're not counting. And HCD needs to approve that. They do have one hundred and twenty days from our submitting it to approve it. So working backwards from July 1, we're going to want to have it into them by the March. So we'll be here, hopefully, at the board in the first quarter of next year to take through, an SB79 implementation ordinance. So with that, I will, turn it over to Lisa Chen to wrap up, the topics for today.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors. Lisa Chen with the planning department. If I could get the slides once again. Thank you. So I know that was a lot of information. So we want to give kind of just a summary of the headlines from these various analyses. I will also say for both the supervisors as well as members of the public, we did issue two recent fact sheets. One on our housing capacity numbers, and another one on SB 79 that went over much of the same content at a bit of a higher level. But just to reiterate, as Josh noted, we have several very robust methods to calculate what we consider to be realistic capacity, and what the state considers to be realistic capacity for our RHNA shortfall, which is roughly 36,000 units. These were what were in the, package that we submitted to HCD in the summer, that they then reviewed and issued their letter of substantial compliance, preliminary letter of substantial compliance in September. And so going forward, as they noted in that letter, we need to consider all three of these methods in combination. I I will say that they when we, got the package of various amendments, we've been running them through, the various analyses to gauge the impact on capacity. And each amendment will affect methods different methods differently. It's not even across all of them. So that's why we're considering all three of them going forward. They also caution that future amendments need to be considered net neutral. As in, if there are amendments that would bring down either capacity or add constraints. You know, they are also looking at constraints which we haven't talked about as much today. But if we are making those changes, we ought to be offsetting them with other changes through other amendments. Just to give one example, you know, we looked at, for, for example, president Mandelmann's amendment, which is looking at exempting, listed and designated landmarks, from, the local program and the rezoning. We actually didn't consider listed landmarks in our sites analysis. So that would be considered a neutral amendment. Just to recap some of the findings from our analysis of SB 79. Again, the legislation just came out. We're still trying to understand, the, how it will be interpreted, and are awaiting further guidance from the state. But we do feel confident as a city, that adopting the family zoning plan will be a significant step towards creating our SB 79 alternative plan. So if it's adopted, we would be able to use our own height limits, which, as Josh noted, are in many cases, less than what SB 79, requires, especially off of the corridors. We are essentially, allowed through our our alternative plan to move the density around, and we are focusing it more on the corridors. So as also noted, there will be, even after the plan is adopted, a small number of parcels outside of the family zoning plan area, that would require some modest adjustments to their density limits, in order to meet, the minimum threshold for the alternative plan, which is basically 50% of s b 79 density. And we'll have so we're we're planning to do that before before the the legislation is is effective in July. And then we will also have opportunities to recertify our alternative plan. So essentially, the legislation requires that in 2032, which is, just after our next housing element, that we go through a recertification process to make sure that our zoning hasn't changed in the interim and has not become, out of compliance with s b 79. I do also wanna know, I know we're going to be hearing about a lot of of additional, changes to amendments that have been heard. We wanted to highlight that we are working, with, supervisor Sauter's office, as well as city attorney, to tweak an amendment that was already adopted into the original file. So that was the amendment around commercial replacement incentives. So if you recall, that was an amendment made in the local program, and it was adopted in the original file on October 20. And it essentially provides a square footage bonus for developers to provide a commercial space that is very similar in character as the space that's there today. So that means it's similar dimensions. It means on the storefront, it's kind of the similar linear dimensions. So essentially, you know, it's providing that as well as a additional bonus if you're, replacing or preserving a historic storefront. So, we're in conversation with the supervisor, and also with, the small business community, we've gotten additional feedback and have some suggestions that are non substantive in nature that would essentially clean up the language and make it a little bit easier to use. So this would allow a little bit more flexibility with the replacement spaces. So if you have a large space, for example, you could replace it with multiple smaller spaces, as long as they're still meeting kind of those dimensional requirements. It will also clarify some requirements around replacing existing spaces with a warm shell, as well as replacing spaces with a community benefit use. So with that, that's our presentation today, but we're available for questions. Thank you very much.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, miss Chen. So now I will, go to, my colleagues for, further amendments that they wanna present, comments, and or questions. So first, president Mandelmann.

[President Rafael Mandelman]: Thank you, chair Melgar. And, I wanna thank you and your staff and, the members of the committee, again, for, all of the work and the many meetings that you are, that you're going through. And so the the amendment that we have circulated, and that I hope you will consider today, is, an amendment that I have described, before here. It's taken us a couple, rounds to get the language exactly right. We'd hoped to introduce it back in October, then again at your last meeting in November. But I think, with help from the city attorney and the planning department, we have finally got, the language right to do, what, I would like it to do, which, is to exempt from the increases in height and the changes to density limits, the listed article 10 landmarks and contributors, in the family, in the family zone. And so, that's what it would do. And I, again, wanna thank Rachel Tanner and Lisa and Josh and everyone who's helped us try to figure this out, as well as Austin Yang and Brad Russi, and, of course, Calvin Ho in my office.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much, President Mandelmann. Did you have any other questions or comments? So what we I suggest we do, colleagues, is that, when we get to the point of making motions, I will turn to the planning department and ask for their assessment. And, I know that all of these amendments, have been discussed with HCD HCD and have been analyzed pretty deeply, so we will do that at the time. Thank you so much for all the work that you put into it and the collaborativeness. Okay. With that, supervisor Chan.

[Supervisor Connie Chan]: Thank you, chair Malgar. We've been at this for quite some time now. I I believe that San Francisco has always been committed to meeting the state's housing mandate. Our city has the capacity to meet the goal and develop housing that people can afford without displacements of people and small businesses, and without the demolition of our historical and cultural assets. In partnership with stakeholders across the city, we have been working with also mayor Lurie and his team, and thank you, Ali Bondi, in good faith, to improve the proposed upzoning plan by doing more to produce real family housing without putting tenants and small business at risk of displacement due to speculative real estate investments. We do also understand that the mayor's proposal is one version in response to the state mandate based on it's a response to the state mandate based on state senator Scott Wiener's decade long housing policy, which also include, threats of builder's remedy. This is why we must have a full and transparent accounting of the capacity the city has created over the years to really ensure we protect San Francisco and maintain local control. So after months of meetings, including the ones here in this chamber with the land use committee, and public discussion, and now with the steadfast support of our community stakeholders, we remain committed to the following nonnegotiables, and these are the amendments that these are the four nonnegotiables. We will not we will not demolish people's homes to replace them with market rate units. Our existing housing is our most affordable housing, including 20,000 units of rent control housing. We will not demolish the most important parts of San Francisco's iconic history and culture. We will protect our coastal zone and defend against privatizations of public access. We do, as a city, absolutely should demand real family housing. It is evident that the board of supervisors has been in good faith, myself particularly, been on and on since at the day one this legislation was at the planning commission, that we proactively work toward a compliance of the housing element. But I have to say, today, as elected leaders, we cannot simply agree to demolish San Francisco for the sake of meeting a state mandate legislated by a single-minded legislature based on unproven housing ideology. I sincerely hope. I sincerely hope.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. I'm so sorry. We're gonna be here for a long time. Please, if you want to express, ascent, just wave your hands in the air, but the noise or any audible expressions will not be tolerated. Thank you.

[Supervisor Connie Chan]: Thank you, chair. Supervisor. I sincerely hope, and I sincerely urge our mayor and colleagues on the board of supervisors to stand with San Francisco, defend our city, and accept the collective amendments into your proposed upzoning plan. Maybe to many, this is simply a legislative process with numbers game. I think for me, and I think for many, many people that I have talked with, that there's a fear and an anxiety that put them at risk of speculative real estate investment. And those fears are real. For us to simply ignore it because we say we want to meet the the state mandate. When instead, we should push the envelope and push the boundary to defend the city that we love, I just simply cannot understand it. I do not, and in my proposal and amendments, do not cherry pick, and select just certain lots over another just to pit our neighborhood against another. I also do not agree the approach that somehow pit the East Side against the West Side of our city. We can do better. We can build affordable housing. It does not have to be done this way. But I do understand. I do understand that, you know, where we're at. We've been through this process. I'm grateful to the land use committee. You've been at this for a long time. You have listened to many public comments, but I don't know if we've been heard. It doesn't seem like we've been. And if today resulted the fact that the proposed amendments that we've been working on it for so long to be rejected today, that I think it's a moment for San Franciscans to recognize that we must make some change in this city. If we can't do that with our elected leaders, then we must put that power back to the people and make that change. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. I will stop these proceedings if we can't follow the rules, that are of the board of supervisors. So please keep it down. Supervisor Sheryl, thank you.

[Supervisor Steven Sherrill (District 2)]: Thank you, Chair Melgar, for giving me the opportunity to speak at committee today and to Vice Chair Chen and supervisor Mahmoud. I'm here today to talk about a few supplemental amendments that have been circulated with your officers and, with your offices, excuse me, and the clerk. Specifically, these changes will amend the board file number 250,700, changing the zoning map, to change a handful of parcels while ensuring that there is no reduction in future housing capacity. Since I took office nearly twelve months ago, I've facilitated months of community outreach in District 2, hosting town halls, attending neighborhood association meetings, facilitating community roundtables, and much more. Through these conversations, and despite many differing viewpoints, there has been one consistent message. We need a zoning plan that meticulously examines, impacts, and analyzes the potential for new homes parcel by parcel. And I've been committed to doing this examination in District 2, going back and forth with residents and with the planning team here to ensure we have a district that is more accessible, more affordable, and just as attractive to our families and our workers. My amendments today will build on the ones I circulated on October 20 that affect a senior living facility and a dialysis clinic on Geary, a Safeway in the Marina, and the Geary Deli Square area. And following October 20, I've worked with the planning department to ensure the subsequent amendments being presented today do not denigrate the integrity of the map and do not require re referral to the planning commission. However, I also recognize that zoning will not be the end all, be all for housing affordability in District 2 in the city. We need to lower construction costs. We need to make a predictable and streamlined permitting process. We need to ensure consistent and strong, strong, affordable funding streams funding streams for affordable housing. I will continue to work on these necessary reforms to make it easier for San Franciscans to live here, to have children here, to grow old here, and to thrive here. Before I finish, I'd like to vocally confirm with the planning department here that my amendments as drafted will not result in a loss of housing capacity on the map. Can I confirm that verbally?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Super supervisor Cheryl, we were hoping to do that when we do the motions.

[Supervisor Steven Sherrill (District 2)]: Sorry about that.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: So I will turn that over That's fine. After every motion, to the planning department as we did last time, if that's okay.

[Supervisor Steven Sherrill (District 2)]: You have been working incredibly hard on this. And clearly, you will continue to work hard on this. I also want to ch thank Chair Melgar and Vice Chair Chen, for their respective amendments on tenants' rights and rent control protections, which are extremely important. Colleagues, thank you, and I hope to have your support for my amendments.

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

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Chair Melga. I I I want to appreciate the department's presentation around capacity. But I do have to say that the majority of San Franciscan who come through these chambers are not asking us about capacity. They care and I care about affordability. They care and I care about displacement. I believe this is a conversation that somehow and somewhat is tone deaf at this moment. I know that part of the blame must be placed on our state regulators, who have designed this exercise as it is just a math problem. I also very respectfully to all the staff that they have their hands on fully trying to comply with the regulations. But to be frankly, it's not enough. And I believe most of San Franciscan don't think this is enough. We have to go beyond these minimum requirements to have a more genuine discussions about how to achieve affordability, how to prevent displacement, because at the end of the day, we must work towards more thoughtful, affordable, infill development without displacement. The legislation before us completely, completely ignore that, the part of the conversation at a time when there's so much at stake, especially if this committee today, we do not adopt the equity amendments that is coming from supervisor Connie Chen and myself have introduced it. I have to say that I am very, very disappointed that the priority equity geographies were included in the original calculations. So my question to the planning department, were the impacted community consulted when the planning department made this change?

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: Thank you, supervisor. Rachel Tanner, department staff. We certainly did, as you know, three years of outreach on this project. And then probably another three years previously on the housing element. And during that time, the boundaries are roughly equivalent to what you see. And so that included all of our focus groups, hundreds of hours, thousands, really, outreach. So we did include those communities. And in addition, during the housing element and rezoning, we actually really focused on, communities that often are not heard from, folks who might speak a language other than English, to really understand how we can make sure that the rezoning is meeting the needs, of those folks in our community. So miss Chen can add, if she'd like to. But we certainly had a robust outreach that included all areas of the city. We did not just focus on areas that are in the rezoning, area.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Trustees, I want to add, or no?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Sure. Thank you, supervisor. Yeah, so just to reiterate what, Miss Tanner said, during the housing element, there was a really broad based effort that was in various languages. There were paid focus groups. We actually did, surveys in person, going to various events, going to food banks even, and trying to get people to provide feedback on, on housing needs across the city. During the rezoning itself, the focus has been more on the West Side, because that's where the rezoning is, tends to be taking place. But we still really tried to partner, in particular, with nonprofit organizations who can help us expand our reach. Because, as you can see, we have many staff here, but we're a limited team of staff. So we really were trying to partner with organizations who have, more of a day to day presence in some of these communities. But we were, trying to be equitable, and and reach kind of all the areas that were in the rezone proposal.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: And I also would like to make a request, as we, our previous hearing on this item, the committee make motion to amend and accept proposed amendments according to California Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD's, determination on capacity and constraint. And I would like to hear directly from HCD so we can better understand why we are only accepting certain amendments, and potentially rejecting others. Would it be possible to request HCD to attend our next hearing on this item?

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: Thank you. Thank you for the question, supervisor. Certainly, that's something that, you know, we work closely with them and try to secure meetings. We can certainly, on behalf of, put in that request. Of course, we don't control other government agencies and what they do. We certainly could, if you were interested, have a time that you could speak with them, and we can work with your office to figure out if we can get more information from them directly to you. And certainly, it would be the chair's discretion, I think, in terms of who participates in these hearings. I'm not sure, how HCD's participation figures into our protocols and things. But we certainly could follow-up, even without that, and get some feedback between now and the next land use hearing, if that were desired.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Got it. Thank you. Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: I want to thank the planning department and the mayor's office for your presentation and for sharing the process by which this famous zoning ordinance came into place, and on the question of capacity and the estimates there as well. I had a couple clarifying questions about the process based on some of the questions and concerns that were raised. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason we're so focused on capacity is because that is a requirement from HCD. And if we don't meet the estimates of capacity, then builder's remedy takes effect, and we lose all local control. Isn't that correct?

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: Thank you, supervisor. Certainly, if we do not have a compliant rezoning, our housing element could be deemed non compliant. And that's when the builder's remedy would be in effect in San Francisco.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: And one of the criterias for noncompliance is that any as this has already been approved by HCD, if there is any down zoning amendments, if there's any not any commensurate up zoning, that puts us into noncompliance risk.

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: Yes. That's exactly correct. We have been looking at all of the amendments truly, and trying to understand the impact, the estimated impact of different amendments that have been put forward by, supervisors, and also going over them for HCD. There are two things. We definitely hit on the capacity. That's somewhat clear, because it's numbers. Right? It quantifies things. But the other, kind of bucket that HCD looks at is also constraints. Does a part of our ordinance add more constraint that could constrain housing development? And there's a couple factors they look at. Housing supply, is it constraining the supply of housing? Is it adding additional costs that might impact financial feasibility of a project? Timing, will what is proposed take longer, and make a project take longer to be approved or built? Is there gonna be more or less uncertainty in the proposal? And then, also, can the project achieve maximum density with the rules that we have in place? So both constraints and capacity. And as you noted, if we're adding something that's reducing capacity or adding a constraint, are we offsetting that in some way to make up for it?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: And the other reason I bring up the need to meet compliance with capacity is that, again, if we're out of compliance, then the builder's remedy takes effect. But, there's also these questions about how does this help or hurt affordable housing? And, how much affordable housing money is at risk if we don't pass a compliant housing element?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: So, you know, that varies from year to year, because it depends on the funding sources. But, in preparation for the housing element adoption, our department did tally, you know, the grants that we had received across all of the different city agencies. And, it averaged around a 100 or a $110,000,000 annually. So it is a significant amount.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: So if we don't pass this, and again, just to be pedantic, we're going into conversations about capacity. Because if we don't get sufficient capacity, we lose over a $100,000,000 in affordable housing funding.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: That's correct.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: So it's not it is an important thing to reach capacity, because that's how we get affordable housing funding. But, in addition to that, there's an important component

[Brian Quan]: of the local

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: ordinance plan, which is actually gonna generate affordable housing funding. Is that correct?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Yes. We do have citywide inclusionary housing requirements. So essentially, every market rate development is contributing 15 to 20% affordable housing, or or more, depending on the project.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: And in addition to that, you have the local density bonus program, which is incentivizing actual creation of affordable housing funding.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Sorry. Can you repeat the question?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: We have the family zoning component, and then there's the local density bonus program. My understanding is local density bonus program is how this plan incentivizes funding for affordable housing. Can you walk through that again, for those who may not attended PROS hearings?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Yes, absolutely. So, as part of the kind of incentive package, within the family zoning plan, we have a local program, that essentially provides flexibility in a few key areas to incentivize them to use our program instead of state density bonus or other state programs. And one key area that we're, offering flexibility in is around affordable housing. So under the local program, you'll be able to use any option under section four fifteen, which is our inclusionary housing section of our planning code, including paying a fee, providing it on-site, providing it off-site, or doing land dedication. We're also creating a new, option for small projects to do a 100% rent controlled building. But, to answer your question about the fees specifically, we do think that that is a meaningful incentive, and some projects will take that. And when we collect fees, they go straight to our city agencies, so that's MOCD. And they're able to leverage those fees and pair it with other state and federal funds to basically, you know, amplify our impact. And that's how, basically, all of our 100% affordable housing projects are funded.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: So it would be incorrect to say that this plan does not neither incentivize nor nor prevent us from losing affordable housing.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: That's correct.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Another question was made about, HCD. Look, over a month ago, we've been in these hearings, and I have said that any amendments that come forward should have been discussed with HCD. All our colleagues have known this. And we've discussed that, the question of process. Which supervisors have reached out to the planning department or the mayor's office for a meeting with HCD over the last four to six weeks that have been going through these hearings?

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: It's a great question. Chair Melgar, having gone through the housing element adoption process, wisely suggested that we meet, over the last, I think, six weeks or so with HCD Weekly to understand, again, their perspectives. How are they evaluating things? To dig into, here's what we're hearing from our supervisors and what they're proposing. You know, what is their reaction, to what we've proposed? And so we've been able to, arrange those meetings. And they've been, I think, helpful, for and eliminating, certainly, for us as staff, and I think for the chair, as well.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: So every single member of the board of supervisors could have asked you, over the last six weeks, to coordinate a meeting with HCD if they were so interested?

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: That is correct. They could have asked that, and then may ask in the future.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: And I can say, personally, having worked with HCD in the summer on separate legislation, they had legislation that we had some conversation about. They responded to my email within a week, and we were able to get respective amendments for them. We had you on the calls as well with the planning department, and we were able to get to a comfortable conclusion. So it is concerning for me that we're raising this boogeyman of HCD at the last hour before a vote, when there could have been a good faith process for the last several weeks to reach out, if that was a serious concern from individuals. So I don't find it in good faith to bring up HCD as as this at this last minute, when this is something that any supervisor could have brought to their attention for six weeks. Last question is on the priority equity geographies. That is something that I had some concerns as well. But can we clarify, the priority equity geographies is, that includes areas like Fisherman's Wharf, correct? Based on our definitions as they are in the planning code.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: That's correct. So, would you like me to clarify just the

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Yeah. Can you define within the planning code? I understand there might be some mis some definitions to clean up here. That, part of the concern, as I understand, the predicated geographies, is that, some of them don't cleanly fall on the line of high opportunity, medium, low opportunity areas. So can you explain the difference of that?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Sure. So the priority equity geographies, those were an outcome from the housing element adoption process. And they were, their root was from a analysis conducted by the Department of Public Health called the Areas of Vulnerability. So essentially, it's a separate analysis than the one the state, develops when they create their opportunity map. So that's also known as the tax credit allocation map. It's used for, allocating affordable housing funding statewide. So the reason that there's a little bit of confusion is they're two different analyses. They look at different data. They're asking different questions. And sometimes there's areas of overlap. There actually are census tracts in areas that are both a a priority equity geography, and they are also considered well resourced. Fisherman's Wharf is an example of one of those areas. There are other areas that, maybe are medium resourced, but they're also, medium resourced by the state definition, but they're considered priority equity geography. And so, you know, that's why, from the beginning of the rezoning process, we've always been a little bit, flexible with the actual boundaries of where we consider the rezoning focus on well resourced neighborhoods is. And even in the maps that we submitted with the housing element, there were four different kind of initial proposals for rezoning. And some of them did include areas that were in the priority equity geographies, as well.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: So, to clarify the housing element, specifically, the intention behind equity in those contexts is really about ensuring that high resource areas, are actually building to match the historical focus that the city has done on low resource areas, and making sure that we don't build or incentivize more creation in the low resource areas. And the reason you're saying there might be some overlap is because the intention is those medium and high resource areas, and they just happen to fall in what is another definition of a peg.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: That's correct. And I will say that, you know, even if there are areas that we've identified for rezoning, if they fall within the priority equity geographies, all the same rules that apply to PGs, as they're, as we call them, will still continue to apply. So any requirements around notification, or public hearings, and so on and so forth. So, you know, I think that they were created during the housing element process to be somewhat inclusive, because we want to, you know, have some emphasis on areas that have traditionally had, either lower incomes or moderate incomes. But, you know, they were they were drafted in a way to be, you know, somewhat, inclusive and flexible.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: And given you said you're meeting with HCD Weekly, have they commented on how, some of the amendments related to PEGs would put us into compliance or out of compliance?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Yes, they have commented. So, you know, they are not typically going to give us a straight yes or no. They tend to give us kind of more cautionary guidance. So as we kind of noted, you know, when there are amendments that would affect capacity, you know, they kind of just kind of gently remind us, okay, if this is going to negatively affect your capacity, you should be thinking about making up the difference somewhere else. Or finding, if not capacity, then, you know, thinking about how do we, lower constraints or create other incentives to build housing. So, you know, they they haven't explicitly said, you know, changes that would either remove all the the pegs or anything like that. They haven't said outright that it's not allowable, but they've just, really cautioned us.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Thank you. That's all my questions.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor Mahmoud, supervisors, and thank you for to planning staff and to Ali Bondi. I'm just gonna make a couple comments before we go to public comment. The first is, to, supervisor Chen's, comments on the priority equity geography, areas. I actually, worked on this when, we proposed it. Part of our issue is that, you know, the different sources of data, don't, easily align. And, in San Francisco, we have, like, micro little neighborhoods. And from one block to another, there's huge changes. In my district, in District 7, the priority equity geographies include the San Francisco Golf Course, the Olympic Golf Course, and also a wonderful, you know, conference center. And all over the churches on Brotherhood Way, which have enormous parking lots, and actually are eager to redevelop their land because their congregations have dwindled. And the only way that they can remain is to do something with the enormous parking lot. So, you know, this is why, each of us as district supervisors fine tune the plan. I think that there is, some time to to do what you are looking for. But I think that because other supervisors in other districts sort of understand the nuances of our particular districts when it comes to the PEGs, it is best to look at that. I also wanted to address some comments earlier about pitting the East Side and the West Side, and give a little bit of historical context. Because I think that it's easy to overlook history in how we've gotten ourselves into the situation that we have gotten. I want to point out that rather than, you know, sort of saying we're pitting the East Side with the West Side, we have to acknowledge that we actually did down zone the West Side. We did that in 1978, which was coincidentally and actually, not coincidentally, the same year as California approved proposition 13, Which provided an enormous incentive for homeowners to stay in place. And created all sorts of other issues. Namely, the defunding of our public schools in, California. So I point that out because land use decisions that we have made over time have reflected the power structure of our city. And also racism and anti renter bias, which is what caused a lot of the prohibition against building multifamily housing on the West Side. So I think that besides that, there is an East West conflict, or dynamic that was created by decisions that we made, or earlier generations made. Because I wasn't around at that time. But when we also look at this current generation and future generations, there is a generation con generational conflict in how we're looking at the use of our land. How we're looking at, you know, our public transportation system. At climb at the climate crisis. At how we look at how we live on this city together, and adapt to a future that, increasingly, involves, precipitation and heat. And also acknowledges that our greenhouse gas emissions have created something that we don't want. And acknowledges that in the Mission, Chinatown, Bayview, all of the neighborhoods where we have intentionally concentrated development, have not gotten their fair share of, good schools, open space, every social determinant of health. And so, part of this plan is also to rectify some of these land use decisions that we have made earlier. But we're doing it with considerably newer outlooks. For example, tenant protections, affordable housing. The acknowledgment that rent control is a good thing. And that not only do we need to keep it, but we need to preserve it and expand it. And aside from this, particular, proposal, several of us have also produced legislation that is going concurrent. Like supervisor chance, tenant protection ordinance. The enhanced infrastructure financing district to produce money for affordable housing. Incentives for the production of rent controlled housing. A fund for small businesses. There's lots of things that are not quite included in the planning code, but also are things that we need to have a vibrant city that goes into the future, with more housing, more affordable housing, protecting rent control, hopefully expanding rent control, and also creating the kind of infrastructure that we need to go into the future. So with that, I think we're going to take public comment. We will come back. And then we will tackle each amendment one by one. I will allow my colleagues to provide comments to their amendments. We will hear from planning. And then we will make motions and make some decisions to go forward. So with that, mister Clerk, let's go to public comment on this item.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item numbers four through nine. If you have public comment for this item or sorry, this suite of items, please come forward to the lectern at this time, and you may begin.

[Eileen Bokin]: Eileen Bokin with speak. No District 4 upzoning without District 4 representation. No upzoning in the coastal neighborhoods West Of 46 at 42nd Avenue as the coastal zone, along with a buffer are essential to present prevent bastardization. No up zoning of Leakin Way and the Fulton Street adjacent to Golden Gate Park as the it would turn Golden Gate Park into New York Central Park, which is bordered by Billionaires' Row's Housing. San Francisco has 10% of the Bay Area's population, but 18% of the RHNA allocation. The mayor, the board, and the planning department seem willing to bend the knee and kiss the ring to the governor and his presidential ambitions. Thank you.

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

[Georgia Shutish]: Georgia Shutish. In 10/20/2021, there was a really good document that the staff put out, and I've never seen these this language since then. And that was about cashing out. And it was about s b nine, which is can be viewed as an upzoning. It's already upzoned. They got rid of single family housing zoning, basically, with s b nine. And, this said that the people would be cashing out their homes because there's no way to help support them keep their homes because of the speculative pressures that would come. So I think this is a prelude to the rezoning being approved, and I think there needs to be more mitigation. For example, whatever happened to the small sites program? Everybody wants to have multiunit housing. Well, there is multiunit housing and it's threatened. And I think that the small sites program is a mitigation that people need to reconsider as you up zone the West Side because there are a lot of single family homes with people who may cash out on the West Side as well as in the PEGs.

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

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: Can I get the camera on here?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: SFGOVTV, could we please display the there we have it. Please begin.

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: Hi. My name is Ramey Tan. I'm architect as well as owner of 2755 Sutter Street, which in the diagram is with the arrow. And our property has actually been left out of the upzoning. It's currently a single family house and has a lot of capacity. And we'd like to be included in the 65 foot. You can see the yellow surrounding our lot. And there are additional lots, our neighbors' lots, around that that also should be included in that upzoning. So we hope that the maps, as they get refined, that that happens. Also, to support my friends in the Sunset District, we hope that some of the 14 story buildings can be downzoned, and then that zoning spread out to lower rise buildings near transit. Thank you.

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

[Paul Wormer]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Paul Wormer. I wanna raise an issue about the affordability issue. And that is that the Housing Choice SF program, as I read the legislation, enables the upzoning boat dense heights without providing any inclusionary housing and with because you can do lots of nice projects that will get you luxury flats with great views, such as of Golden Gate Park, as someone mentioned, less than nine units, no inclusionary contribution, you're talking about potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of luxury units with no inclusionary fee. And when you look at the residential nexus study, you realize that's a problem. And an inclusionary fee of $249.50 per square foot, that's a joke, my friends, even with subsidies or or matches from the state. Thank you.

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

[Fred Sherburn‑Zimmer (Housing Rights Committee)]: Fred Sherbensimer, housing rights committee. We work with over 5,000 tenants a year in San Francisco with tenant issues. We love large, affordable buildings in all neighborhoods. And really, on most blocks, we would support them. And but we do need supervisor Chan and Chen's amendments to the city zoning plan. How much affordable money will it cost to replace those apartments demolished? TPO is important and needed, but we need to protect tenants. And the mayor and some supervisors keep saying that there are strong protections. But if I seem angry, it's because I'm tired of defending tenants facing displacement from speculator greed. I'm tired of watching people I love pushed out. And all this plan will do is make a lot of luxury housing if it builds anything. But every property worth more is going to cause displacement.

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

[Jacinta McCann]: Good afternoon, chair Melgar and committee supervisors. My name is Jacinta McCann. I'm speaking in support of the family zoning plan with the following specific comments. I support supervisor Melgar's small business fund and supervisor Cheryl and Sauter's amendments to encourage larger two to three bedroom family units. These will strengthen the plan. I oppose the proposals to exclude nearly all the residential sites from rezoning or impose restrictions that would undercut housing capacity and jeopardize our state housing obligations. If these proposals are approved, the purpose of this zoning plan will be basically eliminated, along with a viable path for affordable housing. Please move ahead with this much needed planning zone with the comments I've just made. I wanna thank you for your hard work, and I wanna thank especially the planning department staff too for the great job they've been doing. Thank you.

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

[Unidentified public commenter (supports plan)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. And, I am also, very much, in favor of Mayor Lurie's, family zoning plan. I'm a long term resident of San Francisco, over forty years. I'm tired of seeing people priced out of the city, so I hope that this family plan goes forward. I know we're talking about the amendments. And like my friend before me, I also support supervisor Melgar's small business fund and supervisor Cheryl and Sauter's amendment encouraging larger family units. Thank you very much.

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

[Marie Ribeiro]: Hi. Marie Ribeiro in Glen Park, and I would like to say that I don't think Glen Park has been considered in specific to how small the streets are. One car has to back up for the other to pass with the only main thoroughfare being two cars, and we are a transportation hub for two eighty, one zero one, BART, Muny, etcetera. We also are a bicycle route. And unfortunately, because of the small streets, the green zones are not marked. It makes for the congestion and the traffic putting pedestrians and bicyclists at risk. The new proposals with hikes up to 95, two blocks down at the BART station, 85 within the small business of Downtown Glen Park are only gonna add to this, putting more and more pressure on pedestrians and bicycles. The housing where they're not providing parking for families, They will need cars to take their kids to school and get to work and back. Please consider parking. Please don't overlook individual areas that are

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: just time is included.

[Marie Ribeiro]: To transportation.

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

[Zachary Friel (SomCAN)]: Good afternoon, Zachary Friel Samkan. I would like to dispel the YIMBY myth that upzoning is necessary to achieve racial and social equity. The YIMBY say we need to eliminate exclusionary single family zoning that has banned the construction of multifamily zoning or multifamily housing on the West Side. If that is the case, then why are none of the single family zone neighborhoods like Forest Hill, Saint Francis Wood, Seacliff, or Billionaires Row not included in the plan? Think of all the housing units that could be built on one billionaire's home. Why not add capacity there? Those are very well resourced neighborhoods, and those neighborhoods are certainly exclusionary to low income people like myself. This plan is not about equity at all, because if it were, the demolition of our homes and the displacement of thousands would not be on the table. Housing capacity should not be built by destroying our lives. Thank you.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Thank much for addressing this committee. Next speaker, please.

[Theresa Dolalas (SAMCAN)]: Hello, supervisors. Again, my name is Teresa Doolalas of Zong, Kent. You know, zoning is being promoted as progress, but then, you know, we have heard proponents admit the truth, openly saying that we'll just have to accept that there will be people displaced. How dare we frame human lives as acceptable losses? How dare we sacrifice families, seniors, businesses, and cultural communities in the name of housing production that doesn't even guarantee affordability. Where will people go? Most likely outside San Francisco, far far from their schools, churches, and jobs. Meanwhile, HCD says San Francisco capacity 36,000 new housing units, but those units can already be met by our vacant housing stock and pipeline projects without destroying rent controlled communities. So why risk mass displacement for something we don't even need to up zone to achieve? We, San Francisco, cannot keep allowing developers to dictate the terms of our future. We deserve bold leaders that protest time has expired. Protects people, not policies that divide them.

[Jose Luis Gondra]: Next speaker, please. Hello, supervisors. My name is Jose Luis Gondra. I'm a young person who loves this city and wants to spend my life here. Essex, one of the largest West Coast landlords with over 60,000 units, bragged that this month's earning call that San Francisco was its highest performing area because of its steep rent growth. They even said that the quote, fundamental backdrop remains favorable because the rate we're building housing keeps declining. Those with money in the game know that when cities don't build, landlords are only further empowered to jack up the rents. High income residents will always have options. Middle income families can stretch, but low income San Franciscans face the steepest rent hikes and pay in the highest displacement risk. A recent Pew study found that when cities under produce homes, it's class C apartments, the ones low income people rely on that see their biggest rent spikes. There's a potential supply unlocked by family zoning as a critical step to reverse that trend. And the risk of displacement is real, but blocking growth only makes it worse. Research from right here in San Francisco shows that building new housing reduces nearby residents displacement risk by 17%. I'm grateful to the members of this committee for holding this difficult but important word.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Speaker's time has expired.

[Jose Luis Gondra]: Thank you.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: But thank you much for addressing this committee. Next speaker.

[Kristen Evans (Small Business Forward)]: Kristen Evans with Small Business Forward. As it stands, the family zoning plan will display small businesses. I know for a fact it already has through non renewal of tenant leases. This plan incentivizes housing that is largely unaffordable to small business workers, most of whom make 30 to 80,000 per year. We urge the board's land use committee to adopt Supervisor Chan's proposed amendments. And we urge the committee members to state a commitment to advocate for an emergency appropriation of $2 to $3,000,000 in funds for small business relocation assistance. The creation of a fund without funding is a fundless fund. Additionally, we urge the HCD, the state, be invited to a future land use meeting to engage in a public discussion of their compliance analysis of proposed amendments, including those of Supervisor Chan to remove all rent controlled units. Having those conversations behind closed doors and not at a public hearing leads to an erosion of public trust, that decisions are being made without transparency and without accountability. Residents, small businesses continue to be concerned that this plan is doing to them, not with them. We will happily return to be part of that public conversation about the state position on amendments that the chair can accommodate HCN's appearance at a future

[Jose Luis Gondra]: meeting. Next speaker, please.

[Mark Solomon]: Supervisors, Mark Solomon. This plan has as much of a chance of lowering housing prices as Egyptian pyramids did of ushering in the pharaohs souls into the afterlife. These condos will all be built on the Cheops. Didn't the Millennium Tower use bricks made without straw? Didn't Mr. Tandler's thirty three Natoma flood like the cataracts of the Nile? This plant smells like ass. The very real threats of the builder remedy are nothing but tut tut, though. The Mission has not seen demos of rent controlled buildings for LUGS condos. Why are advocates lying to scare San Franciscans when they abandon our Mission neighbors? The neighborhoods we're talking about voted for Scott Wiener twice and Dan Lohrey when they ran on upzoning for pyramids. The East Side voted against upzoning, and we got upzoned. Will whiter and more Asian American districts get a better deal than blacker or browner districts? Or will we get more Jim Crow planning? We need equity in protection of rent control parcels. Whatever you can get for the mission has to go for the West Side too, or else we have Jim Crow planning. Equity means sharing the pain. And capacity is central. If we're up if we miss this, then the already up zone neighborhoods bear the brunt of the builders' reign.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Time has expired. Thank you much, Mark Solomon. Next speaker.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Hi. My

[Jessica Visnes]: name is Jessica Visnes. I'm a resident of District 2. And I'm here today to talk about my concerns about the up zoning in District 2, particularly the up zoning to 14 stories on Lombard Street from Laguna going East of Van Ness. My understanding of how this came about was that it was in response to a proposal from the Cow Hollow Association. And I'm attaching a copy of that proposal to my comments today, and I'm hoping you will read it. The proposal had asked to taper the increase of heights on Lombard, so there'd be no increase from four stories around the Palace Of Fine Arts, so people could see it, and then gradually increased to six stories as you get closer to Van Ness. This seemed to be in scale with the neighborhood. My understanding was that in response to the proposal, heights were lowered around the Palace of Fine Arts, but popped up to 14 stories instead of the six stories that was asked for. And this was done to maintain account. So it was a math issue and not a thoughtful planning. This part of San Francisco has many of the views of the bay that are iconic. These blocks on Lumber would affect views of Fort Mason and Alcatraz from many viewpoints. So I'm here again to ask you to lower the heights from 14 stories and maybe trade off for business. That gentleman who asked for

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Speaker's time has expired. Next speaker.

[Peter Stevens (Build Affordable Faster)]: Good evening. At this point, Peter Stevens, build affordable faster. We support the Chan Chen amendments. I think our biggest issue with this proposal, though, is that it does not have an adequate affordable funding, proposal to go along with it. I'd also just like to say I'm kinda sick of hearing HCD. We all know that Scott Wiener was the one that put us in this mess, and I just think we need to call it out. Next speaker, please.

[Mark Bruno]: Mark Bruno. I also support the Chen and Chan amendments. I found it amusing just now to hear supervisor Malmoud ask the planning department only about capacity, never mentioning the word constraint. Two weeks ago in this very room, every single amendment that was questioned by the supervisor of Malmoud, all the planning department, he asked about constraint. And every time you guys responded to planning, oh, there might be some constraint, he voted against it. The other two supervisors voted for it. We should know as citizens the difference between constraint and capacity. I call the housing department. The state housing any one of us can. And you all should know that constraint is nothing more than signing a permit when it's not required to be signed now. It's just frivolous rhetoric. Thank you.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Thank you, Mark Burdo. Next speaker.

[Mary Bugarin]: My name is Mary Bugarin, and I'm a just I'm in District 3 resident. And I have two comments. First, I think we need to remove North Beach from the plan. It was never in the plan, and our supervisor, unfortunately, put us in the plant. We are already the densest neighborhood in the state, so I think we should be exempt. We've already densified enough. And as a, public school teacher, I know what it is like for kids in our schools, public schools, to be displaced, and it is not fair to them. I realize that under the certain circumstances, concessions are made for families with kids, but these concessions are not enough. The city would still be allowed developers to remove kids from their neighborhoods, even if it's not during the school year. Why should a whole family be moved from its living quarters just because their building isn't tall enough according to the developer's self interested criteria.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Thank you much for addressing this committee. Next speaker.

[Robert Ho]: Dear supervisors, my name is Robert Ho, and I'm on the board of the Ingleside Terraces Homes Association. We have been in opposition to the rezoning plan as it has been written because it is unnecessary and it aims to demolish established and functioning neighborhoods. I will read an email that our President Paul Conroy sent this morning to Supervisor Milgar, and the Board of Supervisors, and Mayor Lohrey. Our members have provided public comment before your committee, expressing our strong concerns about this plan. Re reiterate those concerns and further request that if this plan is adopted as a minimum, one, adopt the amendments proposed that seek to prevent demolition of sound housing and historical resources. Two, remove remove density decontrol. Three, preserve setbacks, height transitions, and massing rules. Four, preserve 40 foot height limits for commercial corridors adjoining low scale residences. And five, preserve historic resources including

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Thank you much for addressing this committee. Next speaker, please.

[Unidentified public commenter (eminent domain concern)]: I'm concerned about the rights of property owners for homes and and businesses located in the targeted areas as seen on the map. I'm assuming all of the homes and businesses theirs will be demolished, or will they be selected only certain certain properties will be chosen to be demolished? And I'm concerned about eminent domain being used by the city to accomplish their goals. So I just ask that the city would not use eminent domain to accomplish their agenda and consider, the rights of the property owner for their home. Thank you.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Thank you much for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Heather Davies]: Chair, supervisors, Heather Davies. I am convinced that San Francisco residents will be much better served by embracing the builder's remedy than passing this family zoning plan. The impact of density control and uncertain zoning on virtually every parcel in the areas zone rezoned is worse. The loss of state affordable housing and transit money will be absolutely diminimous compared to the range of or magnitude of trillion dollars or more to meet all the infrastructure needs. CEQA documents are going to be, go to be litigation. That creates uncertainty. All we need is for the interest rates go down and affordable funding affordable housing funding already approved by the by the citizens to be used for affordable housing. The builder's remedy can and and will be itself remedied by the state legislature. This month's elections have demonstrated that conservative Democrats embrace abundance.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Speaker's time has expired. Thank you much for addressing this.

[Jenny Gebhardt]: In favor

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: of Next speaker, please.

[Romalyn Schmaltz]: Thanks again, supervisors. I'm Romalyn Schmaltz, and your constituents are watching. And, your record on this monumental matter will always be recalled as we select our electives in upcoming cycles. Connie Chan's four non negotiables are not negotiable to us either. The grapevine says that the committee chair already plans to block supervisors Chen's and Chan's strong authentic amendments, and that she won't invite HTV, the state oversight agency, to answer questions publicly for us. Why? Why won't the chair let the sunshine in? Fear of democracy much? Chan and Chan's compliant amendments must advance to the full board so the public can see where every supervisor stands. We deserve transparency. And as for Fisherman's Wharf, you all don't work for Blackstone, but for now, you work for us. So make our waterfront our own, or you might find your career under the defunded bus.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Next speaker.

[Brian Bronlich]: Hi. My name is Brian Bronlich. I live in Bernal Heights. I'm a member of d nine Neighbors for Housing, and I'm speaking in support of the family zoning plan. My housing experiences across San Francisco have consistently reinforced the housing shortage that plagues our city. I once viewed a one bedroom apartment surrounded by dozens of other applicants, and at the bottom of the application, it asked, are you willing to pay more for this apartment? And if so, how much? Our housing shortage in San Francisco breeds these kinds of predatory tactics and higher prices. Tenants shouldn't be competing with each other to get apartments. Apartments should be competing to get tenants. This is my favorite city in the world. It's where I met my wife, and we got married here at City Hall right over there. But housing experiences like mine are sadly far too common. We need to build more housing of all sizes across the city in order to level the playing field. And in order to do that, we must pass the family zoning plan. And I hope in the future, you'll consider adding Bernal Heights to the plan. Thank you for your time.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Thank you for addressing this committee. Next speaker.

[Unidentified public commenter]: Good evening. Big tech and the real estate industry are reaping gains here from their generous donations to Scott Wiener and the very well funded Yimi lobbyist groups who get millions annually. All of these donations have bought a zoning plan that will benefit most predatory real estate corporations like Blackstone. Trusting private real estate developers to fix housing affordability makes as much sense as trusting oil companies to safeguard the environment. They're in it for the profit, not the public good. Even Corey Smith, executive director of EMB Group Housing Action Coalition, admitted last year to the planning department that we need the rents to go back up if new housing is going to be built, because otherwise, of course, it doesn't pencil out for developers. While I oppose the up zoning plan, I support and greatly appreciate the amendments proposed, to add some perfection protections for tenants, small businesses, and historic resources. And I urge you to send supervisor Connie Chan's amendment to the full board for a vote. Voters will remember whether you supported the people or the corporate donors.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: But thank you much for addressing this committee. Next speaker, please.

[Tate Hanna (DBI Legislative Affairs Manager)]: Board of Supervisors. My name is Andy Katz. Here we stand again, giving up another day of our time to try to protest our to protect our unique San Francisco neighborhoods from the severe damage that will result from the developer, speculator, and Sacramento driven Red Scott Wiener so called family zoning plan. We support the Chen and Chan Amendments, which aim to protect rent controlled housing from demolition and tenant and small business displacement. Also, we strive to preserve historic and cultural resources, including legacy businesses and neighborhood landmarks, which comprise the very soul of our city. Why has the Department of Housing and Community Development not been invited to report to the public at this upsetting hearing in public, out in the open, not in private with the supervisors. HD's HCD determines if we are in compliance, they need to explain themselves to us. This process should be taking place all out in the opening. That is not what Weiner, Lurie, or Supervisor Sauer want. District 4 was left with no supervisor representation during this upzoning process

[Davey Kim (SF YIMBY)]: before that's right.

[Tate Hanna (DBI Legislative Affairs Manager)]: Mayor

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: But thank you much for addressing this committee. Next speaker, please.

[Davey Kim (SF YIMBY)]: Good evening, supervisors. My name's Davey Kim. I'm a volunteer lead with SF Yimbi. And I'm speaking in support of the family zoning plan, with all of the amendments that are conducive to building more housing in San Francisco, and also meeting our state compliant, housing compliance obligation. I am about to raise a family. Hence, I'm very supportive of this family element in the family zoning plan. My wife, I guess, and my son is about to speak behind me. But I would just like to underscore that how I would love, in the future, to tell him the story about how we were at a crossroads today, to define whether or not San Francisco was gonna be frozen in stasis, and reserved only for wealthy, homoony incumbents, or if San Francisco is going to be built for all populations of all incomes, of all backgrounds. I support San Francisco of the latter. Thank you so much.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: And thank you, David Kim. Next speaker.

[Jenny Gebhardt]: Good evening, supervisors. My name is Jenny Gebhardt. I'm a nonprofit employee and manager here in the city. And this is Desmond. He is a baby. I am here speaking in support of the family zoning plan. And to give you an idea of the the depths, the strength of my conviction, I am pushing his third nap, his last nap before bed to speak to you. And if you've ever been involved in caregiving for a four month old, you know the the disaster that I'm flirting with every minute that passes. I am so proud that he was born here, Desmond was born here, and I hope that he's raised here. My husband and I have chosen to be in San Francisco because we know it. I know it as a city that welcomes change and embraces new people. I think the family zoning plan reflects those values, and values that I hope to pass on to little Desmond here. So thank you for your time and your support.

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: Thank you,

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: mister Jenny Gephardt. Next speaker.

[Stan Hayes (Telegraph Hill Dwellers)]: Yes. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Stan Hayes from the Telegraph Hill Dwellers. And while we continue to oppose the mayor's up zoning plan, we strongly support the amendments proposed by supervisors Chan and Chan. We urge you not to vote until you have fuller analysis and clarity on the upzoning implications of SB 79, not just the limited slide presentation you saw today. Also, we urge that the full board have a chance to vote on these amendments, all of them, perhaps as a committee of the whole. You should not move forward with this subzoning plan. But if you do, please adopt the amendments proposed by supervisors Chan and Chen, including exclude all historic resources, protect existing residential units, remove parcels in the priority equity geographies, SUD, Exclude the coastal zone. Remove density decontrol from calculating base density. Adopt a progress requirement. Use it or lose it. Require inclusionary zoning to be nearby within a half mile. Please make this plan work. Above all

[Jonathan Boonemann]: Speaker's next slide. Do no harm.

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

[Steven Torres]: Good afternoon. Steven Torres, Mission Bernal, speaking in support of the Chen and Chen Amendments. There's been a lot of time, given to the obligations our city has to the state, but very little about the obligations the state has to our residents, which is to protect them. Instead, we are entertaining conversations about attracting new vibrant residents to replace the ones we have, the seniors who have worked their entire lives to age and place in the city they love, the working poor who continue to try to hold on even as hours decrease and jobs dry up. Even those of us that have lived in subsidized housing face higher rents and less wages with no protections, and yet we seek to exacerbate that. Framing things in equity is nice window dressing, and emergency funds are great until you have to go through the stress of applying for them. The idea that any San Franciscan is expendable in order to build housing with no guarantee is unconscionable. You have been elected to represent the interests of your constituents and their future, but also their future.

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

[Kaye Walker]: Hello. Kate Walker. I do support the ten and ten amendments. If we are stuck with, and I didn't know that we, maybe we are not, Scott Wiener's imposition of putting everything, to do with upzoning near, transit, and staying out of residential areas, basically, these corridors. If that is I don't see why you, can't fight that, because it doesn't have to do with housing per se, or how many houses, how much housing we have here. That's what I'd like, first of all. And then if we're when that if that is taken care of, still having, the tenants rights, all of the new, ideas. Thank you.

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

[Ocean Blue Coast (Senior & Disability Action)]: Hi. I'm Ocean with senior and disability action as a housing and transit organizer. We oppose this luxury market choice plan until amended because it prioritizes luxury housing choice for people who are not living here yet at the expense of the affordability needs of people who have lived here for generations. Seniors and disabled people cannot wait for the market to trickle down its benevolence in the form of years from now realized affordable housing. Our Our stability now cannot be traded for speculative future profits. We must invest in real community centered plans to refocus on affordability and real opportunities for families, seniors, and working people that live here already. Our members have asked, where is the accompanying transit investment for these denser transit quarters? SFMTA has a massive budget shortfall, and none of the plans to close the gap include prospects of denser transit quarters. This is a broken system that allows only affordable, accessible housing to be built if luxury market choice towers get built first. This is a divisive plan centered on profits, not people. We support the amendments that protect tenants and small businesses and demand a plan that centers true affordability over developing profit.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: For sharing your comments.

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: With the committee. Let's have the

[Lila Holzman]: next speaker, please. Hi. I'm Lila Holzman. I am speaking in support of the family zoning plan. I'm a native Californian and a proud San San Franciscan. And I believe a majority of SF residents want what's best for our SF community, and that includes more places for people to live, including low income people, young people, and families. Since I unfortunately lost my job in at a climate change nonprofit a few months ago, I've been getting more involved in my local community. And I've been learning what can and can't be accomplished through zoning, and it seems clear to me that passing this zoning plan, which smartly prioritizes density along transit corridors, makes sense as an important step with lots of other factors that will continue to need to be addressed beyond this family zoning plan. Right now, we're driving millennials and starting looking to start families as well as younger generations away. I encourage you to pass this plan and support only amendments that do not lower the potential of this plan and make it unduly difficult to implement. I truly believe this will help us change our city for the better. Thank you so much for your time.

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

[Jonathan Boonemann]: Good evening. Again, supervisors, my name is Jonathan Boonemann. I'm a resident of District 2, and I'm with a group called Northern Neighbors. First of all, thank you for the one minute time limit. I feel like that really speeds up the process. Also, in order to speed up the process, I would really hope if there is a vote today on the plan with all the non obstructive amendments included. My wife and I are really hoping in the near future to be able to buy a nice two bedroom home in my neighborhood in District 2, and I hope the family zoning plan will be a step that helps us and anyone who is in the same situation that we are, you know, to advance in their stages in life and not and help the the young people, help the new generations to be able to live in San Francisco, not just those who are already here. Thank you.

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

[Nick Ferris (President, Telegraph Hill Dwellers)]: Chair Melgar, supervisor Chen. I'm Nick Ferris, president of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers. San Francisco needs more affordable housing, but it must strengthen and not displace, the communities that make this city home. It must be table stakes that we serve those who are actually living here today. The amendments from supervisors Chan and Chen bring needed balance to the family zoning plan. First, exclude all historic resources. Once these districts and landmarks are lost, they're gone forever. Second, protect existing homes. No upzoning should allow demolition or conversion of any unit, especially rent controlled housing and longstanding residential flats. Third, remove the planning, equity, geography, SUD and the coastal zone, which cannot absorb more speculative pressure. Fourth, adopt a real use it or lose it shot clock So approvals lead to actual homes and not lang banking. Thank you.

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

[Pete Siegel]: My name is Pete Siegel. I'm a North Beach native, and I am currently very disturbed about the, up zoning plants. For one thing, in 2017, the city estimated that we had then 61,000 empty units in San Francisco already. And then during the pandemic, the city lost another 100,000 tenants. So what do we need this upzoning for? I would like somebody to give me a good reason why we need to change the city in order to, make more units available.

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

[Blandina Farley]: Hi, supervisors and everybody. I'm Blandina Farley, and I live in the heart of North Beach. And I came here in the early seventies, been walking the streets of San Francisco since then, sharing the joy and love and spirit of San Francisco with people from all over the world. And they come here to see our amazing history, feel our spirit. And I'm really, I'm really scared and sad that, some of it might be paved over, maybe like the Fillmore in the early days. So I just wanna, request I have so much more to say, but I we have a short period of time. So I'm just thinking, let's, maybe we could put this plan on pause and talk to the people who live here, who work here, and guide the world through these streets. And we wanna protect the spirit while building the housing we truly need in the right places. Because once our heritage is gone, it's gone for for all time and we can't get it back. So thank you.

[Aristos Kamiji (MEDA)]: Thank you.

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

[Kate Bloomberg]: Hi. Thank you, supervisors and, the planning commission for all of the inform interesting information. My name's Kate Bloomberg. I, live in District 10, and, I've been in a rent control department for twenty four years. My son was born and raised there. I hope he can someday afford an apartment in San Francisco as well. And I've you know, where I live, we've seen the dog patch go from just a few thousand units to 20,000 or more. We've seen people come in. We've seen new, restaurants and businesses. It's wonderful. It makes the city better. And I ride my bike around, and I look at at all sorts of empty lots that could be redeveloped. So many places throughout the city, where there is room for more houses and more people, and that can help and support small businesses. So I really so support the amendments. This time is Sorry. Thank you.

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

[Gwen (District 1 resident)]: Hello, supervisors. I'm here to today to ask that you support supervisor Chan and Chen's amendments to the family zoning plan. Earlier today, I spoke about how this plan, without any revenue raising measures for affordable housing development, only incentivizes real estate developers to buy up this land, evict the existing tenants, demolish the existing housing, all for the often empty promise that one day, that one day, private developers will build market rate housing that is completely unaffordable to our small business workers. And I live in the Richmond, and I really do wanna see deeply affordable housing there, multi unit dense housing. But I believe that in order to be a realist, you have to be a materialist. And this plan as it stands right now is a fifty year gentrification plan and a four year promise for a bunch of empty lots in your district that likely will not get developed in this current administration or during your term in office.

[Unidentified public commenter (West Russian Hill resident)]: Included. Thank you

[Gwen (District 1 resident)]: for sharing your

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

[Dane Willett]: Hi. Good evening. My name is Dane Willett. I live in Coal Valley. I'm asking you to support the family zoning plan without the amendments that could jeopardize getting this passed through, the HCD process. My wife and I recently moved here from Texas. And we really want to start a family soon and raise our kids here in San Francisco. But housing prices, as I'm sure you know, are incredibly high in the city. The family zoning plan is a good start to get those costs under control. As we heard from the city economist a couple weeks ago, we are at risk getting in compliance with the housing plan. And as we heard in questions to city planning earlier today, if we fall out of compliance, we are risking over a $100,000,000 in affordable housing money. With this in mind, we need to reject the amendments that could seriously jeopardize us hitting the goals outlined by HCD. This is more than just an abstract number. It is tied to state law, and it is tied to people like me and my family being able to remain and grow up in this city. Thank you.

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

[Paul Michael]: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for your hard work. My name is Paul Michael. I live in District 8, Coal Valley. I'm a forty year resident there. It's a very dense historic designation neighborhood A. My only comment is, yes. It's a $110,000,000 which to me is pigeon feed in a $14,100,000,000 budget in San Francisco. If you could cut the budget by point 7%, you wouldn't need the $110,000,000 that was mentioned earlier. So that's my only comment. There's a over, 240,000 parcels. If you spread that each one of us paid, it would be $400 a year. I would pay that. Thank you.

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

[Gino Portinano]: Good evening. My name is Gino Portinano. I'm a member of, Grow the Richmond and the Northern Neighbors and a resident of District 1 for twenty five years. I, respectfully disagree with my supervisor and her amendments. I moved here from New York City, and I really have to say, yo, what's with all the hate in New York that happened earlier? You know what New York does really, really well? It builds housing. It builds housing for the poor. It builds housing for the rich, and it builds housing for everyone in between. And the idea that you can't do both at the same time is insane to somebody who's actually lived through it. I worry about where where my son's gonna live. He's 20 years old now. He grew up in this city. And without more housing, there won't be room for him. I wanna thank the people in the planning commission for the hard work that they put on to this. Thank you.

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

[Gabe Zitrin]: Hello, supervisors. My name is Gabe Zitrin. I was born in San Francisco in 1980, and I still live here, and I'm not gonna be nice today. The Chen and Chen amendments are simply offered in bad faith. HCD, they don't care about HCD. It's a delay tactic. Oh, the supervisor Ford seat is vacant. They don't care. That wasn't true a week ago. These are no more than the same tactics that are at this point the entirely predictable continuation of forty five years and counting of recalcitrance, misinformation, delays, and bad faith arguments in the desperate flailing pursuit of the one goal that they have ever prioritized with any consistency, stop housing, and thereby stop change. I get it, but I urge you to reject the Chan and Chan amendments, and to do so today. Sane housing policy is already a half century overdue in this city. Housing delayed is housing denied. Let's pass the family zoning plan through committee today. Thank you.

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

[Erica MacLatus (SPUR)]: Hi. My name is Erica Macletus, and I'm here on behalf of Spur. I would like to express our continuing support for the family zoning plan as a necessary step to meeting our housing element commitments. We also look forward to collaborating with the board and the mayor in 2026 on the additional policies needed to advance these goals. Many supervisors have proposed amendments that establish or expand voluntary incentives for small business support, for larger units, and for amenities for families with young children. We commend these efforts, and we encourage the committee to adopt and protect their status in the plan. At the same time, SPRA opposes amendments that would weaken or dilute the plan. We'd like to thank chair Melgar for her ongoing leadership shepherding this complex legislation forward, to supervisor Mahmood for his consistent pressure to pass an ambitious plan swiftly, and to supervisor Chen for authoring the companion tenant protection legislation that will bring the city into compliance with s b three thirty. Thank you for your time.

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

[Tia Lombardi (San Francisco Heritage)]: Good evening. I'm Tia Lombardi from San Francisco Heritage. On behalf of our citywide constituency, San Francisco Heritage submits our strong support for supervisor Chan's proposed amendments consistent with the adopted housing element for the treatment of historic resources in the family zoning plan. The current family zoning plan includes significantly greater impacts to designated and potentially eligible historical and cultural resources than anticipated by the 2022 housing element and the certified environmental, impact report. Absent supervisor Chan's proposed amendments, we believe that a supplemental environmental impact statement rather than the addendum is warranted to analyze this plan. We encourage the committee to advance supervisor Chen's proposed amendments for full board consideration. Thank you very much. Good night.

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

[Unidentified public commenter (brief interjection)]: Supervisor Mamoud, supervisor Melgar, supervisor Chen, thank you for giving the opportunity to speak in front of you today. I appreciate your time. I moved here as a young, confused, queer, bisexual in 1993. It was a hostile world out there. AIDS was still a death sentence, and this city was a refuge for me. And I could do it even though I made $30,000 a year. My rent was $400 in a big shared house in the Haight Ashbury. And I encourage strongly encourage you to support the mayor's plan without amendments because two generations of NIMBYs have made this city unaffordable to people like me, the young queers, the freaks, the outsiders, the dreamers, the artists, the people who have really made San Francisco the amazing place it is. So please open up our golden gates to these newcomers who would desperately love to live here. Thank you for your time.

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

[Sarah Rogers (District 9 Neighbors for Housing)]: Hi, everyone. I'm Sarah Rogers with District nine Neighbors for Housing. We are here in strong support of the family zoning plan and to advocate for Bernal Heights to be included in a future rezoning. In 1978, the city downzoned, removing one third of its zone capacity or a 180,000 units. My neighborhood, Bernal Heights, effectively downzoned further in 1991 through its special use district. The stated goals of the citywide downzoning in 1978 were aesthetic, limitations on how much and what type of housing could be built with the goal of preserving neighborhood character and livability for current residents without attracting large numbers of new residents. At the same time, people were aware that the decrease in supply would be devastating to low and moderate income residents. Commenters from Chinatown nonprofit serving low income residents said that unquestionably, the cost of housing would increase for low income people and people would be displaced. One observed that it was really an effort to preserve certain types of housing in certain types of neighborhoods. We have an opportunity to start rectifying that now, so I urge you to approve the family zoning plan and please consider Bernal Heights in a future rezoning. Thank you.

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

[Tina San Camero (Chinese Real Estate Association of America)]: Good afternoon, board of supervisors. My name is Tina San Camaro. I I am the, former president of Chinese Real Estate Association of America. I wanna start it by asking, have you ever see walk by a beautiful house in our city and only see it's empty? Weaken homes are reminder that even in a house crisis, our system isn't working efficiently. At the same time, many tenants dream of owning a home, but sky high causes and limited supply block the path, including penalize instead of penalizing homeowners who rent, why not help tenants become owners? That's the heart of balanced planning plan. I I actually in favor of planning plan. However, doesn't means building a 12 story towers on every block. It means gentle, thoughtful increase in density, duplexes, triple tripleses, and as, ADUs, the missing middle that makes the house more affordable and accessible. By doing this, we increase supplies without overwhelming labels. Concluded.

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

[Divya Singh]: Hi, everybody. Thank you for your time tonight. My name is Divya Singh. I'm with Grow The Richmond, and I'm here to support the swift passage adoption and implementation of the family zoning plan. My current apartment building is over a 100 years old, and I'm dealing with constant maintenance issues that are really becoming a thorn in my side. And I don't think that the options in anyone's budget should just be limited to housing stock that's over a 100 years old. So I think the passage of this plan can really encourage the construction of higher quality housing options, and I support the proliferation of that. Great. Thank you.

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

[Corey Smith (Housing Action Coalition)]: me say good evening post 05:30. Good evening, supervisors. Corey Smith on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. First, I want to extend my appreciation to planning department staff for working your asses off for years on this, and to the supervisors for helping us get over the finish line. My first email on this plan was in 2019, and I was one of the early people to get outreach. But I've been involved with this for six years now at this point, and to see it at this point in time is just really, really exciting. HCD has been clear, and a Jason Elliot op ed was also very clear that state is paying attention. So no more amendments that constrict housing supply in any way at this point in time make any sense, get this thing over the finish line with a clean version. And at the end of the day, it's pretty simple. Building housing is a good thing. It's a good policy. It's good politics. And I would encourage anybody who, believe San Francisco should be a place for everybody, continue to figure out a way to say yes. So much thanks.

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

[Jatin (District 9 Neighbors for Housing)]: Hello, supervisors. My name is Jatin, and I'm here in support of the family zoning plan. I moved to San Francisco a decade ago for my first job. San Francisco is also where I met my wife. And next month, we're we'll be getting ready to welcome our first child at UCSF admission bay. I wanna raise my son in this city, and I want him to grow up knowing that he can afford to live in the place that he was born in without needing to win the lottery to do so. The only way we can make that possible is by building a lot more housing than we do today. That means legalizing duplexes, triplexes, and small apartment buildings in neighborhoods where today it's illegal to build anything except single family homes. Nothing about this is radical. It is simply common sense in a time when we're facing an unprecedented housing crisis. I urge the land use committee 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.

[Jane Natoli (YIMBY Action)]: Good evening, supervisors. Jane Natoli on behalf of YIMBY Action and our members at SFU. Can't make it tonight. Speaking in support, of all the amendments that will move this forward and will not harm housing production. We've been out here at all these hearings. We've heard a lot of comments. We heard from a lot of our members today. And I think it just underscores the need that we've had people come back over and over and over, despite the fact that many of our members are very busy living their lives, working their jobs, and wondering why we've been going to meeting after meeting. So I really hope that we can move forward with this, because we have a lot more work to do beyond just the zoning. As many have called out, it's not just zoning that's gonna get housing built, and we're gonna have to do a lot more. So this is just the first step of what we need to do as we try to build more homes in San Francisco and make it more affordable. Thank you.

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: Thank you

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

[Unidentified public commenter (affordability vs. capacity)]: Hello. I see this as a choice that you all have to make between affordability and the failed capacity supply and demand arguments we've been hearing for years from the YIMBYs. I support the Chen and Chan amendments that will protect actual affordable housing, rent controlled housing. And I hope the new housing that will be built as a result of the zoning plan will be, much of it will be rent controlled, but that's up to you.

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

[Unidentified public commenter (West Russian Hill resident)]: Hi. Oops. I am a West Russian Hill neighbor where the family plan has glows magenta through blue, a 140 to 250 to 350 feet by the time one gets to Broadway on residential Van Ness and intersecting streets, climbing Russian Hill and Nob Hills, such as Union, Green, Vallejo, filled with affordable sun filled flats, triplexes, rent control, primarily 40, sometimes 65 feet. The extreme proposed high rises targeting these neighborhoods that is not appropriate. And I am heartbroken, but more so, I'm saddened by the rhetoric which states that the Family Planning Act will keep 40 foot height compared to 55 to 95 height by s b 79 for the four plus miles of Van Ness. It certainly is the opposite. The promulgation of the family plan was prior to s b 79. S b 79 informs what the state views appropriate transit corridor housing, 65 feet mid rise. Concluded. Thank you for sharing your

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

[Philip Raffel]: Good evening, supervisors, planning committee. My name is Philip Raffel. I'm a volunteer from SFEMB, and I'm a D8 resident, support of Mayor Lurry's family zoning plan and amendments to produce more housing. Status quo is not neutral, and keeping failed policy helps no one except incumbent homeowners and residents. Much has also been said about Blackstone and buying up of housing. Blackstone, the Invitation Homes, their vehicle for buying up homes, specifically says in their internal documents that they target cities that don't build housing. If we don't build housing, we help Blackstone. We don't we built we build housing, Blackstone doesn't take our houses. Thank you.

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

[Paula Katz]: My name is Paula Katz, and I'm a decades long d four resident. As you know, without a D four supervisor, we don't have any representation on the board as this issue is discussed. It's critical that the land use committee, advanced supervisors, Chen and Chen's Chen and Chen's amendments to the full board so the public can see where every supervisor stands. Hopefully, by that time, we'll have a new new d four supervisor, and we'll want to know how he or she stands on these critical amendments, which I and many other D 4 residents support. HCD leadership also should appear before the board in public to to explain how the housing numbers are calculated and how the proposed upzoning affects compliance. This information will be critical to help educate our new supervisor, and we should be able to hear any questions they ask. For transparency and accountable planning, this should not be done behind closed doors, but open to all San Franciscans to watch and listen to. Thank you.

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

[Mike Chen (District 2 renter)]: Good evening. My name is Mike Chen. I'm a renter in District 2. I support the family zoning plan and any amendments that are net zero or net positive in realistic capacity. My reasoning here is simple. People 40 should have a future in San Francisco. Thank you.

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

[Bobak Asfandiari (Executive Director, SF Democratic Party)]: Good evening, supervisors and land use committee. I am finally happy to be here wearing my day job hat. My name is Bob Akastfandiari. I'm the executive director of the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee, AKA the San Francisco Democratic Party. And I'm pleased to report that in our October meeting last month, they voted to pass a resolution supporting the family zoning plan. I wanna read off a little bit of it, and I know one of you is already a member, another the prior member just spoke, Mike Chen. The San Francisco Democratic Party supports this family zoning plan with the aforementioned goals and principles that preserve our local control, comply with state mandated housing law, make housing more affordable, supports union construction jobs with high labor standards, advances recovery from addiction, and protects tenants and small businesses from displacement. I think this is a good thing. I think that this is important. I think it's great that the Democratic party, my organization, our organization, is saying firmly that we support ending the shortage and making it easier to build the homes that San Franciscans need to get by in this world. So please pass the family's own plan. Thank you.

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

[Unidentified public commenter (remote, supports Chan/Chen amendments)]: Hi, everybody. Can you hear me?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Can hear you. Please begin.

[Unidentified public commenter (remote, supports Chan/Chen amendments)]: So I've been here for thirty two years. I'm proud of being in San Francisco. I live in a neighborhood where the cable cars climb halfway to the stars. And I would really hate for that sentiment to deteriorate into the hands of the people who are for profit and not over people. I would really, really urge everybody to vote for the Chan and Chen amendments for the purpose of keeping the heart in San Francisco. Thank you.

[Whit Turner (Housing Action Coalition)]: Hey. Whit Turner on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. Good evening, supervisors. I'm here to support the family zoning plan, any amendments that add homes, and expand options for families. I I definitely want to recognize the people who can't be here today. I know we had a couple, but parents juggling childcare, small business owners, young workers who don't have the flexibility to attend midday or evening hearings now. They deserve a San Francisco that actually makes room for them. Please move this fam forward forward, pardon me, with amendments that create more housing opportunities and avoid changes that reduce capacity or remove homes from the proposal. Thank you.

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

[Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition)]: Hi, supervisors. My name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition as our SF, community organizer. This plan, as you well know, is shaped by years of community input, technical analysis, and negotiation. It is ready to move, and San Francisco cannot afford further delay. We talk about equity often, and we agree. It is time to bring new apartments and homes and affordability to parts of the city that have long been relieved of contributing their to their fair share of housing. This is what that plan attempts and begins to do. Every month of delay means more people go without housing. And, certainly, this area and this room does not reflect all of the people in San Francisco who are not able to make it. So on behalf of them, we urge the plan to move forward and bring more homes to SF. Thank you.

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

[Caroline Bosch]: Hi. My name is Caroline Bosch. I'm a renter in, Jordan Park, and I'm here to support the family zoning plan. This is a once in generation opportunity to really support new housing to being built and healthy and accessible housing. New housing make sure that we have elevators that work, make sure that we have safe fire, safe buildings. And it's really important for us to think about all of the rules that will help to make that happen. And, me and my children, support that. Next.

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

[Brian Quan]: Good evening, supervisors. My name is Brian Quan. I'm an outer Richmond native and a resident. I'm here to speak in favor of the family zoning plan because I feel it is the best opportunity for this city to continue to grow and become an even better city than it is now. I've gotten to meet a lot of new parents, that have moved into my neighborhood because of the new houses that have been built in the Richmond District, and there are not a whole lot of that. So I actually think we should be trying to do more on the West Side to expand the opportunities so that more people can move into the West Side Of San Francisco. Neighborhood character is not about the buildings, but the people. And the West Side is great because of the people that have been able to move into the district. This is the time to be bold, to be brave, and to really think about how this city can be built better for the next generation. Thank you.

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

[Chantal Laberinta (REP SF)]: Good evening, supervisor. Chantal Laberinta with Rep SF. Rep SF continues to have strong concerns about mayor Lurie's upzoning plan. The proposed amendments from supervisors Chan and Chen are critical in steering this zoning in a different direction, towards more stability and protections for tenants and small businesses, towards more affordability and more affordable housing and true family housing. REP SF also strongly requests that there be a hearing on the upzoning with the board of supervisors sitting as a committee of the whole. The upzoning plan includes citywide changes and allowing members of the public to continue to be in conversation with all of their elected representatives about a plan that will have a vast

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: impact in their communities as necessary. We urge

[Chantal Laberinta (REP SF)]: this committee to move urge this committee to move supervisor Chan and Chen's amendments forward and to strongly consider initiating a committee of the whole. Thank you.

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

[Anna Christina (People Power Media; REP SF member)]: Good evening, supervisors. I'm Anna Christina with People Power Media, a member of Rep SF. Rep SF Rep SF strongly opposes Mayor Larry's dangerous upzoning plan, which does not create opportunities for families, will make rent more expensive, will increase the displacement of tenants and small businesses, and will make it impossible for us to develop the affordable housing we desperately need. Rep SF strongly supports the amendments, by supervisor Chan and supervisor Chen, which will ban demolitions under the upzoning plan and focus on protecting tenants, supporting small businesses, and prioritizing truly affordable housing. We urge this committee to move these critical elements forward. Rep SF also demands that there be a hearing on the upzoning with the board of supervisors sitting as a committee of the whole to allow members of the public the opportunity to speak in front of the full board on these city's changes and to hear all of our representatives about how they will meaningfully address the many concerns and resolve the many concerns around truly affordable housing, displacement, demolition, and tenant and small business protections. Thank you.

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

[Asia Nicole Duncan (Build Affordable Faster California)]: Hello, supervisors. My name is Asia Nicole Duncan. I'm with Build Affordable Faster California, And we are urging that there be a hearing on the up zoning with the board of supervisors sitting as a committee of the whole to allow members of the public and the the opportunity to speak in front of the full board on these city wide changes, and to hear from all of our representatives about how they will address and solve many of the remaining concerns around truly affordable housing, displacement, demolish demolishing, and tenant and small business protections. We are in full support of supervisors Chan and Chen's amendments that will focus on protecting tenants and rent controlled housing citywide, and urge them to move forward to the full board of supervisors for a vote. Thank you.

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

[Harris Kohn]: Good evening. My name is Harris Kohn. I live in District 9 in in, Bernal Heights. I've lived there about three years, and I am fully in support of the family zoning plan. We need more places to live. Our communities need more places to have wonderful homes like I get to live in. So I just wanted to say thank you for having this hearing and allowing us a chance to comment. And I'm with, District nine Neighbors for Housing. Thanks so much.

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

[Rosa Shields (Political Director, SF Labor Council)]: Hello, chair and members of the committee. Rosa Shields, political director of the San Francisco Labor Council, former resident of District 9, who was evicted as a child due to Ellis Act evictions. So I just wanna make sure that we are protecting tenants, protecting our existing stock of rent controlled housing. And as a current District 1 renter in a rent controlled apartment who could be displaced under the current plan, I just wanna make sure that we are doing everything in our capabilities to support the existing stock of rent control housing and also are prioritizing building a 100% affordable projects on public lands. The San Francisco Labor Council supports protecting working families and tenants and rent control and only that. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item numbers four through nine called together from whom we have not yet heard? Madam chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Before I turn it over to you, supervisor Chen, I just wanted to go through a little bit of what I'm hoping we're gonna do next. So at the last meeting, this committee adopted amendments into the original file that we, in conversation with HCD and the planning staff, had determined that did not impact capacity or compliance issues. It's about 40% of the amendments that were introduced were moved to that first file. We placed all those proposed amendments that did not fit into this criteria into the duplicate file. And that allowed us for more discussion, transparency, vetting from the public, and the ability for planning and HCD to review and vet them in their entirety. I will say, also, HCD is a public agency. I do not have the authority to demand that those public servants that work for the state department for the department that is under the California come to my committee. I can ask, but I cannot demand, nor do I have that authority. But anyone actually can call HCD and have, a discussion, can also have a public discussion. It can be on Zoom. And members of the public can be invited. All of that is also possible. With that being said, today, I hope that we have a robust discussion on the many amendments that remain. Possibly move them into the original file, if we feel that they meet the bar, and that they will, help us, advance important public policy goals, while still having a compliant package to the full board for consideration. It is my intention to table the duplicate file, because it has served its purpose as a holding place for many of the amendments. This does not preclude for any supervisor for making amendments on December 1, or at the full board. That is allowable under our processes. That being said, we do have a timeline that we need to follow. I just want to point out that, our general plan amendment

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: becomes law, on the nineteenth, if we fail to vote.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: And that means that And that means all of the amendments, including the ones we've already agreed on, won't make it there. So I actually can't live with that. I am alarmed that some people are trying to make this procedure into a political attack. The original files are still before the committee until 12/01/2025. There are parameters that I'm trying to set as the chair, because I wanna send these items to the full board, so that we can continue these discussions. So while I respect my colleagues who wanna push for as many amendments as they can, I will not be able to support moving amendments if they are deemed non compliant or are deemed substantive by the city attorney? Because that also will defer the possibility of us being able to vote on them. I just want to make sure that we're all operating under the same level of understanding. So with that, I suggest that we go through each amendment. If I could, colleagues, beg for your cooperation. I know you have both been asked to make motions on amendments by our colleagues who are not members of this committee. Supervisor Mandelmann asked you, supervisor Chen, and supervisor Slaughter asked you, supervisor oh, Cheryl, I'm sorry. And if we could get those done first, move, you know, make motions to move them into the first file. I have planning opine about those amendments, because I think that those have already been vetted and discussed. And then we will take all of the remaining amendments one by one, and we will go through them all. If that's okay, I will turn it over to you, supervisor Chan, to talk about supervisor Mandelmann's amendment first.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Chair Melgar. Before I talk about, supervisor board president Mandelmann's, amendments, I would like to follow-up on our PIVUS exchange regarding HCD's determinations on capacity and constraint. I want to thank, Director Rachel Tenner for your offer to facilitate additional conversation with HCD. But my goal is to make sure that we have a transparency process, and we are holding, the government accountable. So I I I want to clarify that I'm not seeking for one on one conversation behind a closed door, but as a committee member, I am looking to enable a public forum in this room, in this committee, that all stakeholders have the opportunity to hear directly from the source about why some amendments are being considered, and others are not. So with that, I just want to clarify. And I also want to, before I go to, board president's amendment, I understand that we have to adopt a plan that builds with our accountability to the people of San Francisco. And we also need to prioritize with our local community, including the most vulnerable among us. And I also want to clarify that my amendments are not to stop development, which I heard from a lot of public comments, that my amendments are trying to stop development. My amendments are not trying to stop development. But what I am asking in my amendment is we are trying to develop with a plan that is causing no harm to our existing communities, to our current San Franciscan, and also a thoughtful process in planning for our future. I'm a mother of two, and I see so many kids in the room today. I also want to make sure that I can raise my kids in the city, that my children can continue to stay in San Francisco, which is a city that I love. Today, I think now I'm being put on the spot to swallow a very bitter pill, but I feel like colleagues, we can add a little sugar to my bitter pill. It's to include the amendments that I have authorized, and supervisor Chan has authorized, and other amendments that, you know, my colleagues, like supervisor Cheryl and supervisor Mendelmann, that they put forward. With that, I want to, supervisor Mendelmann already shared amendments, and I think, I would just like to make a motion, for him to, make a motion to adopt the amendment introduced by president Mendelmann to exempt historical landmark from rezoning into file number two hundred and fifty thousand seven hundred and fifty thousand seven hundred and one. This amendment excludes all currently designated historical landmark, and contributor to historic district, pursuant to article 10 from the rezoning plan.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, Supervisor Chen. Did you have a point of clarification, Supervisor Mahmood, before we go to planning for, their response?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: I'll wait for the response.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. If you could, miss Tanner, talk about this amendment, and, the analysis of, whether this amendment, has, proposes a new constraint, or, has an effect on capacity.

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: Thank you, Chair Melgar. Thank you for the question, supervisor, Chen. So what we'll be doing this afternoon or evening, as much like we did, I think, two weeks ago, to have the back and forth of kind of what is our assessment of each amendment. So with this one, what we looked at, this is really specifically to landmarks, and I believe it's as of earlier this year. So listed landmarks, in San Francisco. As mister Switsky was saying in his presentation, we already did not presume that our landmarks will be redeveloped, because they're landmarks. We assume mostly they'll stay kind of, how they are, maybe with some, alterations, in the future. And so, by, this legislation does not affect our capacity, because on both methods that we've been using, our citywide and our soft sites, we already assume that these sites were not having redevelopment on them in the near future. And so there's no, there's no impact to our capacity from President Mandelmann's amendment.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Did you have a question, Supervisor Mahmoud, before we vote?

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: Or Yeah.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: I had a couple questions, actually. What are, How are parcels currently landmark parcels protected today, absent this legislation?

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: I will actually ask our deputy director of our current planning, who also is our chief historic preservationist, to answer that question. Mister Sucre.

[Rich Sucre (Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Rich Sucre, planning department staff. So currently, our landmarks are currently protected by, the requirement to have a certificate of appropriateness from our historic preservation commission. So anytime you do an exterior alteration or try to propose demolition, you must get approval from our HPC for work to our existing landmark stock.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: So it's correct to say that there are already demolition protections in place for landmarks? Correct. Is it also then correct to say that this legislation is redundant to those demolition protections?

[Rich Sucre (Planning Department)]: I probably can't speak exactly towards that, but

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: I might sort of I

[Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition)]: think, perhaps,

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: if certainly, one could agree or disagree if it's redundant. I think there are some cases, which would be some instances where state law may have some impact on our typical process. But even then, I believe, if it is a landmark, you know, it would have to go through CEQA, in order to have any certainly, a demolition would need to go through CEQA, and even alterations that are too significant would need to go through CEQA, but that's under any state or local, local laws.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: I think based on that context for me, while I appreciate the desire to protect these landmarks, we have demolition protections already in place, and it seems duplicative then of the work that has been done on preservation before. I think we're all in the spirit of good governance here, and I don't believe in having legislation that doesn't actually do anything. So for that reason, I'll be voting no on this one.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. There is a motion on the floor.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: There are two motions. One to amend file number two five zero seven hundred to adopt the amendments presented by supervisor Mandelmann. The other to adopt amendments to two five zero seven zero one. They were both offered by supervisor Chen. Do you wanna take those votes together?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yes.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On those two motions together, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood. Mahmood, no. Chair Malgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Malgar, aye. Madam chair, there are two ayes and one no with supervisor Mahmood in the dissent.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: K. That motion passes. Thank you. Now, supervisor Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: I would like to introduce a motion, regarding supervisor Cheryl's proposed amendments, regarding the zoning map. I would like to hear from Planning First, though, about some questions

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: regarding the proposal. Did you

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: get better clarity, if that's okay?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yes. So if we could, the same questions that we had asked before about constraints, and also capacity.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Thank you, supervisor. So we did receive the list, the updated list from supervisor Cheryl's office. It included the original amendment, which was to bring down heights, in a variety of locations. But in with this recent amendment, they introduced increased heights in in a couple locations. And so, we found that, when we analyzed both of those, the the effect was neutral. So it is not, negatively affecting our capacity calculations.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Oh, so based on HCD's criteria about if there is any reduction in capacity, there has to be a commensurate increase in capacity, you're saying that that meets that criteria?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Yes. It does.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: And where are can you just confirm again which districts are being upzoned as a result of, the other reduction capacity?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Yes. So the, there's a a few blocks on, the West Side Of Van Ness. So those are in District 2. And then there's a couple blocks, in District 3.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Okay. Thank you. And it's my understanding that supervisor Sauter has agreed to these amendments as well. Correct?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: That is our understanding. Yes.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. So, yeah. With that context and understanding that this amendment meets the criteria of HCD around capacity, I will be moving the motion to accept these amendments into item number five, two five zero seven zero zero.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Just so that we're clear, this is a swap. Right? Swap. Yeah. So we are moving the original, what was in the duplicated file, and also a new amendment into the

[Davey Kim (SF YIMBY)]: original file? Yeah.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yes. Okay. Introduce a

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: motion to amend the original amendment, and then introduce both into the item number five. Correct?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Into the original file.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. I have a motion from member Mahmoud to amend two five zero seven hundred to incorporate the amendments presented from supervisor Cheryl on that motion, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood. Mahmood, I. Chair Malgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I. Excuse me. I'm sorry.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: I'm a chair.

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: There

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: are three ayes.

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: I'm so sorry. I think the attorneys are trying to confirm the files. I believe it's a whole new file. So it's not the previous version. It's just the new file, correct? The new amendments? Sorry. They need a minute.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: What's the question

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: to the chair?

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: The question that we're having.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: The motion was done correctly. So I'm sorry that we're going to need a minute. Maybe should we take a one minute recess?

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: Okay. I think a recess would help to Okay.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I'm so sorry, folks. We're gonna take a five minute recess. SFgov TV. San Francisco government television. Okay. Thank you so much. We are reconvening the Land Use and Transportation Committee today, November 17 at 06:10. I just wanna clarify that the motion was correct. I am the one who confused things by saying anything about the duplicated file. The motion in the legislation is introduced contains everything. So the vote was already taken, and the vote is correct. So we can just move on. So if you're ready, supervisor Chen, we will then move on to, your first amendment, in board file 251,073 that pertains to planning code section 206.1, d one b. And that reinstates a local program unit mix requirement, removes reduced unit mix requirements in the local program, and defers to existing unit mix requirements in the planning code two hundred and seven point six and two hundred and seven point seven. And so you wanted to speak to this before we, go to planning.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Chair Melga. First, I want to make sure that, the legislation's name, the family zoning plan, lives up to its name to include truly family sized housing. The mayor's family zoning legislation struck out the standard for family size unit that the board of supervisors adopted. My proposed amendment is based on the standard that was established following a planning department study on housing for families for families with children. It provides a menu of options for developers to achieve a unit mix of more two and or three bedrooms. This standard was adopted by unanimously vote by the board of supervisors in 2017. I understand it may make the local program less competitive with the state density bonus program, But it would require developers to comply with basic threshold requirements that embody our San Francisco values, such as family sized homes. Supervisor Sheryl's amendment that has been adopted provides an additional incentives for developers to go even further in exchange for additional density. I believe that my threshold requirement is compatible, and provides a strong complement to supervisor Cheryl's incentive program. Just because economic condition, interest rates, and construction costs are not favorable for development projects, it does not mean that we should be compromising on enable housing outcome that fit the needs within our communities. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor. So there is the next amendment, which is to planning three three four d three, no local program modifications of unit mix. That is also related. So perhaps we can take them together when we ask planning to address both of these amendments.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Thank you. So we consider these to be not a impact on our capacity numbers, because we kind of assume just a generic thousand square feet for units, regardless of unit mix in our capacity. But we do consider this, kind of going back and reintroducing what could be considered a development constraint. We understand there is a public policy goal for having unit mix. But, in terms of the actual impact for, HCD, it is a constraint. And so, they did caution us, because they did look at these two as a pair. And so, you know, they said, for example, if we were to include the, or reintroduce the baseline unit mix as it is today, that we might consider perhaps, not pursuing the second amendment, which is the potential flexibility through the local program, as a way of offsetting kind of the reintroduction of the capacity. Sorry, the constraint.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I'm sorry. Can you say that again?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: So the, you know, the first amendment would basically reestablish the unit mix requirements as they are in in the code today.

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: Mhmm.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Which vary from 25 to 40%. Through the local program, we had proposed to create just a consistent 25% requirement across the, the rezone area in the local program. And so what they said was, basically, if we're going to roll that back and reintroduce kind of those different thresholds that we might consider offsetting that by not taking the second amendment, which is basically what

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: that

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: that second amendment in three section three thirty four says is that you can't seek a modification through the local program. We consider that a major modification. You would have to get a public hearing. It's not an easy thing to get the flexibility through the local program. But we did want to have that option. And so, you know, they considered, basically said, you might consider only taking one of the two amendments.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. I understand. And can you I'm sorry, Supervisor Shannon. I'm just trying to get clarification. Can you speak to supervisor Sauter Sherrill's amendment that sought to incentivize, and how these two things relate to one another, please?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Sure. So so, yes. We as we've described before, you know, the local program is kind of premised on, kind of an incentive based approach, where we're trying to use, essentially square footage bonuses to, get more of the things that we want from new development. So it's essentially a square footage bonus for two bedroom and three bedroom and above units. So if we did reintroduce these higher baseline requirements, you would still be eligible for that bonus. And in fact, you actually get the bonus for meeting the requirement.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. So that that works. Okay. Yeah. Mhmm. Thank you so much. Supervisor Mahmoud. Oh, I'm sorry.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: No. I I alright.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yeah. I just didn't take her off.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Just a couple of clarifying questions, just because you were talking about both amendments. So is it true that both of these amendments add add constraints?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: That's correct.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: And so by the criteria that HCD gave at a higher level, adding constraints will put us any one additional constraint could theoretically put us out of compliance with what they have already approved?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: In in theory, yes. I mean so I think, you know, they're gonna be looking at the totality, and whether or not we're offsetting it in other locations in our in our code.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Are we offsetting it in other locations in this context, in any commensurate way?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Well, through the incentive, you know, those were, some there's it's not just incentives for for unit mix. We also introduced an incentive for commercial replacement. That was, Supervisor Sautter who introduced that. So those, you know, will have a modest increase from what we submitted to HCD over the summer. But it's, you know, they'll, it's up to them to evaluate whether those offset each other.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: I'm just talking about these amendments by themselves. There's no offset within these amendments commensurate to what could be lost.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: That's correct.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Okay. Yeah. But there's a constraint. And so if HCD is measuring our success by total units, how would this constraint affect our ability in reaching some new number of units in isolation by itself?

[Joshua Switzke (Deputy Director, Citywide Planning)]: Supervisor, the we assumed an average unit size across the whole family zoning plan area that already accounts for a broad unit mix. And so this doesn't change any of our calculations, per se.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Either amendment?

[Joshua Switzke (Deputy Director, Citywide Planning)]: That's correct. It's more of a feasibility constraint rather than a quantitative capacity consideration.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Okay. Noted. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Are you done? Okay. So, supervisor Chen, would you please make an amendment? Yeah.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: I mean, it's a motion. Yes. Thank you, chair Malaga. I would like to make a motion to move my amendments to reinstate the local program unit mix requirement from file number two five one zero seven three into file number two five zero seven zero one. This amendment as was read into the record on October 20, and expanded upon on November 3. Removes reduced unit mix requirement in the local program, and the first two existing unit mix requirement in planning code two hundred and seven point six and two hundred and seven point seven. It was amended on November 3 to add unit mix requirements in the local program for four to nine unit projects. This amendment includes unit mix as an exclusion that cannot be modified through a major modifications.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Let's take a vote on that.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: This is a motion offered by vice chair Chen to make amendments to file number two five zero seven zero one to reinstate the local program unit mix requirement and the local sorry, and the no local program modifications of unit mix changes that have just been reviewed on that motion to amend vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmoud. Mahmoud, no. Chair Melgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

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

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. That motion passes. So I think this is the last amendment, supervisor Chen. Go ahead. This is I'm sorry. I'll I'll read it. This is an amendment. It's board file 251,073. Planning code 249.11. 100% affordable on SFMTA sites. It's an SUD that adds findings establishing the objectives of prioritizing the MTA sites for 100% affordable housing.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Chair Marlga, again. I also want to make sure that, we are adhering to our citywide policy goals when it comes to development on our public lands. Affordable housing on public lands, it's a clear policy priority in the affordable housing site strategy report. It is also a clear policy priority in our housing elements. This policy goal is very consistent with the policy goals at the state level with the California Surplus Lands Act. The city make a commitment to produce up to 2,000 affordable units on public lands during the current housing cycle, and my amendment provides additional tools to make meaningful progress toward this goal. I want to make sure that we are doing our due diligence to consider options for 100% affordable housing alternatives on this public lands. In line with the resolution that this board of supervisors passed earlier this year on the San Francisco SFMTA joint development policy, I proposed an amendment to insert additional findings and pre application requirements regarding 100% affordable housing alternatives, as well as right, as well as a right of first refusal for qualified non profit organizations when the San Francisco MTA pursues joint development opportunities in the San Francisco MTA special use district. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much. So I'm gonna turn it over to, planning first. And then we do have a representative here from MTA, so I'm gonna ask her to come up and talk about this amendment. So, okay. Folks from planning first.

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: Thank you. And I thank miss Small for being here, to also speak to this. And I know she can, speak more. Again, this would be another constraint, is how HCD would look at it. And this helped us to think about it. It really impacts a couple factors of the projects, which, again, these would be projects that have already been, I think at the point that we're talking about, there's been a developer, I believe, identified, who is conducting these meetings. And the city would have already, through the board of supervisors and the MTA board of directors, decided that there is a program that we're pursuing with this project developer. And so in this case, it would affect, at that time of the project's timeline, this would affect, potentially, the housing feasibility. Again, adding another, study that folks need to do, and so more things. Timing, as well as the approval certainty, because it might impact whether that developer understands, is their project going to be approved that they've, you know, proposed to the city and that we've worked with them to develop? So it could impact the the constrain our MTA development sites in those three ways. And maybe miss Small will

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: add some more more details. Okay. Hello, miss Small. Thank you so much for hanging in here with us, through this long meeting. So if you could please talk about this amendment and its effect on the MTA's plans.

[Ms. Small (SFMTA Joint Development Program)]: Yes. Thank you so much, chair chair Melgar and vice, chair Chen. Thank you so much for working with my colleague, Wade Wheatgraf, who's not here today. I really appreciate the conversation that's been had around this. I think, you know, you spoke a little bit to some of the policy goals around affordable housing and around our transit, properties as well. So above all, our review of the amendments is really guided by whether the proposed family zoning plan, amendments advance or hinder, the SFMTA board adopted, and as well, board of supervisors adopted joint policy and goals. And this was back earlier this year. We're concerned, actually, that these, specific amendments, the one in the findings, we're a little bit less concerned about, although it does speak to a 100% affordable housing. But they may introduce some misalignment or constraints or uncertainty within the process because they don't necessarily meet those goals that were already adopted. So we wanna make sure that we don't hinder our ability to develop to to deliver successful joint development within our our program. So I just wanna acknowledge that, Muni is an essential public service as well and that our joint development program directly benefits Muni. We all know how vital transit is to serve our existing and new residents, and the value of land and development is critical to our long term Muni funding strategy, both in revenue and in facilities. While these amendments do not risk the full capacity, as, miss Tanner, indicated, they may influence the value of potential projects. They may create uncertainty or add additional risk, which then can affect investments in Muni's future. We also know how vital affordable housing is to the city's goals and to meeting the RHNA goals. So our adopted policy is not only that we're gonna meet the inclusionary requirements that the city already has, but we're actually also, of course, gonna comply with the California Surplus Land Act, which requires that 25% of our units are affordable housing. But it's across our portfolio, which is a little bit of a different exercise. So this allows MTA a little bit more flexibility in looking at the whole portfolio rather than as kind of a full percentage rather than site by site. And so the real sort of picture of this is that timing is everything, and that some of these amendments, basically add additional process kind of at the wrong time in how we're going about, how we we sort of get through the through, from a strategic planning into a construction process. So while some revisions are really normal, once you're kind of entered in with a partner or development partner, questioning or sort of substantially changing uses or what kind of, housing, products might be possible or financial structures, which is also often going on at the same time as approvals, can delay schedules or increase costs. It could even risk some level of capacity. We've seen that with cross subsidy that's maybe needed between different uses, and it could even destabilize our partnership agreements. I mean, once you've picked a developer, they tend to kind of come in a variety of shapes, and if you ask them to do a 100% affordable housing, that's simply just not gonna meet, the the nature of that business. So we're really understanding the kinds of outcomes you're trying to achieve, but we're really concerned that these particular additional process pieces, will not actually change the outcomes. There are two things that we're already doing that we think may end up, getting a little bit closer to this. One is that we have a $1,000,000 USDOT grant to do an asset scan, which will provide a more kind of comprehensive look across the portfolio. So before we're going site by site, we'll be able to kinda give that bigger picture, and that will be a transparent process. That will be a public process, and we can kind of see the trade offs and risks before we actually enter into a partnership agreement. The other thing is it will be, of course, when we go out and seek for development proposals for various sites, we'll be conducting a more formal and competitive request and process, and affordable housing developers would absolutely be included within that. So we're trying to reduce risk. We're trying to maximize the value, and that value is directly a public service as part of our muni system. Happy to answer more questions.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, miss Malls. Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: You alluded to the SFMTA joint development policy earlier this year. Just to ask specifically, will this amendment and this legislation then supersede that joint development?

[Ms. Small (SFMTA Joint Development Program)]: So it will add in additional pieces that we'll have to do along with the goals that we already have. So it's it just simply kind of layers in. It probably delays certain things. It may means that we have to actually go backwards in the process and then then come forward later. So a lot of this would come forward when we're doing potentially a ground lease or a sale, which is pretty late in in when we're kind of, you know, working with a partner and and moving through. So it doesn't necessarily supersede as much as it just kinda adds to.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: And that added process, do you have an estimate of additional development timelines this might result in?

[Ms. Small (SFMTA Joint Development Program)]: Oh, most certainly. I mean, depending on you know, some of these different sites are more or or less likely to be a 100% affordable housing. Most cities typically looking for certain kinds of scales of sites. Some of these sites will not be sort of appropriate for their scale, so there's a range of ones that will. And if they if we end up, you know, seeking a a private partner and getting to that later stage and the board actually requests us through a feasibility study to go in deeper, Right? The feasibility study takes time. The assessment takes time. The public conversation takes time. And if it is deemed that that's a better direction in some way, we will be very deep and have to almost start all over again.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: I mean, just to quantify, do you have an average and how much that might delay the timeline?

[Ms. Small (SFMTA Joint Development Program)]: It's a little hard to say, because that could be, yeah, six months to a year, potentially.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Noted. And can you reiterate again why mixed income housing at these sites is more desirable?

[Ms. Small (SFMTA Joint Development Program)]: Well, I'd say there are some sites that could be appropriate for a 100% affordable housing, but I'd say our larger sites, in particular, the mixed incomes, I mean, there's certainly reasons to have a variety of uses mixes within a housing property just because you can get different kinds of levels of financing and different kinds of levels of of cross subsidy. But I, you know, I would say that for some of our key big sites, that is really a huge revenue stream for supporting our muni facilities at those particular sites. And so it's also a combination of the transit benefit that we're getting out of it. That is really the the priority number one.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Got it. And then a quick question for the deputy city attorney. Would this amendment for this right of first refusal require we refer to the planning commission, or was it heard at the commission?

[Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi]: Deputy city attorney Brad Russi, no. It would not require a referral to the planning commission.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Got it. Thank you for the context. I think, for me, just the context that this, is viewed as a constraint, by CD. And again, we have to minimize all potential constraints. Otherwise, we risk being out of compliance. And the context that we got from MTA, that this would be an administrative burden with an not a clearly defined positive impact that could negatively affect the feasibility of mixed income development, because it adds uncertainty to a contracting process without the ability to afford a discount on land. And so this level of process, I think, is not desirable at this time. For this reason, based on the context, I'll be voting no.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much, supervisor. And thank you, supervisor Chen, for this amendment. I, had shared my thoughts with you on this, amendment earlier when you were talking conceptually about it. And so I support affordable housing, particularly on the West Side. I have a couple problems with this amendment. The first one is, you know, in addition to chairing this committee, I also chair the Transportation Authority. And I represent San Francisco on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which, of course, awards OBAG funds for, transit oriented, communities and development. And, you know, as a region, we have been moving towards a world where we maximize, land around transportation hubs for a reason. It is, you know, climate friendly to have denser development around, transit sites. But it is also a recognition that it supports our public transit. So, while we can talk about, you know, income generated, there's also the issue of riders. So every, Asian country that has a wonderful transportation system is so intentional about maximizing the use of space, not just in housing, but also commercial development, to ensure that riders are riding public transit. And that is how we support our transit agencies. So I, frankly, think the MTA could do better in terms of its overall plan. I will note that BART is doing great. They have a great transit oriented development plan. They have built something like 5,000 units of housing in the last few years, and almost a million square feet of commercial space. And so, you know, they are, you know, on their way to recovery. And I think that we need to think of MTA assets as a portfolio, and have the goals advanced of, I support 100% affordable housing. But I also want commercial development. I want amenities for riders. I want somebody taking, you know, Muni, downtown to be able to shop for dinner and bring dinner home, you know, when they go home on the l, or their dry cleaning, or any of the amenities for riders that every other developed city in the world has. And we don't have that. And I understand that a lot of it is, you know, coordination with BART, you know, whatever. But I do want a plan that supports social integration, ridership, and also income to our transit agencies. Because it's your responsibility to maximize your assets. So for that, I don't want to kneecap you, and, you know, stop that when you are finally showing some progress. But I also want you to know that I'm gonna hold be holding you accountable, you know, because while we're providing capital funding from the TA, we also need to hold you accountable to have a responsible, management of your assets. So that is one reason why I, you know, won't support this. But, the other reason is that it is just for the MTA. So I know, for example I mean, I am totally, for this concept of public lands for public goods. I think there are more public goods than just 100% affordable housing, although it is, you know, an important priority. I do think there are other agencies, in the West Side, in the rezoned areas that own land. Laguna Honda Hospital, that is owned by the Department of Public Health, has a lot of land. Like, a lot of acres. But it's not the only one. The PUC, the Department of Public Works. There are other agencies that also own a lot of land. If we are going

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: to

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: be thinking about having a comprehensive development, or lack of development. I mean, it's also possible. With public lands that prioritize certain uses and not others, or transitions uses from, you know, public open space, or schools, to affordable housing. I think that we need to do it comprehensively and thoughtfully. So, those are my comments, and I will turn it back over to you, supervisor Chen.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, chair Malaga. When it comes to affordability, my amendments on public land was not it's not about mandating 100% affordable housings. It's about accountability, and expanding our toolbox. The planning department and MOCD often tell us, funding is very limited. But we cannot rely on that as the only answer for affordability. To build affordable housing, we need public investment, plus land. We must explore every tool and strategy to ensure that San Francisco truly is serving its residents. Our children, our seniors, our working family deserve stability, a roof over their heads, and a city that truly cares. And I also believe that investing in affordability is investing in public safety. And also, thank you, miss Smaller, from the SFMTA. I also note that, I have already modified my amendments at the San Francisco MTA's request to limit this additional process only to sites that meet their minimum specification for 100% affordable projects. So I'm not, I am not interested in layering additional process for sites that are not competitive for 100% affordable projects. But we owe it to the people of San Francisco to leverage our public lands to a higher standards. Thank you. And would I may I make a motion?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yeah. I actually would like, miss Smalls to address that last point, if we could. Sure. If it's okay, supervisor Chen, before you make a motion about, the amendments having been, modified Yes. To, only include those that are, compliant with a HCD's, you know, requirements.

[Ms. Small (SFMTA Joint Development Program)]: Yes. That's that's we were looking at a lot of the sites to kind of see what would work within that range, and there are a number of sites, which, I mean, we also are excited about that as an opportunity. I was actually also trying to find a definition that helped to clarify exactly what that is. And as someone who actually worked on the housing element years ago, I remember going through and looking for sites across the city, and they tend to be 10,000 square foot sites that have enough height that you can get something like 60 to 80 units, but we would need to have that a little bit more clear and defined. I also think that there might be the possibility of other ways in which we could do affordable housing in the future. We also don't wanna preclude that. But I I did really appreciate that you were trying to kind of be much more, like, clear and focused about exactly what kinds of sites. I think it would need a little bit more definition, but it's certainly within there's a range and way in which we operate, which we're we're thinking about those kinds of criteria.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. You wanna make a motion?

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Okay. With that, I would like to make a motion to move the amendments, 100% affordable on SFMTA sites from file number two five one zero seven three into file number two five zero seven zero one.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Recorded the motion from vice chair Chen that makes these adjustments to two five zero seven zero one coming from the source two five one zero seven three. And on that motion, vice chair Chen?

[Kristen Evans (Small Business Forward)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Chen, aye. Member Mahmood? Mahmood, no. Chair Melgar? No. Melgar, no. There are there is one aye and two nos with member Mahmood and chair Melgar in the dissent.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. That motion does not move forward. Okay. So for the next batch of amendments, the supervisor is no longer with us, but let's go through them one by one, please. So the first one is supervisor Chan. It removes form based density in the base zoning in all districts and reverts density to existing density limits. I think we can take both of them together, and you can talk about them. The next one is section 209.4. And that is also no form based zoning for new RTOC district. Updates the RTO district zoning control table. RTOC column changing form based density to density allowed in the nearest neighborhood commercial district.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Thank you, supervisors. So, maybe I'll speak about the two amendments together. They they are somewhat similar, and really focus on, removing the, the capacity, not just from the local program, but also the base zoning. And so just wanted to remind, people that, as part of what we presented with the methods, you know, the met the various methods are looking at different numbers. Some are in the base zoning, some in the local pro program zoning. So this these amendments affect the numbers differently. But we do think that these represent a pretty significant hit to our capacity numbers, on the order of 5,000 to 22,000 units. And so, you know, if if they were to go forward, HED would guide us that we would need to make that capacity up somewhere else. And that would be hard to do at this point in the process.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Anyone have questions or comments? Supervisor Mahmoud?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: I had a question. Did the supervisor provide any, alternative to where to make up that capacity?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: I I can only comment on, you know, what our office has seen. And, we we have not been in conversation with them about making, commensurate increases anywhere else.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: As in they didn't propose any, or you didn't ask?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: They they didn't propose any. Yeah. So we we and we did not volunteer any necessarily, but I don't know if they've made, requests to the city attorney or anyone else. That's just our department. We haven't heard that request.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: The supervisor also mentioned talking with the mayor's office. Did the mayor's office, did, supervisor Chan propose any commensurate increase to account for this?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: No. Good to know. Okay. So I have a question about this, because, you know, I have heard from, some folks in my district, some of my constituents, that they don't like the density controls, especially in the RH one in RH one D areas. So a couple years ago, supervisor and Gardeo and I collaborated on streamlining legislation for four units in these areas, and up to six stories on corner lots. How did those numbers compare to the numbers provided by density decontrol, in terms of capacity?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: So that's a separate question, supervisor. The, the base zoning changes that you're or that are in this amendment, are not in the R District, so it would it would be in the mostly the commercial corridors and then in the new RTOC District. Whereas the, the RH and the RM zone properties that are off of the corridors, their base zoning will remain unchanged. You can only get the density control through using the local program.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you very much for the clarification. Okay. So I don't see any more questions or comments. So let's go to, the next amendment, which is, to planning code section 206.1. Expands categories of historic resources for prohibition of demolition and adds no alterations of historic resources in local program. Expands universe of historic resources ineligible for local program, for listed resources to those eligible and potentially eligible, including non contributing sites that are within those districts. So if you could talk about that, and also, you know, tell us, you know, about the compliance issues. But also, the amendment that we did move into the file that was, proposed by supervisor Mandelmann, and how that compares to this, please.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Yes. So this amendment would exempt far more parcels than supervisor Mandelmann's amendment. The president Mandelmann amendment to exempt just the landmarked and designated properties would affect about 500 I think five thirty something parcels. So, you know, it it is an impact, but it's it's not a major impact given that there's over 90,000 parcels in the rezoning. And and in addition, as we noted, we hadn't even counted any capacity on those landmarks in our site's inventory. This amendment uses a very broad definition that includes, essentially, not only properties that are historic resources, it includes items that are potentially eligible, as well as properties like non contributors in historic districts, properties that are mentioned in our historic context statements that may not even themselves be individually eligible. So that could include category B or category C properties. So because of that, it is a pretty major impact on the capacity numbers. We're estimating, somewhere in the range of, 10 to 20,000 units. Okay. Thank you. Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Just to clarify on you said how this definition is quite broad, and it's great it has a huge reduction. So one example is properties located, in my understanding, in a historic district that are identified or adopted in a survey of historic context statement as potentially eligible for listing properties identified, that are located within a historic district, even though they may not be historic themselves. So, rhetorically speaking, if there's a parking lot in an area that is a historic context, would that be removed from the family zoning plan as a result of this amendment?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: That's correct. And and also remind, people that we have, Rich to create a a way in further on any of the definitions. But, yes, the parking lot, if it's in a historic district, we would consider it a class a building, even if it's a non contributor. And so it would be exempt.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: So this would be making it impossible for us to build housing on parking lots?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: It would be removing it from the rezoning. So you could still go forward with the existing zoning, whatever that might be.

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: Got it.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: I mean, based on my context, this is way too broad of a definition. If we can't if it adds some inhibition to be able to have upzoning on a parking lot, that seems counterintuitive to, I think, most San Franciscans. So

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. So let's go on to the next amendment, which is to planning code section 206.1b 10. The amendment is no residential demolitions in local program. Adds, number nine, does not demolish, remove, or convert to any other use, any existing dwelling units or residential flats. Question two, planning department.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Yes. So this is another, amendment that would have a major impact on our capacity numbers. So, we estimate, you know, it could affect tens of thousands of parcels. So so, yes. So it it would, present a much expanded exemption from the ones that we've already, that have already been adopted into the file that would exempt, which are just three unit and above, rent controlled buildings.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: So would this also include all of the buildings in RH 1 and RH 1 D's areas?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Correct. So as written, it's all demolition. So it would be single family homes, you know, not necessarily rent controlled buildings. So it would be basically anything that has a residential use on it.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Seacliff? Correct. Forest Hill? Yes. Jordan Park. Okay. Any okay. Supervisor Mahmoud?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: So just to clarify, you mentioned that this would apply to single family homes. So if you're a single family home, and you're the homeowner of that home, and you live there, and you decided to sell it to to, upsell in that context, that would be prohibited under this?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: That that's correct. They wouldn't be able to use this rezoning. So it would just be whatever the current controls are.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Even if it was of their own volition of the homeowner who Correct. Was living there. Okay.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. So moving on to the next amendment, which is three to three three four g. The thirty month shot clock adds a process requirement through expiration if a project sponsor has not procured a building or site permit for construction within thirty months of project approval, with the ability to extend by six months or longer in the case of an appeal or lawsuit.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Yes. Supervisors, this would not necessarily be an impact on the housing capacity numbers, but this would be considered a, impact on housing constraints. You know, essentially, we we already do have it's it's not quite a shot clock, but we do have a limit on, entitlements. By default, it's thirty six, months with the ex option to extend. So we really do have something that's similar to this on the books. This would make it more strict. I believe you can only get one extension, whereas we're a little bit more flexible, especially during moments like this where many projects are delayed. So we would consider this a constraint that could really hinder development in some cases. We do also know, and, you know, and have demonstrated through our affordable housing sites analysis work, that projects sit in our pipeline for a very long time. Affordable projects sit in our pipeline for a very long time. So there's also concern that this would affect those affordable projects, especially because they are perhaps even more complex and are bringing in funding sources that have, you know, different different grantors, different timelines, etcetera. So, yes, we would we do consider this, you know, a substantial constraint.

[Ramey (Rami) Tan (Local Architect)]: And perhaps,

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: I'll just add, you all had an item earlier today about building permits expiring. And so, thinking of this similarly, you know, if we wanted to provide more flexibility for building permits, we might want to continue our flexibility of the thirty six months allowance for planning, entitlements to to expire, and then allowing for, folks to renew or extend those permits.

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

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: I was hoping supervisor Chan would be here. But did in the conversations, either the mayor's office or the planning department, did they indicate how that thirty month timeline was created?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Can you come up to the mic, please? Miss Bonnie?

[Ms. Small (SFMTA Joint Development Program)]: We had, very productive and helpful conversations, but that was not included in, our discussions.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: In the planning department?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: We've not had a conversation on this particular amendment.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. So the last amendment that we haven't spoken about is to section two zero six point one z c. That restricts the location of off-site BMR units. Remove shall provide the required units within the R4 height and bulk district or under inclusionary housing ordinance. Instead, units revert to earlier requirements that they be provided within a half a mile of the project.

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: So this amendment, again, would be a constraint on housing development. And in particular, what this would realistically do is unless a project right, so a project comes in, they may want to satisfy their inclusionary, housing obligation by actually building an affordable building. And in this case, that would be restricted to be done within one half mile of the project site, which might make that challenging if there isn't land that they can purchase and bring those buildings to fruition, those units to fruition. And so this might just mean that many developers don't choose this option. And so it would be a constraint, particularly on that option of satisfying inclusionary housing.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. So I think that is it for, the remaining amendments because we have already moved, the rest onto the original file. Okay. Go ahead, supervisor Chen. I'm sorry. I must have missed that one.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Last amendment. My goal of this amendment, related to poverty equity geographies, is to ensure that the neighborhood areas that have historically burned the burden of displacement pressures, and where a higher concentrations of vulnerable residents resides. Not to be subject to the rezoning. These are the neighborhood areas that the planning department, the department of public health, and our housing elements have defined as priority equity geographies. These are the areas which have been subject to rezone rezoning in the past, and continue to be eligible for state streamlining incentives and density bonuses. So development wouldn't stop in these areas. In some cases, the priority equity geographies overlap with the state's assessment of higher resources area. And this is not a surprise, given the level of gentrification we have seen in San Francisco. Today, we see very high income neighbors living alongside very low income and vulnerable communities. We shouldn't be doubly penalizing those vulnerable communities because the city already enabled that gentrification to occur. I have heard from the planning department that many of the households in the priority equity geographies are good candidates for development. But this is but is that a good reason in and of itself when Housing Elements says instead we should be centering anti displacement and community stabilization strategy and enhance public investments on these puzzles. I have been told that some supervisors are interested in additional development on the priority equity geographies, But I do not support making these changes without the impacted community that have faced the greatest displacement risks at the table making these determinations. I also have been asked to trade out the priority equity geographies for additional capacity elsewhere. My position is that planning department can provide options for how we can make up this capacity, and I would be very happy to engage in this conversation together with my colleagues on this committee.

[Ms. Small (SFMTA Joint Development Program)]: With that,

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Chair Melga. Just to put it out, I would like to make a motion to adopt the amendment, introduce, a m- amendment, to remove all priority equity geographies from rezoning, from file number 251,071 into file number 250,700.

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

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: Thank you, supervisor. With respect, certainly understand the spirit of the proposal. It is about, you know, several thousand units that we would need to find space for. So at this point in the process, that amount of capacity shifting to either, back into neighborhoods that are already part of rezoning or other neighborhoods, would require re referrals to planning commission, as well as ensuring that it would comply with our environmental review. So at this point in time, you know, we don't have, as a department, other places to propose, to move to zoning. And so it would be a constraint, sorry, it would be a big impact to our capacity at this point in time, that we would put us out of compliance.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Did you wanna say something, supervisor Mahmood? Okay. So, thank you so much, supervisor Chen. I wish we had a little more time for this because I do share your, philosophical, sort of framework around protecting the priority equity geography areas. I share it. That is like the philosophical underpinning of our housing element. I think my problem is that we didn't get those pegs right. And so, as I said, in my district, the peg is the San Francisco Golf Course, and the Olympic Club, and the churches on Brotherhood Way. There's no community displacement there. Nobody lives there. And it is a lot of land. And it is areas that should be developed into housing if someday those owners choose to do something else. And a couple of them are eager to do that. And so that is only my district. There are other realities in other districts. I do think that, I will point out that I did say this to planning three years ago when we were deciding on the methodology. Because the CalEnviroScreen and all of the other data sources that we used to figure out what the priority equity geographies were, you know, were just not focused enough for, you know, for my liking. That being said, I think we mostly got it right. So, the upzoning map does not include the Mission. It doesn't include Chinatown. It doesn't include Bayview. It doesn't include SoMa. It doesn't include, you know, a lot of the areas where we and it doesn't include most of District 11. It's, you know, it includes, part of the area on San Jose Avenue around the BART station. And so I think and that is in the priority equity. And if your amendment included that, I would support it. But your amendment has everybody, including my, you know, district, which I am eager to redevelop. Like I said, San Francisco Golf Course. It's not really an area that I think should be protected on a racial or, you know, that equity lens. So, you know, that it is unfortunate that we are at this place. I think that, you know, we certainly could look at subsequent legislation, or ways to get to the goals that you want without having such a broad brush. Because I sort of realize that the broad brush that you're painting is because you know, the priority equity areas were so broadly defined to begin with. And that is also unfortunate. Okay. Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: I did have one clarifying question that just came up from supervisor Melgrove's comments. If these areas are removed, and particularly, I think there might be a couple regions that are near transit areas, how would SB 79 come into play instead?

[Rachel Tanner (Planning Department)]: I'll have Mr. Switzky answer that question.

[Joshua Switzke (Deputy Director, Citywide Planning)]: Sure. As you can see as you saw in the maps earlier that we showed, the SB79 area is very broad, and it definitely includes a lot of the areas in the PEG. So if we removed those areas from the rezoning, they likely would not meet the minimum criteria under SB79. And it would both make our citywide alternative plan likely suffer and may not we may not have a citywide qualifying alternative plan. And those particular areas also wouldn't be able to be exempted from SB79, so it would apply in those areas.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: So you're effectively saying that if these are removed from the plan, one, it could throw out our compliance SB79, but two Possible. Those regions themselves could have higher heights

[Joshua Switzke (Deputy Director, Citywide Planning)]: Yes.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Than what we are proposing today.

[Joshua Switzke (Deputy Director, Citywide Planning)]: That's correct. Okay.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: So there is a motion on the floor.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: I've recorded a motion to amend two five zero seven hundred offered by vice chair Chen to remove the priority equity geographies from the rezoning project. On that motion, vice chair Chen. Chen, I, member Mahmood. Mahmood, no. Chair Melgar? No. Melgar, no. There is one aye and two nos with member Mahmood and chair Melgar in the dissent.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. That motion does not move forward. So it was pointed out to me that there are two additional amendments that we did not speak about. So I'm gonna, you know, include those. Amendment to planning code section 249.11, And that is to remove specific SFMTA parcels from SUD. It removes fifteen ninety six, zero four four, and four five from the non contiguous SFMTA SUD, they'll apply a bus turnaround.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Supervisors, so this would, essentially be removing, parcels from District 1 that are in the SFMTA joint development, portfolio. So, it's a specific property. And so, the public parcels were not actually part of the capacity numbers. So, you know, we consider this, you know, essentially an additional constraint that could have capacity implications for those sites. Because we have been in communication with SFMTA, about, you know, how they will use the rezoning to, pursue potentially future housing development. So to put it another way, it doesn't necessarily affect the numbers, but it is affecting, potential housing production.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. And that that is also the case for amendment to section eight g. That's correct. Okay. Alright. I think that is all the amendments. Is there are there any that I miss planning staff? We thought we already did it.

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Those are the only, I think, remaining amendments in the planning code, ordinance, but I believe there may have been a couple more in the map ordinance, from supervisor Chan. So it was, the amendments, related to, neighborhood commercial corridors in District 1, as well as the coastal zone properties in District 1.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Let's talk about those then. So can you give me the numbers, just so that we have it on the record?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: Sure. So the the first amendment would lower heights in, various neighborhood commercial districts, other than Geary Boulevard, and on proposed RTOC districts throughout all of District 1. And so it was it was varied depending on the corridor. But we do anticipate that this would, affect, you know, a substantial number of parcels. We're we're guessing around a thousand parcels, and affecting about 500 units. So it is an impact on our capacity numbers. The second amendment would be removing numerous parcels that are in District 1 in the coastal zone. So that is affecting about 120 parcels, and another several 100 potential units from our capacity numbers.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. Supervisor Mahmoud?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Same question as before. We had I mean, earlier, supervisor Cheryl proposed an amendment, about removing some parcels, but then provided commensurate parcels to make sure the capacity was net neutral, as per the guidance of HCD. Was any proposed, parcels provided to be commensurate increase for this decrease?

[Lisa Chen (Planning Department)]: We we did not have any conversations about other parcels.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: Okay. And the mayor's office as well? There was no proposals? Okay. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Any further comments, supervisor Chen? Okay. Just give me a sec. Alright. Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Member)]: I would like to make a motion to, table, item number six, file number 251071, and item number eight, file number 251073.

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

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Chair Malaga. I think this item is really important. It's a this item is for citywide importance. As demonstrated by the fact that each time it comes before this committee, we have had many additional supervisors join the discussions. I am very concerned that if we table the amendments in the substitute file, it would prevent the rest of our colleagues from considering these amendments. And I would like to add that it would also give more time for District 4 that is currently not represented on the board of supervisors to weigh in on these amendments. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor Chen. I will just point out that, our, parliamentary procedures do allow for these amendments to be brought to the full board. So, it does not close off the possibility of them being considered. In addition to that, they can be also considered separately on December 1. It does not preclude it. This was a procedure to just keep things organized as we waded through the numerous amendments that our colleagues were proposing. That being said, because we are under a deadline, and as I had stated at the beginning of the meeting, if we do not vote on this, the general plan amendment automatically becomes law. And that is nothing to do with HCD. That's our very own charter that says that. Then that means that I, as a chair, need to keep this going, in a, you know, with an eye towards the deadline. So what that means is that for December 1, any amendments that have been considered substantive, that reduce capacity, or provide a constraint, can still be worked on, to meet those criteria for December 1, or when it comes to the full board. So, you know, I, do not think that tabling this file actually stops my colleagues from still working on those amendments. If there are goals that they still wanna reach, that, they can, reach, and still have it be compliant. So, with that, mister Kirk, let's take a vote on that motion, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: And you'd like to take the vote on both of them together? A motion was offered by member Mahmoud to table file numbers two five one zero seven one and two five one zero seven three. Those are agenda item numbers six and eight. On that motion, vice chair Chen Chen, no. Member Mahmood? Member Mahmood, on your motion. Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, aye. Madam chair, there are two ayes and one no on each of those motions with member vice chair Chen in the dissent.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. So now I would like to make a motion that we continue file number two five zero nine six six at general plan amendments. I item number five, file number 250,700, the zoning map for the family zoning plan. Item seven, file number 250,701, the planning, business, and tax regulation codes. And item nine, file number 250,985, the local coastal program amendment to our meeting on December 1.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On that motion offered by the chair, that agenda item number four, agenda item number five, agenda item number seven, and agenda item number nine be continued to December 1. Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting on that motion, vice chair Chen.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: No. No.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: This is the city to continue

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: what's left to December 1.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Aye. And I, Member Mahmood. Aye. Makhmud, aye. Chair Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. Madam chair, there are three ayes on the continuance of the balance of the items on our agenda.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. That motion passes. Do we have anything else on our agenda, mister Clerk?

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

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