San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. This meeting will come to order. Welcome to the 12/01/2025 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I hope everyone had a very enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday last week. I'm supervisor Mirna Melgar, chair of the committee, joined by vice chair supervisor Cheyenne Chen and supervisor Bilal Mahmood. The committee clerk today is Alisa Samara. And I also wanna thank Jeanette Engelauf with SFGUP TV for staffing this meeting and broadcasting it to folks in their homes. Madam clerk, do you have any announcements?

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Yes, madam chair. Please make sure to silence all cell phones and electron electronic devices you have. Documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. 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 on your right. Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways. First, you can email them to the land use clerk, johncarroll@john.carrollatsfgov.org. Or you may send send your written comments via US Postal Service to our office at City Hall, 1 Doctor Carlton B Goodlet Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 294102. If you submit public comment in writing, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and also included as part of the official file. Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of 12/09/2025 unless otherwise stated. Madam chair.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Thank you so much, madam clerk. I appreciate all the members of the public who are here. I just wanted to go over a few things because I've heard some feedback that folks are confused, especially to the, family zoning item of what we are doing and what the public participation will be. Since this is the fourth hearing of the rezoning item, we will limit comment from the public to one minute. But we will take public comment because that is required. And we have, really, two files. One that we created when we duplicated it when this was first introduced and had to go back to planning. Planning heard the amendments in that file, which supervisor President Mandelmann's amendments dealing with historic preservation. And I understand that the supervisor and the planning department have agreed on all the modifications. It's not controversial. So what we will do is take those amendments into the original file, and then table that second file. We're not tabling the amendments. We're just tabling the file, because it's a vehicle, and it's already served its purpose. We will hopefully, if my colleagues agree, vote on the amendments and put it in the original file. And then we will vote on that file. So that is what we're doing. It is an action. So we will take public comment on that action. But it is about the entirety of the family zoning plan, not just those amendments. So keep that in mind. Okay. So with that, mister clerk I'm sorry, madam clerk, let's go to, item number one. Thank you.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the building code to revise the timing of expiration of certain building permits and building permit application and affirming the CEQA determination.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Thank you so much. Okay. So this was introduced by supervisor Mahmoud. So the floor is yours.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Colleagues appreciate the vote to support this, ordinance last time. Again, this ordinance is about amending amending the building code to reduce some red tape and bureaucracy for, any applications submitted to the building department, so that it shall expire within three hundred sixty five days of submittal. Colleagues hope to have your vote again for a second time.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Thank you so much. We took, this. We've already heard this item. So, supervisor Chen.

[Vice Chair Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: Thank you, chair Malaga. I I just want to be, very clear that I I am also really, supportive of reducing red tape, and to make sure that we can continue to develop as soon as possible. But this is also, all of us really want to see it's also the same. It's more housing to be developed as quickly as possible. For developments where developers have displaced a tenant, the timeline to bring projects to a completion, it's even more urgent at this moment. So tenant who are displaced and awaiting the completions of housing projects to be able to exercise their right of first refusal into the newly developed home ex face an expiring shot clock, based upon standards established by the state and within the residential tenant protection ordinance, which I sponsored it. And you yeah. And tenants may receive a maximum of forty two months of relocation payments. And it's critical that the timeline for building permit expiration and the length of time tenants receive relocation assistance are aligned. Otherwise, developers can indefinitely extend their timeline while relocation benefits should tenants rent out. Tenants who face displacement will have to will have the double burden of expiring relocation benefits while continuing to remain in limbo and awaiting to move into the new developed unit. In my tenant protections legislation, the maximum of forty two months of relocation assistance provides an incentive for project sponsors to complete construction constructions of new housing projects as diligently as possible within this time frame. What I see in this legislation is movement in the opposite direction. It provides unlimited flexibility to protect sponsors to receive their entitlement without a shot clock to incentivize constructions, and enable displaced tenants who exercise their rights of return. So I my office have reached out to supervisor Bambu's office to ask if that's a willingness to better align the policy goals between this legislation and the tenant protection ordinance. Unfortunately, without a meaningful amendment to align building permit timeline with the maximum length of relocation assistance for displaced tenants, This legislation would undermine a right to return for displaced tenants. So without meaningful, amendments, I would vote no for this one. Thank you.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Thank you. Supervisor Mahmood.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Yeah. Thank you, supervisor Chen, for sharing, some of your concerns. I wanted to share, I am also supportive of the tenant protection ordinance. And, actually, this law is not in opposition to that. And I wanna address some of your concerns, because I know there is renewed interest here. So firstly, the time period for which a project can sit without being built is already longer than forty two months that is allotted for tenant relocation benefits under your TPO. Putting a hard deadline on projects that are making progress towards completion would only add an undue burden. So the expiration is only in the context of if no one has provided progress and proven progress towards their building permit. Otherwise, we're just making them repeat the work that they're already doing. And so they have to prove that progress has happened. Second, putting that R deadline, we put an undue burden on the small number of projects that require relocation. There's also, I understand, concerns that you raise around speculation. And just to be clear, this ordinance does not change the three year window in which an entitled project must get permits. Under current laws, a permitted site can sit for multiple years without any work being done on it. Also, this legislation makes it harder for someone to take an entitled permitted project and shop it around if they have no intention of doing the work at the site, because progress by this law, has to be made within three hundred and sixty five days. So we think this issue on this issue, the item is a step in the right direction, in alignment with the tenant protection ordinance as well. And, Tehana from DBI is here as well, if you wanna comment on any of these components

[Tay Hanna (Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Building Inspection - DBI)]: as well. Thank you, supervisors. Tay Hanna, legislative affairs manager at DBI. I would concur with that the supervisor said that this does provide an actual shorter timeline for that first initial work to get done, whereas the existing timelines go beyond, the the relocation assistance timelines as well. I would also note this aligns with state law. This is typically what's done in most major jurisdictions with some minor modifications, But the state really does, in the state building code, sort of lean towards allowing projects that have progressed to continue progressing. And so that's what this ordinance does.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: If I could, before I let you go, mister Ta what, percentage of projects, that DBICs would you say this applies to? Like, what percentage of of people who pull up a building permit, go through entitlement, then have to, like, keep extending, beyond this. You don't have to be exact, just, like, ballpark.

[Tay Hanna (Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Building Inspection - DBI)]: Yeah. So I would take this in two portions. The percentage is pretty small. The vast majority of our permits are done over the counter. They're completed well within a year timeline. They're smaller projects, you know, a kitchen remodel, not necessarily new construction, which I think is more so the crux of this conversation. What I would also note is that in the past, the department has been relatively, generous with extensions. It's written in the code that the building official can provide extensions as needed. And so when we see these larger projects that do take multiple year timelines, even though so as the supervisor has already noted, that time list timeline is longer than the, relocation assistance timeline as is, And the department has been consistently providing extensions because we don't wanna be a hindrance to additional work. So the proportion of project that this applies to for the conversation that supervisor Chen is having is relatively small. And then of those projects, the existing time frame has some of the similar, I think, potential concerns that have already been highlighted. So the the shifting of the time line here really is addressing other problems and not what you've identified.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Thank you. Let's, go to public comment on this item, before we make a motion. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Members of the public

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: who wish to provide public comment on item number one, please come forward now. Seeing no speakers, madam chair.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Would someone like to make a motion? Miss, supervisor Mahmood.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: I have a request to make a motion to send this to the board with a positive recommendation.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: On that motion, vice chair Chen. Sorry. I couldn't hear. I'm sorry.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: You said no. No.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Chen, no. Member Mahmood. Aye. Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are two ayes and one no with super vice chair Chen voting no.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Thank you. Okay. Let's go to item number two, please.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Item number two is an ordinance amending the planning code to allow the city to waive the inclusionary housing fee and other requirements in areas outside of the priority equity geography special use district in exchange for a project sponsor's agreement to subject all units in the project to rent control and allow projects outside of the SUD to comply with the inclusionary housing ordinance by dedicating land to the city and making appropriate findings.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Thank you so much. This is, an item that I introduced and have worked with the planning department on, to go along with the rezoning plan that we will be taking. And the reason I wanted to have this move forward is because I am a firm believer in rent control. I think that it has provided stability to a lot of communities in our city, And we are losing units every day. And I feel like we should be adding units. It is not going to solve all our housing problems, but it is a legitimate way where we can stabilize community and provide affordability for some of our residents. So this is an option right now. When a developer builds new housing, they have three, four ways that they can meet their obligation, by either providing BMR units on-site, paying an in lieu fee, doing an off-site, or in some areas, doing a land dedication. This would provide a fourth option for the West Side, the areas that we are rezoning. And that folks, could meet their obligation by opting into rent control from the get go, rather than building BMR units. Why that may be advantageous for some developers is that right now, under a very high interest rate environment, if you are providing BMR units, you have to finance that upfront. Whereas, if you're providing rent controlled units, those units become affordable over time. So you're essentially deferring that obligation over time. I know that, you know, some folks have expressed concern that this might be a little too advantageous, that people will just opt into this rather than doing BMR units. So I, this legislation, I do have some some amendments that I have floated to my colleagues that restrict this option only to the high resource areas on the West Side. And, you know, there's a reason for that too, in that compared to the East Side Of San Francisco, the West Side lags behind significantly in terms of rental housing. In District 7, people have very few options for rental housing, either rent controlled or non rent controlled. In all of the debates that we've had on the family zoning plan, there are a few maps going up. They're showing two two unit buildings. Those maps are a little misleading, because it shows all two unit buildings, not just rental two units. It also has condos, and TICs, and single family homes with ADUs. The issue is that, on the West Side, homeowner occupied structures are actually much more common than rental structures. And on the East Side, it's flipped. And so if we are going to create housing for the next generation, for younger people, or for folks who want to downsize from the big four bedroom, single family homes, and still live in the communities that they know and love, and they have, you know, friends and churches. We need to provide options. And so I think this is an option. It is not mandatory. Folks have asked me how, you know, we can't do any more rent controlled units after 1979. That is true. But because we are giving a benefit, in the upzoning plan, we can do this if the developer opts in. So it is a choice, not a imposition. I do hope it works. In talking to the development community, I've gotten good feedback from folks who think that this, you know, may work. I wanna see more housing construction on the West Side, particularly of rental housing. And if we can have rent controlled housing to boot, that would be awesome. So, I do have, you know, amendments, as I said. I would love to have, my colleagues support. And to, this item did pass the planning commission unanimously. So I do, hope that this can be, you know, a good alternative. Supervisor Chen.

[Vice Chair Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: Thank you, Chair Maoga. I appreciate your creative problem solving by creating more affordability strategy in the high resources community. This is an issue that I also care a lot about. In October, I also initiated a BLA analysis study to examine the trends in our inclusionary housing program requirements. Since its inception in 2002, the inclusionary program has created over 4,700 affordable housing units throughout the city. This unit's provided a critical safety net for tenants who face housing insecurity in our housing market, or experience displacement. The budget and and legislative analysis is examining the impact and forecasting created by removal or waiver of impacted fees and inclusionary requirements. Something is something that is being proposed here in this legislation. The board has considered multiple piece of legislation to enroll standards, and also, in some cases, completely waived the inclusionary housing requirements and fees over the last few years. There are two main issues that I am grappling with. First, I agree that the rent control is a vital protection for tenants. However, this poses a significant trade off, since these new units will be market rate at initial occupancy, and will not provide any affordability when they are built. Second, we are not building consensus on the board, and with our mayor to identify replacement funding strategies for affordable housing as a result of measures such as this one. But because of these two concerns, I would also feel much more comfortable if we began with a program at a more modest scale. So I'm very pleased to see that you are proposing to do so with amendments that you prepare for today. So thank you, and I would love to support that.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Thank you. Thank you, supervisor. I did work with advocates to have those amendments be the case, in that they proposed that it be limited to the high resource areas and not other areas, which have, as you very well pointed out, provided a lot of, you know, fees and BMR units. Not on the West Side, unfortunately. But thank you so much. So with that, I just I wanna go through my amendments, unless supervisor Mahmoud has any, well, actually, why don't we have Veronica Flores come up and give her presentation, and then I can go through the amendments, and then we can go to public comment.

[Veronica Flores (San Francisco Planning Department)]: Thank you, chair and Elgar. Veronica Flores, planning department staff. The planning commission heard this item on October 9, and adopted a recommendation of approval with modifications. The first recommended modification was to explicitly prohibit condominium conversions of the new units resulting from this proposed ordinance. And the second recommended modification was specifically related to the land dedication alternative, and that was to specify that the dedicated land needs to accommodate 35%, or 35% or greater of the potential units that could be provided on the principal project site. And, Chair Melgar, I believe you'll be going over some of this in more detail during, your additional remarks. But this concludes the commission report. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Thank you so much, miss Flores. So the amendments that I'm proposing today, were a result of the feedback we got from the planning commission, and as I said, some of the advocates. So I have distributed them, but I will go through them. So first, the amendments would limit the areas where the new waiver would apply to residential and residential mixed, or neighborhood commercial, or named commercial districts with a height limit of 65 feet or less in well resourced neighborhood. This is to target the use of this waiver to areas that do not have as much multifamily stock now. Clarify that projects using the new rent control option will not be subdivided. Meaning, you know, turned into condos, or other ways. Because they are, you know, meant to be given this option and vantage to create rental units. Clarify that if a developer uses the land dedication option to meet the inclusionary requirement, that they would need to accommodate a total amount of units equal or greater to 35% of the units that are being produced. And lastly, we want to include some reporting, that any new units produced by this waiver would be included in the housing inventory. So the department will figure out how exactly to do that. We're not going to mandate that, or prescribe how. But we are saying that there needs to be some communication between the planning department and the rent board, so that these units be somehow reflected in the registry. So the reporting also allows us to see how this option is being used, and whether it needs to be reassessed, amended, or tweaked at some point. So with that, let's go to public comment. Madam Clerk?

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Members of the public who

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: wish to provide public comment on item number two, please come forward now. Seeing no speakers, madam chair.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Thank you. So with that, I would like to make a motion that we adopt the amendments, as I read them, into as I read them into the record, into the file, and then, send it out as a positive recommendation to the full board.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion to accept

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: public comment, madam clerk. I don't remember. Public comment is now closed.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Alright.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Thank you.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: The motion to amend and send this ordinance as amended with a positive recommendation. Vice chair Chen. Aye. Chen, aye. Member Mahmood. Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. There are three ayes.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Thank you. That motion passes. Okay. Let's go to item number three, madam clerk.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: 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, amending the administrative code to require landlords to provide additional relocation assistance to lower income tenants. Fifth, re update the standards and procedures for hearings related to tenant harassment. Six, require additional disclosures and buyout agreements. Seventh, require an additional disclosure and notice of intent to withdraw units. And eighth, making various non substantive changes and clarifications and making appropriate findings.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Thank you so much. The floor is yours. Supervisor Chen.

[Vice Chair Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: Thank you, chairman Agar. Colleagues, I appreciate your collaboration as we introduce today the remaining set of amendments that will help to reach many of these goals of the residential tenant protection ordinance that we set out to achieve. The first amendment would address the standards for the for demolition that trigger the additional tenant provisions under section 317.2. These amendments have been developed by planning staff, in partnership with community stakeholders. I shall read through the language changes proposed in planning code section three seventeen B2. In this legislation, we clarify that demolition is defined as residential demolitions in planning code section three seventeen B2, and is the standard that would trigger the protections under this ordinance. In addition, the language would be further refined to combine section three one seven B two B and C. It would state that a major alterations of residential building that proposes to removal of 50% or more of the sum of the front face and rear face, and 50% or more of the horizontal elements of the existing building, as measured in square foot of actual surface area, would trigger residential demolitions. It would clarify that a residential merger shall mean the combining of two or more residential or unauthorized units, including the creation of an open connection between units. It would strike the provision that authorized planning to reduce the numerical elements of this critical criteria by up to 20%. It would clarify that where an existing exterior opening is in field, this shall be considered demolished it, and where a portion of an exterior wall is removed it, any remaining wall above and below that new opening with a height less than the building code requirement for legal headroom shall be considered demolished. And in the case of where an existing building is elevated, regardless of height, this shall be considered removal of horizontal elements for the purpose of the sections. And lastly, that there be a reporting requirement to generate data and analysis on how these changes affect projects, and report these findings to the planning commissions. The second amendment is a minor change to the conditional use criteria, to align it with the citywide standard around during unit mix. It would clarify that a project, if five units or more, increases the number of two or more bedroom units on-site. The third amendment would help fill a tragic gap in our current system that pertains to demolitions as a result of a serious and imminent safety hazards, such as fire. When buildings are hit by devastating fire, which displace residents, there has not always been a clear path for those displaced residents to return when those buildings are demolished and rebuilt. If a building is demolished after a fire, this amendment would ensure that displaced persons are considered an existing occupant for the purpose of this ordinance, and would able to exercise a right of first refusal, or right of return, when a landlord demolishes the building, and submit an application to rebuild within five years. I have been informed by the city attorney that this amendment's substantive. Thank you, colleague, for your consideration and support. Thank you.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Thank you so much, supervisor Chen, for all the heavy lifting. This is actually really exciting. We might land this plane. So, with that, I also have, an amendment, related to LSAC disclosures, that don't contradict any of your amendments. These changes appear highlighted on pages four, fifty one, and 53, which was previously shared. The purpose of this is so that the city can be made aware when an owner also intends to demolish the building when filing an Ellis Act, eviction. This will be useful for city planning to understand how demolition of units using s p three thirty interacts with the Ellis Act. So with that, colleagues, thank you. If there's no questions or comments, let's go to public comment.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Members of the public who

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: would like to provide public comment on item number three, please come forward now. Line up to your right along the curtains. Each speaker will be allotted two minutes. Will the first speaker come forward?

[Tina Gary (Castro LGBTQ Cultural District)]: Dear Land Use and Transportation Committee members, as the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District director, I respectfully ask that you help protect rent control units in San Francisco. The Castro LGBTQ cultural district supports amendments to the mayor's upzoning plan to protect rent control units from getting demolished from developers. Protections should be strengthened to disallow demolition of any rent control buildings. We also support removing all rent control units from the local owners.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: I'm sorry to stop you. I just wanna make clear that we are taking comment on the tenant protection ordinance, not the mayor's upzoning plan.

[Tina Gary (Castro LGBTQ Cultural District)]: Okay.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: They're two different pieces of legislation.

[Veronica Flores (San Francisco Planning Department)]: But Sorry

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: about that. It's okay.

[Tina Gary (Castro LGBTQ Cultural District)]: I I think what I'll cut to is just thank you for your hard work in trying to protect rent control units. I appreciate all of your labor. Thank you.

[Public commenter (Executive Co‑Chair, Castro Community Benefit District Advisory Board)]: Like my colleague too, I just wanna say thank you so much for prioritizing protecting rent rent controlled units. I am the executive co chair of the Castro Castro District Advisory Board, and that is just so paramount to keeping queer people in the city. Thank you.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Thank you

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: for your comments. Next speaker.

[Anna Christina Arana (Race and Equity in All Planning / SF Anti‑Displacement Coalition)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. I'm Anna Christina Arana, a member of the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition. Rep SF and the SF Anti Displacement Coalition really appreciate supervisor Chen and Chell Mel Chair Melgar and their staff for all their hard work researching, coordinating, and drafting the TPO, and for working in collaboration with our coalitions. The further amendment that chair Chair Melgar is still working on to make compliance with the city's buyout program mandatory is absolutely critical for the TPO. Rep and ADC look forward to these further amendments. On behalf of rep, I also want to express our gratitude to Charlie Shammes, Jennifer Feber, and Malena Leon Ferrera for all their hard work to get the TPO every day closer to being the strongest TPO possible within the limitations of the state law. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker?

[Gabriela Ruiz]: Good afternoon, Chair Malgar, members of the committee. My name is Gabriela Ruiz, and I'm here today on behalf of Communities in Chinatown, The Mission, and Bayview. First, we'd like to thank supervisor Chen for championing this legislation, and to supervisor Melgar for advancing important amendments that strengthen tenant protection citywide. We are grateful for both of your ongoing leadership. As you know, priority equity geographies were established in the housing element because these neighborhoods face the highest risk of displacement and are home to low income residents with the least housing security. To truly meet that intent, the TPO must do more to protect tenants and PEGs specifically. One key improvement is to stronger demolition controls and PEGs. For example rec for example, requiring deeper affordability for replacement units when rent controlled homes are removed. This would ensure redevelopment does not accelerate displacement in the very communities this ordinance is meant to protect. We understand this may require addition additional planning commission review, which is why we strongly support duplicating the file today, so these amendments can be considered and incorporated as the legislation moves forward. Thank you for your time and your continued partnership in making the TPO a meaningful anti displacement tool for all communities. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Zach Weisenberger (Young Community Developers)]: Good afternoon, supervisor. Zach Weisenberger with Young Community Developers. First of all, I want to appreciate the work and constant collaboration that has gone into strengthening the TPO. However, we remain concerned that critical gaps remain. Gaps that, if not fixed, will undermine the core tenant protections this legislation is meant to achieve. The first issue is the Ellis Act language, which must prevent a property owner from clearing a building before filing an application, which effectively invites displacement before oversight begins. The language must clearly bar Ellis Act evictions at any point prior to application from being used to evade the city's protections. Second, the buyout language must be strengthened. As drafted, it takes out it leaves out key disclosure requirements from the city's buyout ordinance, allowing owners to quietly displace tenants before projects reach planning or the board. To prevent displacement, all buyout disclosures must be included and enforceable. At the same time, we wanna reiterate the need for stronger priority equity geography or PEG specific demolition safeguards. PEGs have endured decades of redevelopment and continue to face the deepest housing instability, Strengthening replacement unit requirements in these neighborhoods, for example, requiring demolished protected units to be replaced at deeper levels of affordability is consistent with the housing element and essential for stabilizing long term residents. We understand that this amendment would be substantive and need to return to the planning commission. However, heightened PEG protections deserve a viable path forward, something that can be accomplished through a duplicated file. We urge the board to take the necessary steps to resolve these outstanding issues without closing the LSN buyout loopholes and with no viable path to adopt priority equity geography specific standards, we risk passing a bill that preserves the appearance of protection while leaving our most vulnerable tenants exposed. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Julie Fisher (District 1 resident)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Julie Fisher, district one. I've attended several of these sessions. And today, I just wanna say every piece of the puzzle that removes a little bit more worry for caregivers, which I'm a group a member of that group, or for our consumers, and one of them is present today, is helpful. I can't imagine that we're getting everything covered that needs to be covered, but I so appreciate everyone's hard work stepping forward. Any any additional work you do is still gonna be appreciated, but thank you for getting us to this point. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Augusta Goldstein (Long‑time rent‑controlled tenant)]: Augusta Goldstein, forty six year rent control tenant in the Richmond. I thank you all for the work you're doing to protect people like me, but I I want to speak to the, amendments that were chair that were tabled last meeting. Is there an opportunity in the, agenda? I'm too sight impaired I I'm sorry. To read the agenda.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: So that is the next item.

[Augusta Goldstein (Long‑time rent‑controlled tenant)]: Thank you.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Not this item. Thank you.

[Meg Heisler (San Francisco Anti‑Displacement Coalition)]: Good afternoon, chair Malgar, members of the committee. My name is Meg Heisler here on behalf of the San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition. We wanna share again our thanks to supervisor Chen, Charlie Shamas, Chair Melgar, Jen Feber, and Melena Leon Ferrera, for their doggedness in getting this legislation right. We're heartened to hear that, some essential amendments, particularly those regarding the definition of demolition and the Ellis Act, will be introduced today. But at the same time, we'd also like to reiterate the need for the legislation to state simply and unequivocally that developers must comply with the BIA ordinance to be approved for a demolition permit. Threats of eviction accompanied by under the table buyout offers are already a leading cause of displacement, and it should be a no brainer that we require compliance with existing law in the tenant protection ordinance. So thank you all. See you again next week.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Peter Boyle (Richmond District resident)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Peter Boyle. I live in the Inner Richmond. And I just I may be off topic here, but I just want to comment that some of the proposals being considered to increase the density of housing along California Street, Clement Street, and

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: I'm sorry.

[Peter Boyle (Richmond District resident)]: Sorry. Boulevard.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: That's the next item, not this item. This item is about the tenant protection ordinance. Supervisor Chen's ordinance is not about the density or the rezoning of Geary. That's our next item.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Okay.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: You will have public comment. Opportunity then. Thank you.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Are there any other speakers who would like to provide public comment on item number three? Seeing none, madam chair.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Madam vice chair, there were several comments for folks asking for further amendments than the ones that we are introducing. Obviously, those are not ready, or approved VASTA form. What I was gonna suggest is that we approve the amendments that we have today. They are substantive, so they have to wait until next week. And then, you know, next week, we will see where we are, in terms of our progress, and what we can do at that point. I wanna be able to pass what we can to go with the timeline, and at the same time, meet all of the things that we can meet with these ordinance, as you have intended. Okay. So with that, would you like to make a motion?

[Vice Chair Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: Yes. Thank you, chair. Thank you, chair Malga. I would like to make a motion to move my amendments and supervisor Malga's amendments forward. Thank you.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion to accept the amend the amendments as proposed by supervisors Chen and Melgar, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood. Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar. I. Melgar, aye. There are three ayes. Continue to next week.

[Vice Chair Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: And I would like, to continue this legislation to next week. Alright.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: And then on the motion to continue item number three as amended to the meeting of December 8, vice chair Chen Chen, I. Member Mahmood Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar. Aye. Melgar, I. There are three ayes.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: That motion passes. Thank you. And thank you, Milena, for all your hard work. With that, let's go on to the next I the next few items, madam clerk. I'm sorry. No. The next item is Yeah. Number four. Thank you.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Item number four is an ordinance amending the planning code to expand the boundaries of the Central Neighborhood's large residence special Use District and to apply its controls to all lots within the SUD with some exceptions to delete the Corona Heights large residence and SUD and merge it into the Central neighborhood's large residence SUD, amending the zoning map to reflect the deletion and boundary expansion and making appropriate findings.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Thank you so much, madam clerk. Forgive me to the members of the public that I said that the next item was gonna be rezoning. It is actually not. We have one more item before we get to rezoning, though it is related. And that is something that president Minnewman has introduced, so I will turn it over to him.

[Board President Rafael Mandelman]: Thank you, chair Melgar. Thank you, committee members. This, we we we spoke about this item, your last land use committee meeting, and this item has been with the land use committee for, I think, about a year now, awaiting a moment such as this when it might be appropriate to forward forward it on to the full board for action. I believe that this committee will forward the family zoning ordinance, to the full board, late later in your meeting. And so I would ask that you forward this item, item four, the expansion of the central neighborhoods large residence SUD, to include Coal Valley, for action by the full board, tomorrow.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Thank you. I don't see any comments or questions from my colleagues. And we did hear this last week. So or I'm sorry. Last time we met. So with that, let's go to public comment on this item, please.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Any member of the public who would like to provide public comments on item number four, please come forward now. Seeing no one, madam chair.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Thank you, president Mandelmann. I would like I would like to make a motion that we send this item, out of committee with a to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: On that motion to send item number four to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report, vice chair Chen Chen, I. Member, Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. There are three ayes.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: K. That item passes. Thank you. Now madam clerk, please call items five through nine together.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Item number five 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, Venice Avenue area plan, Western SoMa Area Plan, the Western Shoreline Area Plan, Downtown Land and Downtown Area Plan and Land Use Index to implement the family zoning program family housing zoning program, including the Housing Choice San Francisco program, by adjusting guidelines regarding building heights, density, design, and other matters, amending the city's local coastal program to implement the Housing Choice San Francisco program and other associated changes in the coastal zone and making appropriate findings. Item number six, and it's an ordinance amending the zoning zoning map, height and vault map, and the local coastal program to implement the family zoning plan by reclassifying and designating various certain properties, directing the planning director to transmit the ordinance to the coastal commission, and making appropriate findings. Item number seven is the ordinance amending the planning code to create the how housing choice San Francisco program, modify height and bulk limits, require only buildings taller than 85 feet to reduce ground level wind currents, make conforming changes, create the residential transit oriented commercial district, implement the MTC's transit oriented communities policy, revise off street parking and curb cut obligations, create the noncontiguous San Francisco MTA sites SUD, permit businesses displaced by new construction to relocate without a Conceive Authorization, make technical amendments, reduce usable open space and bicycle parking requirements for senior housing, amending the business and tax regulations code, amending the local coastal program to implement this program and other associated changes, and making appropriate findings. Item number eight is a duplicated ordinance, and item number seven that also amends the planning code, the business and tax regulations code, and the local coastal program in making appropriate findings. And finally, item number nine is a resolution transmitting to the California Coastal Commission for review and certification, an amendment to the implementation program, and land use plan of the city certified local coastal program to implement the family zoning plan and affirm the CEQA determination. Madam chair.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Thank you, madam clerk. We are now joined by supervisor Mandelmann. Thank you for being here. These items have been continued several times. And I just wanted to provide, like, a little overview of what is going on today, because I know that you guys are eager to give public comment, which we will take. And I will also go to planning staff for their remarks as well. If any supervisors have amendments that they want to propose, in addition to what is on the table, please do so before public comment. Since this is the fourth time we are hearing this item at committee, We are going to limit this to one minute, please. And no motions will take place until after public comment. So you may remember that at the very first of these hearings, president Mandelmann, had a, set of amendments that needed to be re referred to the planning commission because they had not been discussed, during the multiple hearings that the planning commission had had on this item. So what we did is that we, you know, made two copies of the file. And on that one copy, we put super President Middleman's amendments and send it back to planning. And since then, the planning commission has heard, debated, made suggestions, which I understand President Middleman has agreed to. And that is what has come back today. Two weeks ago, last time this committee met, we also took

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: a bunch of

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: amendments from my colleagues and put them into the file, the original file that we had been working on, and table the second file that had all the amendments that could not be moved, because, you know, they were not compliant. So, we are going to, try to move the amendments from that file that's coming back from planning into the file that we have, the working file, and move that. And, hopefully, we will have a robust discussion about what, president Minnal Min is trying to achieve, and then we will go to public comment. Okay. So I with that, I will turn it over to you, president Minnal Minnal

[Board President Rafael Mandelman]: Minn. Thank you again, chair Melgar. Thank you to your to the committee. Thank you to all of your staffs, for the, for all of the work you've been doing over, certainly the last six weeks to two months, but even before that in getting ready for these hearings. And, it appears that you are getting close to landing the plane, so I'm sure that's a I mean, that is an accomplishment you deserve a lot of recognition for. So so thank you for all of your work. As, as you explained, Chair Melgar, at your first meeting on this, I think back on October 20, I had two amendments, to propose, dealing with, my concern around the potential demolition of historic resources and the ways in which, potentially, this upzoning could in increase the likelihood that, historic resources might be demolished, on the way to new housing projects. We proposed, at the time, two amendments. One of them was to, carve out, already identified Article 10 landmarks and contributors, in, the area covered by the, upzoning. And that is an amendment that this committee has considered and added into the file, and I am grateful for that. And so that provides an additional level of protection for several 100 particular properties that have already been identified as local landmarks. This amendment aims at the addresses the issue in a slightly different way. We anticipate, and I think the plan anticipates that, some of the housing production that may happen under, the upzoning will happen because lots get merged and larger buildings are built on those lots. And that is a potentially very good thing in terms of the additional housing it could produce, but it, I think, creates greater pressure on historic resources that, may be on those lots. And so, given that we do not and the planners who are looking at those projects are likely not to have any discretion to shape those projects or, you know, require inclusion of historic resources, I and preservation of historic resources, I I believe, and, that we should bake that into this, into into the family zoning, and say that where there is a lot merger, the project that goes forward needs to preserve the historic resource that is on that lot, consistent with the objective design standards that, the planning commission has adopted. And so that is what we, intended to propose, back in October. As you indicated, I guess it was last week, the planning commission considered this amendment and also considered some recommended changes from the planning department. And those changes, I think, are reasonable. I think there was concern that potentially the definition of historic resources that we were using would be overbroad and could include buildings that are not actually historic resources, but just happen to be in historic districts. I also I think that this is the importance of this protection, it becomes less important projects that are not housing projects because they're not the same there's not the same prohibition on or potential prohibition on any discretionary review of those projects. So and then I think there was also a desire to make sure that, where there are, design standards in the Housing Choice SF program, where there are potential where there are preservation standards there, we wanted those to, to prevail if there were any inconsistency, which we don't think there is likely to be for the most part. All those seemed like reasonable changes to me, and so, plan the planning commission did recommend, inclusion of this amendment, but with those changes. And I'm happy to have those changes, which is what I just circulated. I think we circulated, one version in error, but we got the right one out to you before this, before this hearing. And so that's what I'm hoping the committee will add to the file today. Thank you for your patience and, consideration of those amendments.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Thank you so much. Before I go to you, supervisor, I'm gonna have Lisa Chen come up and tell us what happened with planning, and then we'll take comments. Yes. Welcome, miss Chen.

[Lisa Chen (San Francisco Planning Department)]: Thank you, supervisors. And before we, kind of step through, what president Mandelmann, described as the the potential amendments, we just also wanna express our appreciation for all the collaboration. Speaking of landing the plane, the president was calling us while he was traveling internationally to help refine some of these ideas. And so we do think that we landed at a kind of that right kind of level of protections and flexibility, and while meeting state law. So if I could get the slides, please. So, one second. Let me get that to a slideshow. So I'll I'll go through this quickly, but we did wanna just, kind of step through, what the specific recommendations were from the planning commission on, the November 20 hearing. So as noted, the item that was before them was a duplicate ordinance, but they were specifically hearing this amendment, related to the lot mergers. And they did adopt a resolution to recommend adoption with modifications. So just to, clarify what the original amendment was. So add in in addition to thinking about, lot mergers, in the rezoned areas, this actually is a citywide amendment. So it would update section 121.7 to prohibit lot mergers citywide that involve lots with the following historic resources, unless that project preserves the historic resource and complies with preservation design standards, which are objective design standards, that apply to historic properties. So I'm not gonna read through everything in detail, but as you can see, it it was a very broad definition that included not only our local article and 10 landmarks, it also included state and local registers, as well as, our sir historic surveys and historic context statements and various properties identified therein. So the three recommendations that the pres the commission recommended are here, and I'll go through each of them. So the first was basically to substitute that rather lengthy definition with the simpler historic building definition that's already in section 102. This would ensure greater clarity and alignment. There's already a variety of policies that refer to the historic building definition. So it's clearer for sponsors. It's clearer for our own staff. And then it also ensures that the policy does not add constraints on sites that do not have known historic resources. As President Elliman already noted, the idea was that to make sure that we weren't including properties that, say, are non contributors in a district, or category B or category C properties, that might be identified in a context statement. The second recommendation is to clarify, that in those cases where the preservation design standards, are inconsistent with any of the modified standards, which are essentially incentives, in the in the housing choice SF program or our local program, that we specify that the standards in the local program shall prevail so long as they don't, result in demolition of the resource. So, again, this is another area where, the stat the, department recommended that, we provide clarity because, we did see that there was a potential for, some conflicts between the two, especially because both documents are going to continue to evolve. Right? The planning code will continue to evolve as will, the design standards. So ensuring this clarity, you know, provides certainty for the public. It also ensures that we the incentives that we're creating through the local plant local program, will actually, be meaningful and and attract projects to use that program. And I just wanna state that, we have looked at the design standards and the local program. We could only find one very minor conflict. It was literally a five foot difference in one of the setback incentives. So we do think that broadly they're very consistent with each other, but we just want to make sure that we're, you know, allowing for any of those, minor inconsistencies. The third recommendation is to clarify that the lot merger prohibition only applies to housing development projects as they're identified in state law. So as was already noted, projects that are not housing development projects, so that could include commercial projects. It could include single, family housing projects. It could be mixed use projects where the primary use is not residential. All of those will continue to have, the ability to have a discretionary review prod process. And so, by clarifying that this is only applying to the housing development projects, it allows those processes to continue. Sometimes through the CEQA process, the requirements that, are are, applied to a project are different from what are in our preservation design standards. They might even be stronger than what's required in our design standards, and so we wanna allow that to continue to happen. So that's those are the main, recommendations. We think that they're, pretty minor clarifications for the most part. We did also just wanna touch on, how this is, consistent with state law. So as we've noted at previous hearings, under the housing element as well as guidance continued guidance from HCD, the city is, you know, bound to, try to either reduce or maintain development constraints, so not adding new development constraints, unless we offset them with parallel actions that actually support more housing development. And so even though, as we noted at the commission, the lot merger prohibition could be a new constraint, We did wanna, you know, share with the the the supervisors that there's various factors. So, one, we think that with this the commission recommendations, it's really limited the scope of projects that are subject to this. So it really is housing development projects that can stain contain historic buildings. So these are sites that have known historic resources. Second, the eligibility, for this to avoid the lot merger prohibition is quite simple. You just need to meet our preservation design standards, That's already required of projects. And then further, you know, if a project did, you know, wanted to use state density bonus, they could still seek waivers and incentives from those design standards. And then finally, this proposal is also offset by development bonuses. So as you recall, there was an amendment made to add an adaptive reuse incentive, that was added, at the ordinance when it was re when it was substituted before the first land use hearing. So under that incentive, you also have to meet our preservation design standards, and and preserve the resource. And in exchange, you can get up to two additional stories on commercial corridors. So we believe that that offsets any potential constraints that are created by the legislation. And just to close, we did wanna provide some real life examples of buildings that have really projects that have really breathed new life into historic resources. These are all projects that involved a lot merger in some way. And as you can see, they've really been able to blend old and new, and really ensure the ongoing stewardship and maintenance of these resources. And we believe that with these amendments, it would achieve those goals of allowing for lot mergers, which, you know, allow a project to build on top of NextU around a resource while meeting our standards. And then I'm not gonna go through these, but we also just wanted to reiterate that there's a whole range of other historic preservation policies and programs in the rezoning and citywide that will continue apply to these projects. And as has been already noted, we did already remove from eligibility the, landmark buildings from the local program. Those, landmark buildings also, are not eligible for a lot of the state ministerial streamlining programs. And with that, that's the end of our presentation, but we'll take any questions.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Thank you. Can I just ask a question of clarification? So first, I just wanna say thank you so much. I'm really happy where this landed. I was a little worried at the beginning, especially when talking about mergers because that is often a way to make adaptive reuse projects work. Can you clarify as to why this applies to housing and not, other nonresidential projects?

[Lisa Chen (San Francisco Planning Department)]: Sure. So,

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: In lay people's terms.

[Lisa Chen (San Francisco Planning Department)]: Yes. Yeah. We'll we'll we'll do our best. Thank you. So, projects that are, not a housing development project, quote unquote. So just to unpack that term, that is a term that is used, in the Housing Accountability Act. Essentially, it allows for, you know, a review of a project using, objective standards. Right? And so the idea is that if you are meeting those standards, your project can go through through a streamlined review. Right? And then you're also eligible for the ministerial programs as well, where you don't have a CEQA review, an environmental review process. Often, those environmental review processes, will apply different mitigations and actions related to historic preservation. And so, you know, by adding these preservation design standards, we're basically, creating a process where if you're not going through CEQA, you have to meet these design design standards. So for the projects that have that are housing development projects, we're essentially creating that system. For projects that aren't housing development projects, they'll continue to go through CEQA. And as I noted, sometimes what we find through the CEQA process might be different from the design standards, and they might be stronger in some cases. And so we wanted to make sure that we still allow for that process, so that if you're building a new office building, for example, if we say during our secret process that you have to meet certain mitigations around preservation, that we can still apply those. Because, essentially, what the the the amendment says right now is that you if you if you don't meet the preservation design standards, you just can't get the lot more juror, period. And it doesn't really have a process, like a conditional user or other process to get out of it. So we just wanted to make that clear so that we could still apply those mitigations.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Thank you, miss Chen. Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Thank you, president, for, sharing this item, and the planning department for, the explanation of the legis the amendments as well. You mentioned in the last slide that state law already, has protections against demolitions on historic properties. So wanted to maybe better understand, either from president or from the planning department, what does this legislation do specifically, above and beyond, those components of what's already in state law?

[Apollo (North Beach resident)]: Michelle, hi. Madam chair?

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: I don't know who's gonna answer that question. You or planning department maybe?

[Peter Boyle (Richmond District resident)]: Or I'm

[Board President Rafael Mandelman]: happy to start, and then Okay. Planning can try to add. So and I would I would love to hear planning's answer to this question. But the protections that, may exist in state in state law, for historic resources are inconsistent across laws. Some of them protect local designated landmarks. Some of them protect California registry landmarks. Some of them actually are are broad and protect, eligible landmarks. Some of them, refer to locally designated landmarks. So there's, like, various different standards, and, and my concern is that, you know, we it it is not clear that locally designated landmarks are protected, and there is no protection, I think, except under a few of those laws for eligible landmarks. That is the buildings that we will find that we are finding through the surveys and we will find through the surveys that at some point, a supervisor may get around to landmarking or creating a district for, but that those have not been to the extent that those have not already been created when the project comes forward. Right now, I think there's pretty minimal or not pretty minimal. I think, under some of these laws, there's no protections, for those buildings. And so this says that if you're merging, you know, you need to comply with the preserver the objective preservation standards that we have. Now, if we're being honest, there are also provisions in state law that may allow developers to get around these these protections as well. So, this is this does not mean that that that, that the resources that I'm interested in preserving are never gonna get, demolished because they may, but it just adds another kind of level of potential protection for those historic resources. That's that's my best attempt at an answer, but Lisa Chen may do better than me.

[Lisa Chen (San Francisco Planning Department)]: Thank you, supervisor. That was that was a appropriately, complex answer, because it it is very complex. As the president noted, the laws do vary across the different state, kind of, ministerial programs, and streamlining programs, and housing development programs. I think what this amendment does do, practically speaking, is that it, it really reinforces the local program that if you're using the local program, you have to preserve the resource if you want a lot merger. Right? I think that's the key item. And the lot as we have discussed at many hearings, the local program really does offer a whole range of incentives. So in addition to the adaptive reuse incentive, there's the flexibility around inclusionary housing. There's all of the incentives around commercial development, and like, the warm shell development and such. And so I think this is basically kind of tightening the program, so that if you're using the program, it's really not also, encouraging demolition of, in particular, the eligible resources.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Thank you. Second was on the context. You brought up that this could be traditionally viewed as a constraint, but, paired with some of the amendments and, the incentives that are included as part of the family zoning plan, that this will, on net, potentially result in cancel each other out. Are there other examples or situations where we have combined multiple changes in our presentations to HCD, one positive and a negative to make a point to HCD, that an item is not a constraint, and how have they responded in that context?

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Lisa?

[Lisa Chen (San Francisco Planning Department)]: Supervisor, so we we tend to bring the whole list of amendments with us into those conversations. So they really are looking at at the matter as a whole. And they're not necessarily even looking, or they're not that concerned about which amendments are coming from which supervisors per se. So, you know, I I think that there are kind of natural matches. Right? So, for example, the there was a unit mix amendment that was made at the last hearing, which was reintroducing the unit mix requirements that are on the books today, and also changing it a little bit. But there was also a unit mix amendment that was added at a previous or incentive that was added at a previous hearing that was some offsetting that. So, you know, I think we have, kind of throughout, you know, been trying to share with them which are the amendments that have, you know, some impacts on capacity, perhaps removing capacity, as well as, you know, areas where we're adding capacity. And then sim similarly with constraints, we've pointed out for them which ones have been, adding constraints, and which ones are loosening them, so to speak.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Understood. So in your opinion, this amendment should, on net, while being constrained, paired with other amendments, net out to zero from the perspective of HCD, from a compliance perspective.

[Lisa Chen (San Francisco Planning Department)]: Correct.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Yes. Thank you. I think based on that context and reassurance, while I have had constraint, concerns about constraints, I do appreciate president Madeline's work here, and I will be voting, in support of this amendment as well.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Thank you. So I don't see any more we have been joined by supervisor Sauter. Did you wanna provide comments to this supervisor Sauter? Okay. So before we go to public comment, I want to note, that the city attorney did submit some technical amendments to item number nine, file number 250,985, the local coastal program amendment of the family zoning plan, which is a resolution transmitted to the California Coastal Commission for review and certification. These amendments add clauses to summarize the procedural history, such as the dates that the planning commission and this committee has heard this item. I plan to make a motion to adopt these technical amendments after we do public comment, but they are technical in nature. So, okay. Supervisor Slaughter.

[Supervisor Cheryl Sauter]: Thank you, chair Malva. On second thought, I will, speak to an amendment that I'll ask for your support on today. Today, I'm introducing a cleanup, non substantive amendment to our commercial space replacement incentive. And you will recall that this was adopted a few weeks ago with the support of the mayor's office, with your support and the support of the San Francisco Council of District Merchants. But our amendment today will clarify the ability to split larger commercial spaces into multiple smaller ones while maintaining the cumulative dimensions and characteristics of existing storefronts. This amendment simply gives a little bit more flexibility and clarity to ensure that new commercial spaces honor the existing character of our neighborhood commercial districts while still meeting the economic needs of today's small businesses. These amendments were made in collaboration with merchants in the planning department. And again, these are nonsubstantive. With that, I will quickly read the amendments into record, which have also been distributed to each of you. The amendments are on page 22, line 16. Strike out for each commercial use and add cumulatively between spaces and contains. Page 22, line 17, adding cumulatively between storefronts and occupies. Page 22, line 21, striking out and. Page 22, lines 22 through 24, amend to read, quote, that if the existing commercial uses involve food service, the project must provide at least one food service warm shell. And the project does not reduce the number of existing commercial uses unless the project provides space for a community benefit use pursuant to subsection e one. And finally, on page 23, line five, amend to read, and micro retail and community benefit use bonuses in subsections e one and e two. So thank you for your consideration of this, quick, non substantive amendment, and I'll hope that you'll, adopt it. Thank you.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Thank you, supervisor Shlader. I know that, we had hoped that you, had introduced this two weeks ago. But I understand sometimes the city attorney, has a lot of, work, and, you know, it takes a little while. I know that we got lots of feedback from CDMA on that original amendment that you had introduced, that we had adopted weeks ago. And that this is just a clarification and technical clarification of terminology. So thank you so much. So with that, I will go to public comment on this item. And, we will make motions to adopt the amendments, after public comment. Thank you.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Madam Clerk. Members of the public who wish to provide public comment on items five through nine, the which comprise the family zoning plan, please line up to speak. First speaker.

[Georgia Shudish]: Good afternoon, Georgia Shudish. I have a letter with an attachment for the committee and the file about the rezoning. Back in June, there was a financial feasibility analysis that said that the really the most likely to happen

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: oh, here you

[Georgia Shudish]: go. Thank you so much. Most likely to be developed would be the smaller lots, the typical 25 by 100 lot, which is most of the city. And that's concerning, I think, because of speculation. People have a right to be very nervous about that. So I think in order to mitigate that, and plus I mentioned last week about the cashing out, in the October 2021 feasibility analysis. People cash out, they they sell their homes, they lose, they leave, they're gone, particularly in the priority equity geography neighborhood. So to mitigate that, my suggestion is the following in the letter, strongest possible tenant protection in the TPO, protect housing in the PEGs, lobby Sacramento to remove the PEGs from S B four twenty three and the state density bonus, and

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Apologies for cutting you off,

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: but we are setting the timer for one minute today. Thank you. Next speaker.

[Tina Gary (Castro LGBTQ Cultural District)]: Tina Gary, and I'm with the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District. Again, I appreciate the work here, to try to protect rent control, for tenants in San Francisco. And the only thing that I'll add is, that LGBTQ people, who live in San Francisco and or maybe want to live in San Francisco really do benefit from rent control. And during these times of challenges on the federal level, there are many people who are coming to our city as a refuge. So thank you for trying to protect rent control.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Jean Barish (Planning Association for the Richmond)]: Good afternoon. Jean Barish, planning president planning association for the Richmond. Amendments notwithstanding, Parr opposes this plan, and Parr and hundreds of neighbors have signed a petition opposing this plan. Instead, we support a community based alternative. We also agree with supervisor Chan's protections against the demolition of homes, protection of historic buildings, protection of the coastal zone of our environment. Please consider an alternative plan that would meet the state's housing mandate, and also assure that the tenants and businesses will not be displaced. And the development will not simply be buildings waiting for the next crypto billionaire to buy new buildings that aren't homes. They're assets on a spreadsheet. They aren't neighbors. They're strategies. They're business plan for developers. Please do not support the mayor's plan. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Augusta Goldstein (Long‑time rent‑controlled tenant)]: Augusta Goldstein, a long time rent control tenant. I echo Jean Barash's, request. And if you're hell bent on passing this, I'd like to at least, have Connie Chan's amendments re resurrected, the one particularly to protect the small businesses with two units above them. Three units does not protect enough businesses. Two units, if you if you go with three instead of two, you end up losing another 6,000, rent controlled units, and that would be divided by half, 3,000 small businesses that need to be protected to protect the charm that has brought international visitors to the Richmond District for decades. And you'll lose it if you if you don't protect the businesses. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Jason Wright]: Hello. My name is Jason Wright, and I live in District 8. I'd like the, committee to consider alternative alternatives, that protect two unit rent controlled buildings. I've lived in my rent controlled apartment for over twenty years, on Church Street, above Dolores Park. It's listed as being in a transit corridor. However, it's in the part of the, the street that is where the cut through of the Muni is, not, not, directly in front of the transit. So, a a developer bought my building a year ago, and I'm really scared for my stability in housing. A prescriptive bank blanket plan, like the family zoning plan, jeopardizes the character of the city in some 20,002 unit rent controlled units, which would mean affecting upwards of 40 to 60,000 people, depending on the number of tenants in each unit. Please protect all rent controlled units. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Anna Christina Arana (Race and Equity in All Planning / SF Anti‑Displacement Coalition)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. I'm Anna Christina, a member of the Race and Equity and All Planning Coalition. The REP SF Coalition has been advocating for significant changes to the family zoning plan for several months, including a real commitment to truly affordable housing and moving forward the equity related provisions of the housing element that have been ignored and many of which are now past due. Unfortunately, we are now forced to ask the that the board reject the family zoning plan. One of the main reasons for our objection relates to the tenant protection ordinance, which the mayor's upzoning makes absolutely essential. The TPO tries to establish a strong safety net for when tenants have to face displacement. However, streamlining it upzoning from the state and streamlining zoning that have already been put in place in San Francisco creates pressures and impacts that exceed what the TPO can provide. This family zoning plan will just put fuel on that fire. It is imperative that, I apologize. For Rep is demanding that the board reject this upzoning plan, and we urge you for the future of San Francisco and for our most vulnerable communities to vote no. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments.

[Zachary Friel]: Good afternoon. Zachary Friel, Samkan. I got evicted just a few months ago. And when I was looking for new housing, I applied on Dahlia to live at the new affordable housing development at 730 Stanyan, right next to Golden Gate Park in The Haight. Over 8,600 people apply for just 95 units. Those numbers alone clearly illustrate the need to intentionally build more affordable housing in the city. People want to live in projects like 730 Stanyan. 730 Stanion is a project that upzoned the hate, but we were in support of it. We would support upzoning in the West Side if it were used for a 100% affordable projects like this. There is high demand and need for this type of housing. The numbers don't lie. And after all, the family zoning plan needs to provide capacity for 20,000 units for low income households. 730 Standing represents our vision of an inclusive well resourced neighborhood and an inclusive San Francisco. This is what we support, and we don't think the current plan will get us there. Thank you so much.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Jane Natoli (YIMBY Action)]: Good afternoon, land use. Jane Natoli, the San Francisco organizer director for EMB Action, here to speak in support on behalf of all our members who couldn't make it today. We know there's still more work to do here. We're done with this part, but there's more to do. And I appreciate all of your diligent work on this. But we would love for you to move this along so we can get on to the rest of it. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Hi, supervisors. I'm Leanne Chang. I'm a resident of d one currently organizing with Abundance San Francisco. Thank you for all of your work on this necessary piece of the puzzle in order to make more housing possible in San Francisco. I'm looking forward to the family zoning plan passing out of this committee and by the full board. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Julie Fisher (District 1 resident)]: Hello again, supervisors. Thank you for continued effort. Julie Fisher, a forty year renter from District 1. I, I just wanna echo something. I repeat myself. Keep rent control. Keep rent control. Keep rent control. Next, truly affordable housing needs to go back to the old equation of 25%, maybe 30% of one's income, not market rate. So anything in these pieces that you're working on that doesn't support that, please revisit it. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Peter Boyle (Richmond District resident)]: Good afternoon again. I'm Peter Boyle. I live in the Richmond District. And I just want to say that several months ago, some organization said the Richmond District, particularly the, I think, the inner and central Richmond, were one of the top 40 neighborhoods in the entire world. Their mix of manageable smaller residential units and small commercial units just made it an ideal place to live. And I think that tearing down of the smaller buildings and replacing with six and eight and ten story apartments and commercial buildings on California, Clement, and Gary will completely destroy that neighborhood. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Bob Akasfandiari (Executive Director, San Francisco Democratic Party)]: Good afternoon, Land Use Committee supervisors. My name is Bob Akasfandiari. I'm the executive director of the San Francisco Democratic Party. I'm here to reinforce what I said a few weeks ago, which is that the San Francisco Democratic Party adopted a resolution supporting the family zoning plan. They encourage you to pass it. They encourage you to strengthen it. And I wanna just say on a personal level that, the reality is is that this shortage has been compounding for years. Years and years and years. I actually was just at the swearing in of, your new colleague, district four supervisor, Alan Wong. One of the remarks he made was about how he grew up in the sunset, thanks to the ability for people to have ADUs and smaller homes and and starter homes. And the average home price in the sunset and the Richmond is pushing between 1.5, 1.6, 1,700,000.0. The status quo is unaffordable. And if we don't build more homes, we're pushing more and more people out. So please pass this today and send it to your colleagues, the full board. Thank you.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Thank you

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: for your comments. Next speaker.

[Public commenter (Van Ness corridor resident)]: I oppose the family zoning plan as is. The heights on Van Ness are too high. There's already congestion with the traffic, car traffic, and bus the buses are completely jammed. Again, this morning, it was like that. Second, this recent fire in a high rise in Hong Kong makes me wonder what are the taxpayers going to have to pay for the type of fire equipment that can reach up to 300 story I mean, sorry, 300 feet, but maybe, in in my area, 14 stories.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Apollo (North Beach resident)]: Thank you, supervisors. My name is Apollo. I live and work in North Beach. For as many times as we've been here and at the planning commission over the last three months to contest the so called family zoning plan, The needle has moved very little in favor of the will of the people who live here, work here, pay taxes, and vote here. But the records show the majority of letters and public comments from your constituents and almost all commentary at town halls are consistently against plan. By voting for it without much more significant amendments, you're undermining the will of those who voted for you. The plan removes on-site affordability requirements, incentivizes tear downs of rent controlled housing, and benefits speculative developers at the exact moment San Francisco's needs stability. San Francisco deserves real leadership that puts community over luxury development. There is zero reason to build housing by pushing people out who already live there. You have a responsibility to us, and we expect you to act like it. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Romelan Schmaltz (North Beach)]: Thank you. I'm Romelan Schmaltz, North Beach. This plan is abject, naked, manifest, destiny masquerading as housing reform that we'll eliminate from the San Francisco map. Low income residents, seniors, immigrants, artists, and other legacy San Franciscans who might be interesting and live for more than money, and actual families. Far too many of your constituent see this plan as a racist and classist document that rewards privilege and speculation over history, community, family, and small businesses. And it sounds like supervisors on this committee are okay with amendments that displace some 42,000 San Franciscans who live in rent controlled homes. And rent controlled housing is our best affordable housing, and it's already built. This gives away our assets that are not yours to give away on our behalf. This includes our public land and our shared public treasure, the waterfront, which mayor Lurie is dangling in front of the Bella Lugosi of developers, Blackstone, as a perk of this plan. We're talking about almost 17 blocks of mostly eight story walls constructed along Fisherman's Wharf with zero middle income or affordable housing. Any supervisor who thinks this is okay?

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Annie Fryman (SPUR)]: Hi, supervisors. Annie Fryman here with Spur, also a Westside renter. We encourage the passage of this plan out of committee today and out of the board, ideally tomorrow. I I do want to voice, however, our disappointment and opposition to an amendment that was adopted into this file during the last land use committee, particularly adding more rigid and strict unit mix requirements to the small development projects that will make up the bulk of development and capacity in this new plan. We see that as a constraint, and instead prefer the previous approach that had been proposed by supervisors Cheryl, Sowder, and Melgar, related to providing incentives, rather, for family friendly amenities and family sized units. We would love to see in the future an ordinance happen to revert back to that approach. In the meantime, we do encourage passage today, but wanted to get on the record with our concern with that specific provision and amendment. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Kristen Evans (Small Business Forward)]: Kristen Evans, speaking for Small Business Forward. Small Business Forward stands in opposition to the family zoning plan in its current form. While we are in support of adding new affordable housing, this plan lacks any meaningful change in housing affordability. It's inexcusable that this the marketing for this plan has tried to claim it will lower the cost of housing. Ted Egan, chief economist, reported report his report indicates his best estimate is that rents will fall merely by $75 to $125 per month. Lowering apartment prices from 3,100 a month to 3,000 a month does not address our affordable housing crisis, nor is it an acceptable outcome that small business workers will lose their livelihood when their small business is displaced. Most small business workers make between 30 and $80,000 per year, and housing that costs $36,000 per year is more than half and not considered affordable. Nor would many landlords even consider, that they had adequate income to approve their application for a lease. We ask that you oppose this plan. Thanks.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Asia Nicole Duncan (Build Affordable Faster California)]: Good afternoon, Chair Melgar and supervisors. My name is Asia Nicole Duncan. I am with Build Affordable Faster California. And I will say, we need to fund all of these units in the family zoning plan, and the city and state needs to step up to provide finance financing for affordable housing. We all know that in the end, it's money that builds the housing, and we need to invest in affordability. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Honest Charlie Bodkin (San Franciscans for Social Housing)]: Hello. Honest Charlie Bodkin. I spoke at, the two previous hearings on this plan. I was here to talk about how this plan without any money for affordable housing was doomed to fail because the market isn't building. I spoke about it before the city's chief economist confirmed that the planning department's numbers were too rosy. I came back to talk about it and remind you that there is money that the board has previously, in 2020, unanimously voted on recommending the expended, on that we expend on, social housing. It's Prop I money. But that was just my voice. Since speaking in front of you, San Franciscans for Social Housing, which I'm the cofounder of, has grown by leaps and bounds. We've gathered hundreds of signatures in just a couple of weeks. I'm Not sure if I have enough time to present it right there, but I'll give you copies. Now is the time you have to leverage over housing policy in the city. Don't squander this opportunity. Listen to the hundreds of San Franciscans for social housing and pass a resolution or an amendment to this plan to call on the mayor to expend Prop I funds for their intended purpose, social housing. I present to you the names, and

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Leave it there on the and I'll I'll pick it up. Thank you.

[Public commenter (District 5 homeowner)]: And I'm a concerned citizen and a homeowner resident in D 5. I have worked my entire career in climate change and know the importance of more housing, dense housing, to that issue among along with many other issues that I care about, like homelessness, affordability, etcetera. More housing has to be part of the solution, and the zoning plan is one step in that. So I'm here once again to just voice my support for this plan. Please get it done. Thank you.

[Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition. We remain firm in our belief that it is essential to pass this plan today and bring it to the full board, ideally tomorrow as well. San Francisco cannot continue to delay its home, bringing obligations during an ongoing housing crisis. We support amendments that strengthen the plan and that help bring homes to San Francisco, and at the same time, are concerned about amendments that discourage homes in the parts of the city where we need it the most, particularly around the unit mix requirement. We support iterations of the plan that embrace incentives, like the Cheryl Souder amendment, and not rigid amendments that make projects unfeasible. Still, we are hopeful that we could pass this plan and concentrate on other solutions to the housing crisis, such as stronger funding at every level of government and reducing construction costs. So we hope to see this plan passed today, and thank you all for your hard work.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Mike Chen (United Democratic Club; District 2 renter)]: Good afternoon. Mike Chen. I'm a renter in District 2. I'm here also here representing the, on the board of the United Democratic Club, the largest club in the city with over 300 dues paying members. The United Democratic Club is in support. Housing affordability and affordability in general is a huge issue in San Francisco, and we hope that to the hope that the board passes a state compliant plan that will provide housing affordability and solutions. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Jean Barish (Planning Association for the Richmond)]: Hi. I'm, Carolyn Boyle, long term resident of the Richmond District, and I'm against this plan for so many reasons. But we urge the city to change its approach to fill the state mandates by building housing and support with community created alternatives, historic preservation, small business rent control, diversity of families, and not what this plan would create.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Mark Hanlon (District 1 resident)]: Good afternoon. My name is Mark Hanlon, District one resident. I'm here today because I believe the family zoning plan as proposed is a mistake that fundamentally misunderstands the city. It claims to help. Adding numerous high rise corridors to these areas won't create affordability. It will erase the unique character and livability that draws people to them in the first place. And anyone who lives in these neighborhoods knows our infrastructure already struggles to meet current demand. Yet this plan adds high density with no affordability guarantees and primarily benefits developers. I urge you to reject the family zoning plan in its current form and to pursue more thoughtful solutions that don't amount to such a radical increase in density and the impacts that will have. Thank you.

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Bridget Maley (Neighborhoods United SF)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Bridget Maley representing Neighborhoods United SF. Today at 12:45, you received a detailed letter with detailed exhibits regarding the family zoning plan provided by our legal counsel, Lazio Drury. The letter requests that the board of supervisors defer any decision on the rezone until the city planning department prepares a supplemental environmental impact report, not simply an addendum to the 2002 housing element EIR. A rezoning of this magnitude requires thorough environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, so that the city's residents and decision makers can be aware of impacts, can consider all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives, and can have a robust and open discussion prior to making irreversible changes to the city's urban and historic landscape. The rezone will have a myriad of significant new impacts that were not analyzed in the February, and therefore, the sequel review conducted to date is highly inadequate. These include new impacts of dramatically increased heights, extensive new impacts to historic resources, impacts of display Thank

[Clerk staff (Public Comment Facilitator)]: you for your

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: comments. Would any other members of the public would like to provide, public comment today? Seeing none, madam chair.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Thank you, madam clerk. Public comment on this item is now closed. Supervisor

[Vice Chair Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: Mahmoud? After who?

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: I'm I'm not gonna make a motion until after. So go ahead. Go ahead. Okay. So before we make motions, I just wanted to provide some comments to what we just heard. Thank you everyone from the public who came out to provide public comment. I wanna provide a couple of points of clarification. For those of you who talked about the importance of rent control and demolition, I actually couldn't agree more. I do think there's some confusion about what we're doing and what we're not doing. Nothing in the plan includes demolition of rent controlled housing. The family zoning plan does not touch the process on whether you are given permission to demolish a unit or not. It is focused on setting allowable base heights of the lots in different parts of the city. Earlier in this meeting, we discussed supervisor Chen's tenant protection ordinance. For those of you who haven't, you know, been able to get through the whole ordinance and the amendments, which are a lot, I, you know, acknowledge. I encourage you to read it, especially section three seventeen, which is the section of our code where we define how a unit qualifies for demolition. This is a separate ordinance. I do want to thank my colleague for having spent so much time and work on this, because it does a lot of what we're trying to do. But we have been focusing our energy to to draft those protections for rent control and tenant protections as strong as we possibly can under the state law. And I would urge the public to read that, and to, you know, sort of digest it, because I think it is the most far reaching, rental protection ordinance that we have in the state, actually. And I was telling my colleague earlier how I wish we had had those same level of protections when we, downzoned the West Side, and concentrated all of our development on the East Side of town. Because that would have actually saved us in a lot of communities, displacement and gentrification. But we didn't have it at the time. You may still have objections to the family zoning plan. I wanna assure you that this is not a static process. The legislative branch will continue working on these issues. I will support this plan. Does it solve our housing crisis? Absolutely not. Do I think it's necessary in order to make progress on our housing crisis? Absolutely. We need a bunch of stuff in addition to that. Number one, we need money for affordable housing. To this day, San Francisco does not have a dedicated source of funding for housing. We spend one time money that gets produced from project development. And occasionally, we get money from bonds. We get money from the state. But we don't put any of our own money from the general fund into this. Some folks have pointed out that we pass Prop I for social housing, and have yet to spend that money on actual social housing. We do need, not one, but 10 different funding sources to meet the different affordable housing needs that run the whole spectrum. From, you know, deeply affordable housing for formerly homeless families, all the way to co ops and, you know, homeownership assistance for, you know, families wanting to settle down in the city. So the whole thing. I don't think any of that has to do with the zoning plan. That has to do with our budget and the way we need to we decide how to spend our money. It's not a zoning issue. We also need protections for businesses. We have to concentrate on businesses that don't have access to capital, which is uneven for women, for people of color, for immigrants. That is also not part of the planning code. That is the way that we draft our policy through the workforce development and also the capital that we make available for businesses. So there's a whole bunch of things that go into how the fabric of the neighborhood gets developed. One thing that I do know as a supervisor for one of the West Side districts is that our infrastructure has lagged behind because of the lack of density. And we're never gonna meet our climate change goals nor meet the needs of younger generations without adding density to the West Side and the resulting infrastructure that we need in terms of transportation, sewer, water, and all of the climate adaptations that we must evolve in our city in order to make life happen and thrive. The third thing that I will say is that, you know, we continue to have a bifurcated policy, in terms of, building housing and doing economic development. So for decades, we have added jobs in San Francisco without adding the housing units that we need. And the housing that we have added has been concentrated on the East Side of town, along with the benefits of infrastructure that that, provides, including affordable housing. The West Side has built very little affordable housing, nor built the infrastructure that it needs to support the economic growth at the pace that we have had. Many folks, during public comment over the last few weeks, have talked about how San Francisco's in decline, how we're losing population. I do not want to live in a city that is losing population. None of that is good. That brings budget cuts. It means a reduction of services. And it also means lack of hope for the next generation entering the workforce. Thriving of our city, adding jobs, adding opportunities for the next generation. And more than anything, adapting to the very real climate change crisis that we're going through as as a planet, that necessitates that we build transit oriented communities around public transit, become less car dependent, and have denser housing. Hopefully, that is rent controlled, and across the entire spectrum of affordability where we need it. So with that, I will recognize supervisor Chen.

[Vice Chair Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: Thank you, Chair Merga. To begin with, I also want to thank all the public commenter who come, not just one time, but multiple times, to voice, to to share your voice in this process. And to my colleagues, I also have engaged it very actively in this legislation since introductions. And I do not take this vote lightly. So in my opinion, this journal legislation is an example of government doing things to our communities, not with our communities. It is also an example of government working hard to comply with top down mandates. We have to make our state mandate, we all know, but at odds with the goal of working to make the lives of our constituents better. I believe it also creates condition that we can cause harm by putting existing tenants, their homes, and our small business in the path of displacement. Despite that fact that planning has been at this for the better part of two years, the primary task has been on how can we, can this plan solve our map problems. It applies a top down framework that has little to do with the housing affordability, insecurity, and also the great demand of workforce housing in San Francisco. What also saddens me most is that myself and other colleagues on the board of supervisor have worked overtime in good faith to amend the zoning plan to pencil without incentivizing displacement. We have drafted common sense amendments, and that poll housing, and also poll affordability, poll tenant, and also poll working families, and poll small business. So as a mother, as a daughter, as an elected representative, it pains me to see that the majority of this critical equity amendments that I have put forward, and other colleagues have put forward, to be vote down on table. Let me to be let me be very clear. I am pro development. But the planning department and our mayor have not done the hour of finding a path forward to maximize thoughtful, infill development without displacement. This should be our north star. San Franciscan, San Francisco, has always been committed to meeting the state's housing mandate. Our city does have the ability to meet goals while maintaining local control, and developing housing that people cannot afford, and also without displacing residents and small businesses. But this is not what the plan is presenting us today. We are at the last line of defense for working families. This is why I cannot support this legislation in its current form. For that being said, I know that we have colleagues who have expressed interest in having a conversation about some amendments at tomorrow's sport meeting. For that reasons, I would like to make a motion to refer this item out of committee without recommendation, and to give us the opportunity to discuss this very important issue as a complete body. Thank you.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: I'm sorry. Supervisor, can you clarify, your motion? Which item would you like to, send out without recommendation?

[Vice Chair Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: I know we have amendments that we would like to make. If possible, I would like everything in the package to vote without recommendations, as a foodborne. I mean, as a without recommendation. So So then we can have an opportunity to discuss as a food boy.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. I will go to, supervisor Mahmood first, because he's got, the amendments. And so, go ahead, supervisor. Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Why don't you read your amendments first, and I'll read mine second.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. So, my amendment's only one, and that is a motion to adopt the amendment to the coastal plan, which I've circulated with you, and that is item number nine.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion to amend item number nine, vice chair Chen. Chen, no. Member Mahmoud?

[Tina Gary (Castro LGBTQ Cultural District)]: Aye.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Ammood, aye. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are two ayes and one no with super oh, supervisor Chen voting no.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. That motion passes. Thank you. Go ahead.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Can I rescind that?

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Yep. If we could rescind that last vote, please.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Alright. On the motion to rescind the vote on the amendment to item number nine, vice chair Chen Chen, I. Member Mahmood?

[Public commenter (Executive Co‑Chair, Castro Community Benefit District Advisory Board)]: Aye.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are three ayes.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Sorry. There was just a confusion about what we were doing. So this is just a technical amendment that was proposed by the city attorney to the coastal zone item number nine that is, not going as a committee report. So it's just a resolution that, you know, tells the coastal commission what we're doing and when we're doing it. It's not, you know, a controversial thing. So that's all we're voting on right now is adopting those technical clarification amendments to that resolution.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Okay. On the motion to amend item number nine as proposed by Chairman Melgar, vice chair Chen.

[Vice Chair Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: Can I have clarification? What are we voting?

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: So I'm sorry.

[Vice Chair Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: Yes. This is number nine. It's the entire legislation.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: So we're just adopting the amendments into item number nine, which is a coastal commission resolution. We're not voting on item nine itself, only on adopting the amendments. Aye.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Aye. Member Mahmood.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Aye.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. There are three ayes.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. That motion passes. Thank you. So now, supervisor Mahmood.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: I'd like to read a couple motions into the record. I think, firstly, I have really appreciated this has been a multi year process for the planning department, multiple years of work. As supervisor Melgar said, there is nothing in here about displacement. There is significant rent control protections that are done as part of the tenant protection ordinance that we just passed earlier today. And this is a significant moment in our city's history, and I we should be supporting it in that context as well. But first, I will be introducing a motion to, move the cleanup amendments that were read into the record by Supervisor Sauter, for commercial spaces, introduced to file number twenty five zero seven zero one, in item seven on the agenda. And then, I'd also like to make, three more motions. One is a motion to send items five, six, and seven, files numbers twenty five zero nine six six, twenty five zero seven zero zero, and twenty five zero seven zero one to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report. I would like to then move item number nine, that we just amended, file number twenty five zero nine eight five, to the full board with a positive recommendation. And I would like to finally move to table item number eight, file number twenty five one zero seven two as four separate motions.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Let's take them each in turn, please. Yes. Yes. So let's take the first motion that supervisor Mahmood made, which to clarify is only to amend, the files to include supervisor, Mandelmann's amendment and supervisor Sauter's amendments. So we're just, you know, taking those amendments.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Alright. On the motion to amend item number seven, with the the amendments proposed by president Mandelmann and supervisor Sauder, vice chair Chen Chen, I. Member Mahmood Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar Aye. Melgar, I. There are three ayes.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. Thank you. Now before we take the motions, I believe that the the supervisor Chen's motion to send, the items without recommendation supersedes because she made it first. So we have to vote on that motion first. Right?

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Okay. So the first

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: She did formally make the motion, and I did ask for a clarification. Can you clarify which items you want send without recommendation to the full board?

[Vice Chair Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: Five to nine with amendments. Motion to make it without recommendation.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: So it would be five, six, seven, and nine, not eight, because we're that supervisor. That's a duplicated file. Yeah. Yeah.

[Vice Chair Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: Yeah.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: And this referral without re recommendation, is this as a committee report or not as a committee report?

[Vice Chair Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: Not as a committee report. Not as a committee report.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Okay. Referred without recommendation for items five, six, seven, and nine only. Vice chair Chen. Chen, aye, member Mahmood? Yeah. Mahmood, no. Chair Melgar? No. Melgar, no. There are one there's one aye and two nos with supervisors Mahmood and Melgar voting no.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. So that motion fails. So now we take supervisor Mahmood's motions, three motions. Can you repeat them?

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Yeah. Let's go ahead and take the motion to table item eight first. Okay.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Let's take that out.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Okay. On the motion to table item number eight, vice chair Chen Chen, no. Member Mahmood Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar?

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Aye.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, aye. There are two ayes and one no with vice chair Chen voting no. Now on the next motion, it will be to as member Mahmood proposed, she sends items five, six, seven as amended, and nine as amended as committee reports with a positive recommendation.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: I'm sorry. I know that that was a mistake. Yes.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Five, six, and seven as committee reports. Yeah. As a regular.

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: As a regular. Yes. All positive recommendations. Five, six, seven as committee reports. Nine as a regular item. All recommended with as a positive recommendation. Vice chair Chen? No. Chen, no. Member Mahmood? Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are two ayes and one no with vice chair Chen voting no.

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: Okay. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Madam Clerk, do we have any other items in our agenda?

[Alisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: That concludes our business for today. Okay. Thank you. We are adjourned. Madam Chair?

[Chair Myrna Melgar (Supervisor, District 7)]: We are adjourned.