San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 10/09/2025. When we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have thirty seconds remaining, you'll hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person cued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. At this time, I'd like to take role. Commission president So.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Present.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commission vice president Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Here.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner Campbell.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Here.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: And commissioner McGarry. Present. We expect commissioner Williams to be absent today. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed proposed for continuance item one case 2024Hyphen008383CUA at 394 Naples Avenue conditional use authorization at the time of issuance. This was proposed for continuance to October 16. It is now being proposed for continue for an indefinite continuance. Item two, case number 2025Hyphen000956CUA at 1801 8th Street conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to 11/06/2025. Item three, case number 2018Hyphen016915CUA 426 Ivy Street and 525 Grove Street conditional use authorization is proposed for an indefinite continuance. Further, commissioners, under your discretionary review calendar. Item 13, case number 2020Four-eleven548DRP-two for the property at 2867 Green Street. Discretionary review is proposed for continuance to 11/06/2025. I have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Brown.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Move to continue items one, two, three, and thirteen as proposed.

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: Second.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue items as proposed, commissioner Campbell?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Excuse me. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commissioner present so? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero, placing us under your consent calendar. All matters listed here under constituted consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item four, case number 2025Hyphen002761CUA 3360 Gary Boulevard, conditional use authorization. And item five, case number 2025Hyphen005948CUA at 3407 California Street, conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission and request that either of these two consent calendar items be pulled off of consent and be heard under the regular calendar today or a future hearing. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner vice president Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Move to approve.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve items four and five on consent, commissioner Campbell. Aye. Commissioner McCarrie. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Tsao? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. Commission matters, item six, the land acknowledgment.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: K. I will, I'll read that today. The commission acknowledge that we are in the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. Item seven, commission comments excuse yeah. Item seven, commission comments and questions. Okay. Seeing none, we can move on to department matters. Item eight, director's announcements.

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Sarah Dennis Phillips, planning director. Couple of notes on events outside of San Francisco. Last week, a number of our staff went to the American Planning Association conference in Monterey, learned some great stuff. Rachel Tanner was one of the keynote speakers. So proud that our team is continuing their economic development and to try to learn from other cities and other innovators. I also had, a really great opportunity to join 24 other, planning directors of the largest cities in the country at the Lincoln Institute in Boston. Cambridge, sorry. Smaller city. And we spent three days together really just sharing the issues, challenges, and and strategies that we're using, and and seeing where there was alignment and differences. A couple of things I thought I'd share with all of you, particularly on where the synergies were, because it was it was fascinating to me to see the alignment of issues that we're facing from places like San Francisco to places like Louisville, fascinatingly enough. So a couple of things that, you know, the number one issue that we talked about as a as a group was state preemption in land use issues. It it it's it is not just an issue in California. I think from a presentation that we had from a a a Harvard professor, Texas and Florida actually have stronger state preemptions as states than California does at this point in time. But almost every state that was represented in the group is facing similar issues, support challenges where where mandates are coming from the state level, and and that's impacting how they are able to do their own local land use planning. So that was that was very, very interesting. The other the other main thread that came up is and and I I put down the words moment of transformational potential. That came up a couple times. I think at the same time that this commission just heard the family zoning plan and has been working with us through that, you know, challenging, need to, enable growth, meet state mandates, and still, listen and work with our local communities, that almost every planning director in the room said that they were going through a similar issue right now. Not all with the state same state mandates, not all with the same numbers, but that that gist of moving forward. How do we move forward as a city that allows growth, and how do we do it in a way that listens and works with our constituents, was a big one as well. And then the third issue, that was shared across the group, like, it this is fascinating because they all align with ours, was, the idea of fixing permitting. Number one thing that everyone was talking about, different ways. I actually met three different, planning departments who had recently switched to OpenGov, which is the contractor that our, permit center has recently signed a contract with. So made some great contacts there as they're you know, they've already made a transition that we're looking at, and and people felt really great about that system. But the idea of fixing permitting, doing it better, doing it cleaner, being more responsive to applicants was also a huge thread. A couple other things that were, you know, I don't know, less positive and less universal, but but really interesting of note, many cities were moving away from area plans and specific plans. They really felt that not only I think it was framed as, you know, doing area plans was a bit of a planning trend twenty five years ago. Many of those are aged. And that they felt that they often prioritize certain constituents and didn't acknowledge shared issues across the city. So that was not something we stated, but it was something I heard across the event, which was very interesting. We also heard, and and this is really sad, a number of the cities mentioned that their equity work had been gutted recently, not just by words, but by budget. I and and I I took that to heart. I think that is something that we're committed not to doing here in San Francisco, and we're really working towards that. But it was it was sad to hear how many people felt that. It's been a loss that they felt over recent years. The last thing to mention, I think we we heard we we did share pilots and strategies. There were a number of strategies, strategies, particularly toward missing middle housing and bringing forward ADUs, incentivizing ADUs, not only as a way of expanding housing, but as a path to wealth building for homeowners and finding out different economic strategies and ways the city or third parties could partner with lending to help homeowners, particularly lower income homeowners, build wealth on their property. So, those were some interesting things we heard as well. So with that, I don't think there's much else to report.

[Myrna Melgar (District 7 Supervisor)]: That's great. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Thank

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: you. Alright. If there are no questions for the director, we can move on to item nine, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors. There is no report from the Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission did not meet yesterday.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Aaron Starr, manager of legislative affairs. At the land use committee this week, the committee considered supervisor Connie Chan's ordinance permitting outdoor handwashing, vacuuming, and detailing of automobiles in the Geary neighborhood commercial district. Commissioners, you heard this item on September 18 and voted to approve with modifications. That modification was to modify the ordinance so that any automotive service station, regardless of zoning, is allowed to have an outdoor hand washing, vacuuming, and detailing as an accessory use. At the land use hearing, there was no public comment and no significant comments from the committee members. Supervisor Connie Chan did request that part of the commission's recommendation be added to the ordinance. Instead of the change only applying to one business, the accessory use provision would be allowed for any automobile service station within the Geary Street in CD. However, not citywide. The committee voted in the affirmative to amend the ordinance and then unanimously sent the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. Next, the committee considers supervisor Sauter's ordinance consolidating the North Beach Special Use District and neighborhood commercial district and expanding allowable uses and use size limits in certain zoning districts. Commissioners, you heard this item on September 25 and recommended approval with modifications. The modifications included various amendments mainly proposed by the supervisor. At the committee hearing, supervisor Sauter introduced the ordinance citing the importance of removing barriers to bring more flexibility to support businesses in District 3. There was a robust public comment during the hearing. There were close to 20 comments in support of the proposed ordinance, including but not limited to Discover Polk, North Beach Neighbors, Housing Action Coalition, and local business owners and residents. Additionally, there was, almost a dozen public commenters opposing the proposed ordinance, including but not limited to Jackson Square Historic Association, Telegraph Hill Dwellers, and North Beach Tenants Association. Supervisor Mahmood inquired about some of the reasons behind the amendments and if there were specific examples of who would benefit from this ordinance. Supervisor Cheyenne Chin gave brief remarks expressing concern that the process was moving too fast and that the issues haven't been fully vetted yet. And supervisor Melgar acknowledged the disagreement of people's visions for what these NCDs should look like. But she also emphasized that all cities and neighborhoods change based on environment, life, and circumstances. After closing remarks from supervisor Sauter, supervisor Mahmood moved to amend the ordinance as read into the record and to continue the file as amended to October 24 as the amendments were deemed substantive. These two motions passed unanimously. Also this week, the land use committee passed 15 resolutions sponsored by, supervisor Mandelmann initiating landmark designation on various properties in his district. This rash of designations is response to the upcoming family housing plan, and all these resolutions passed unanimously. Then at the full board this week, the landmark designation for the Mint Mall and Hall at 9157 Mission Street past its first read. Development impact fees for residential development projects sponsored by supervisor Mahmood past its first read. And the, general plan, planning code, and zoning map amendment for 530 Sansom Street also past its first read. That's all I have for you today. Happy to answer any questions.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Seeing no questions, we can move on to general public comment at this time. Members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: Thank you. Good afternoon, Georgia Shudish. Sunday, October 12 will be eight years since the commission approved resolution two zero zero two four, which is the residential flat policy. So happy anniversary. The resolution recognized flats as a, quote, unit typology that satisfies a number of housing needs, particularly for middle income families, close quote. That could be for middle income families living in a flat currently or future families. It's family housing for families owning. There's a pretty good definition of what a flat is in the draft from the mayor that you approved. I may have a little quibble about it, but that's save it for another day. But the flaw in the mayor's legislation is that it creates a loophole of no CUA if there is an increase in density. The other flaw is that the limit on interior demolition is too high at 75%. Flats can be and have been de facto merged under that. For flats, there should be no more than 15% interior demolition allowing for bath and kitchen remodel. Otherwise, I I think you're in danger of losing the flats. As I said, this is housing for middle income families in a city of renters, and this typology of housing should not be vulnerable to speculators. So I think the commission needs to retain their oversight on this recognized housing typology through the CUA process, since this is family zoning. And since I have a little time, I'll just add that, you know, many flats have been lost due to section three seventeen b seven, which is basically gone now, but also due to the demo caps as shown for years with different projects that I've tried to put here. And that have even been before you because you've had to do a CUA on several projects that discovered to to exceed the demo calcs after the fact, Elizabeth Street, 21st Street, etcetera. That's one of the reasons that the commission approved the flat policy, to save flats. So, I'm a little puzzled by what's going on with the definition of demolition. I've done some public records requests, and I see there's a lot of stuff back and forth with the staff and members of the public. And I've raised the issue. The commission's raised the issue several times in the last few years. And I just don't know what's going on, and I think it's very important that you do something about that. And I'll just leave it at that. Thank you very much. At least clarify it somehow. Anyway, there's my 150 words for the minutes. Thanks a lot.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Last call for general public comment. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. You can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners. Through the chair, we will be calling item 11 for case number 2025Hyphen007357 PCA and MAP out of order for portions of Moraga And Noriega Avenues in Kensington Way planning code and zoning map amendments.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Aaron Starr, manager of legislative affairs. The item before you is a rezoning ordinance that would remove portions of two unbuilt streets from the zoning map to create, new parcels, rezone a city property located at assessor's parcel 204239 To 41 from public open space to RH2, and also rezone parcels located on Kensington Way adjacent to Vasquez Avenue from RH1D 40X to public open space. The ordinance is sponsored by supervisor Malcar, who is here to speak to the item. I'll continue with my presentation after her remarks. Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar (District 7 Supervisor)]: Thank you. Hello, commissioners. I hope you're doing well. I am the district seven supervisor, Myrna Melgar. The item before you is a land swap and an ensuing rezoning of the land that we are swapping. This item may be familiar to you because this has happened in the past with this particular hill. Kensington Way is a very narrow street that abuts a hill that is made out of a rock called Franciscan Chert, and someone will tell you more about it, who knows more about geology than me. But it is an unstable hill that has seen a history of landslides in the past, when there's been development and when there hasn't been development. And even though there are houses built, in some of the hill now and especially on the top of the hill, over the last few decades, the city has acquired that hill. Most of it is under the jurisdiction of the rec and parks department, some of it under DPW. But it has done that because it is unstable. Nevertheless, it is now full of trees and hawks and squirrels. And there is an active group of neighbors that has maintained the trails on that hill to keep it as open space. There is a party that owned five developable lots on this hill who put in a request to your department to develop them. And I have worked with the neighbors down the hill who were worried about the landslide potential from the hill to try to identify land that was more suitable to build on under the ownership of the city and county of San Francisco to swap for this land. Now unlike previous swaps that have happened, the the laws around disposition of land in our state of California have gotten increasingly more complicated, as you know. And there are all kinds of rules now that deter municipalities from using this type of mechanism as a mechanism to avoid building housing. So there are now many more procedures, processes, and laws that regulate this. In 2023, I introduced a resolution at the board of supervisors that passed the land use committee and the board unanimously to initiate this process. We have identified a plot of land on between Laguna Honda Boulevard and 8th Avenue, pretty close to the original land that is more suitable to build on. That piece of land was acceptable to the owner in terms of a swap. And we started the long process of working with the state of doing an appraisal of both parcels of land because the law now requires that we have an appraisal within the last six months of this happening and doing all of the things that needed to be done legally. And one of the things that need to be done legally is that you need to rezone the land because right now they are paper streets, and we are asking that they be zoned for housing reflecting the same zoning designation as the parcels around them. So we're not asking any up zoning. We're just asking for the same zoning so that, you know, that that can happen. So that is essentially what this is. You will hear from neighbors that about the original land on the hill and also neighbors from the parcels next to the paper Streets. I am asking for your support on this because it needs both goals of preserving land that presents, you know, a life and safety risk. And we wanna preserve it as open space, and it supports the goal of developing housing where it is more appropriate, which is, you know, the land that we're swapping. So, you know, you will hear more, from staff about, the technical aspects of it, but I'm here to answer any questions and to ask for your support. Thank you.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: Thank you, supervisor Melgaard. I do need to make a correction for the record regarding the ordinance in your packet. So after a good deal of research, we discovered that the ordinance description of existing zoning is not entirely accurate. The actual scope of this ordinance is, in fact, a little more limited. So specifically, parts of parcels on 7th 8th Avenue are already residentially zoned. However, the resulting zoning will still be, as you see in the ordinance, RH2 and 40X. I also wanted to make clear that what is before consideration by this commission is just the rezoning and not the actual land swap agreement. The rezoning is required as part of the land swap deal. The department recommends approval of the proposed ordinance because it advances key objectives relative to housing production and open space preservation in a balanced and context sensitive manner. The ordinance facilitates a land exchange that enables modest residential development on underutilized city owned parcels in a well resourced transit accessible neighborhood, while permanently preserving environmentally sensitive hillside lots adjacent to Edge Hill Mountain Park. Zoning changes effective in the intended future use of the properties are also consistent with the San Francisco general plan, particularly the housing element and the recreation open space element. The proposal also meets the exception criteria under the urban design element for street vacations as it does not negatively impact circulation, access, or neighborhood character. Those are all my comments, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. With that, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

[Jerry Dratler (Public Commenter)]: I have handouts to mister Ayona and I also have a presentation. If you could turn on the projector, please. Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Dratler. This first slide is an aerial view of the city's undeveloped Noriega Street open space. It also shows the city's retaining wall and the large amount of city owned space. And the obvious question is, is there a written plan for the development of this space? The next slide is, deals with the board of supervisors approving a $3,600,000 exchange of parcels. And then I'm calling out that the city retained a right of way. And does the fire department have egress concerns? I sent the fire department a document request, and they responded they have no, documents. The question is, was the 3,600,000.0 the city spent to acquire lots with unstable soil that are prone to landslide, a prudent use of $3,600,000? Is there a soils report for the lots? What is the city's potential financial liability inquiring the acquiring the LLC's lots? And what is the potential community usage of lots with unstable soil that are prone to landslide? If you look at the picture, I mean, I wouldn't be interested in hiking or picnicking on these lots. And I don't think you would be either. Is the approved parcel SWOT most importantly part of a larger city real estate strategy to promote the construction of affordable single family residences. Would the city have realized more value from the city's parcels if they were not part of a parcel swap or if adjacent city parcels were offered for sale? Would the city have been interested in acquiring the Kensington Way LLC parcels for open space if they were not part of a parcel swap? The purpose of the parcel swap is to encourage residential development. What experience does Kansai Development Inc have in developing affordable housing? And there's some documents here showing the ownership. Most importantly, on the next slide with the map, you can see there's an adjacent property adjacent to the property that was swapped. So what's the plan for that? And lastly, is the CEQA determination from the board of supervisors. Thank you very much.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Next speaker.

[Elizabeth Mayer (Public Commenter, CARE)]: Hi. I'm Elizabeth Mayer, and I'm speaking for CARE. Community Action to Rescue Edgehill. We're a neighborhood group that convened in 2019 after a public notice of the plan to develop these five lots on Kensington and Vasquez. And we were worried right off because there's a long history of slope failure. When the slope gets dug into, it's actually not inherently particularly unstable. And we brought a geologist, Doctor. Berwasser, who can explain to you why this particular kind of bedrock erodes when it's exposed to excavation. But there are many slope failures that are recorded on Edge Hill because of excavation back to 1952. The history is in detail on our website, which is rescuethehill.org. And there's also a photo to show the steepness of the lots. But because of all this history, the neighborhood led by Guapna, our Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association, has been trying to keep more development from happening on the steep parts of Edgehill Mountain like these for about fifty years now. And that's why there's this Edge Hill Mountain open space, which is comprised of lots that were taken by eminent domain and by land swaps. And that's just uphill from the land that we're talking about today. We have a lot of support for this in the neighborhood. 200 people came down to planning two weeks after that initial notice out of concern. And 300 people signed a petition to keep it as open space. We've had 50 neighborhood organizations support that goal. And, also the San Francisco Land Use Commission and the San Francisco Housing Coalition, and the Sierra Club. We think that supervisor Melgar's proposed legislation furthers the goals of more safely buildable housing and preserving open space, and that it would allow for more dense housing to be built adjacent to current homes rather than less dense housing in the midst of a forested open space on a steep hillside that has failed over and over when it was dug into. And we hope you'll see it positively. Thank you very much for listening. And thanks to supervisor Melgar for making this a priority.

[George Burwasser (Professional Geologist)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is George Burwasser. I'm a professional geologist, California license 7151.

[Larry Dickey (Public Commenter, 8th Avenue neighbor)]: Excuse me.

[George Burwasser (Professional Geologist)]: I've been practicing in California since 1981. I'm not going to try to give you the entire history of Edge Hill Mountain, but I've been working on and off the mountain for a number of decades. It's a very fragile ecologic area. It's a very fragile geologic area. And I'd just like to read you a couple of notes that I've made in the interest of time rather than trying to do this ex tempo. The proposed public open space area on this flank of Edge Hill Mountain is not just another steep hill in a city of hills. The exposure there of contorted and fractured Franciscan formation bedrock, illustrates important phases of the geologic and structural history of San Francisco, and supports a biota that is indigenous to the Franciscan formation. It's used, it's one of the very few space places left in the city where an ordinary pedestrian without hiking boots or climbing gear can look at the geology of the underlying hills. So it's good it's a good educational resource. Now much of the formation here is chert and shale. Chert is a form of silicon, like sandstone, except this is like glass. It's very brittle. It's very fragile. Shale, as you know, is a compressible rock that can be eroded very easily and absorbs water, loses water very quickly. The layers there are between a few inches and several feet thick. As I said, it's a hard but brittle rock. It's compressed, it's crunched, crumbled, crunched. I like that. And fractured in a series of folds. Although they're very picturesque, they do resemble show you the history of the tectonic of the Pacific Rim area. So this is it's actually a very important community resource. I should mention that I've been on a number of projects with Rec and Park, where we were clearing trail and replacing vegetation on Edge Hill Mountain. And there were people there, not just from the neighborhood, but from the rest of the city and from across the bay. So there are more than just the local neighbors interested in this. This is a city wide, in fact, an area wide issue of concern. And we very much hope that this will go through, so that this area can be preserved. Thank you so much.

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department Staff)]: Thank you. This is a quick lay explanation in addition to doctor Berthwasser. The hillside is formed, as you've heard, of red siskin chert bedrock, which is relatively stable when not disturbed, but prone to failure when dug into because layers of shale in the bedrock more rapidly disintegrate when evacuation when excavation alters water flow, and this can cause large sections of rock to abruptly collapse and slide. It's particularly an issue where there's been quarrying, which is true on these lots. And for perspective, they'd be digging 30 feet into the hillside in order to build because it's almost vertical in many places. Thank

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: you.

[Rich Simpson (Public Commenter, 8th Avenue neighbor)]: Hi. My name is, Rich Simpson. I live at 1722 8th Avenue. We're just up from the Moraga Paper Street. You know, I'm here with some neighbors today, and we're a little late to the party in that we, were just informed about this a few weeks ago. We didn't have the benefit of, you know, two years of engagement with the supervisor. I'm very sympathetic to the Kensington community and their desire to protect their homes and, you know, the the birds and the trees and everything. But, we also have birds and trees and open space. As to the land swap, you know, it seems that we wanna trade one piece of troubled land for another piece of troubled land. 8th Avenue during the Loma Prieta earthquake is it's built it's a sand hill and it liquefied. A lot of houses were damaged, completely destroyed, and that is the reason that there is a FEMA wall behind the homes. It's holding that hillside up. So it's difficult to build there as well. One one specific thing to the zoning question is that the neighbors on that on the downslope of 8th Avenue own property that's behind this retaining wall. We have access to our property that we pay property taxes on via that paper lot. In none of the materials that I've seen is there any consideration to maintaining access to those lots. That's one specific point. We have lots of other neighbors that are gonna talk more, I think about their challenges, with the hill and the earthquake.

[Mark Primo (Oversight Advisor to the Director of Health, DPH)]: Thank you.

[Steve Chan (Public Commenter, 8th Avenue neighbor)]: My name is Steve Chan. I live at 1798 8th Avenue. I'm here to object to the rezoning for the reason I am outlining below. First one, I think that hillside is really unstable for that new partial, the 02/2009. That's the one that's behind the hill between Doryaga and 7th Avenue. I had a chance to go down the hill to take a look at what was going on about a couple years ago. I had some picture to show that the retaining walls footing actually are settling. The dirt are settling. All the sand is settling. And you can actually see some area as much as 12 inches that has been settled since the retaining walls was built. So my belief is that it is unsafe for development unless there's some engineer that's already done that can prove otherwise. I think the development would compromise the slopes' stability, and also public safety. And also the integrity of the wall. I have photo, I can submit. And also, there's an encroachment permit that I obtained when my building was built. My building was earthquake damaged in 1989, and a new building was built and get the occupancy permit in 2003. When before it was final, I also had to get a one foot by 50 foot planting and postman permit in front of Noriega Street. That's 50 feet. That's in front of the 2040 Two-four 41 proposed lot. Also my gate, the wooden gate, that's also 11 feet into this partial that's proposed. All this improvement on my building, it was all inspected and approved before I could get certificate of occupancy. So I can also support all of this supporting document and photo. I'm not sure is that how I'm not sure how would I be able to submit that. Thank

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: you.

[Robert Daniels (Public Commenter, nearby resident)]: If I have, materials, copies of the one I'm about to testify to, I only have four copies, I'm afraid, but for the re reading. My name is Robert Daniels. I live about 150 feet away from where the new Moriega lot is proposed to be constructed. Observation. Concern There is a proposed planning code, section 101, finding number six in the materials, regarding preparedness against injury and loss of life in an earthquake. And is that adequately supported with regard to the so called city properties that are being exchanged and will be acquired by Kensington? The proposed recommendation emphasizes the need to protect environmentally sensitive lots in the Edge Hill area. I'd agree with that. But the materials do not mention the steep way Moraga And Noriega Streets decline, like a cliff edge, from the 8th Avenue Hillcrest down towards 7th Avenue. And as the earlier speakers have noted, the area and the houses were extensively damaged in the nineteen eighty nine earthquake, requiring construction of a retaining wall that hopefully will hold them together when, not if, when the next earthquake arrives. The size of the retaining wall problem is shown by a copy of the permit details for an application, 9101539. Project cost, dollars 4,480,000. That's a fair amount to spend on a retaining wall. And as a result of concern about landslides and retention here, landslides and retention here, apparently what Kensington was going to get changed dramatically from the first ground back in nineteen eighty two-eighty four, where it was a rectangular block 100 feet in, 30 feet high, or 30 feet north south depth, and now is a seven sided shape vaguely resembling the letter L, taking up 60 feet of frontage on 8th Avenue, and is on that weird shape to be on the safe side of the retaining of the long retaining well that loops around and ends here. The commission has heard from a geoengineer regarding Edge Hill. Has the Commission heard from geoengineers regarding the long term safety from earthquake damage from its geoengineer with regard to the so called city properties on Moraga and Noriega. Have you heard? Do they say it's safe? Has the effect of annning of R H two forty x structure been investigated? Might it put an excessive burden on the part of the wall that it has been, if you will, gerrymandered to fit.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you for your comment. I think

[Robert Daniels (Public Commenter, nearby resident)]: your time is up. Yeah. I also just one one more thing.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Time, sir.

[Robert Daniels (Public Commenter, nearby resident)]: And it's in the materials here. That is your time.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Robert Daniels (Public Commenter, nearby resident)]: Why bundle the part?

[Larry Dickey (Public Commenter, 8th Avenue neighbor)]: Hello. Is it my mic on? Okay. My name is Larry Dickey. I live at 1706 8th Avenue, which is, next to well, there's a house between us and the Moraga lot. We've lived there since 1989, before the earthquake. We watched everything over the years. And I just want to support my neighbors in expressing our concern about how the process has gone on this and that we really only learned about this in the last two or three weeks. There are concerns about, one, access to our property, which extends beyond the wall. I think a previous speaker talked about the fact that there's no at least that hasn't been addressed in the plans. And also, I'm particularly concerned about what about the Noriega property that's on the other side of the wall that goes down to Laguna Honda Boulevard. There is no wall there. And if that is dug out or whatever, what is that gonna do to the stability of the wall uphill? So I have the same concerns as as my neighbors as has really a an adequate geologic study been done of how this is going to affect things. I can tell you that that hillside is 100% sand. After the earthquake, they drilled down in front of our house and found they stopped at 150 feet, and it was still sand. So, there is no bedrock down there. So, anyway, thank you for your consideration.

[Helene Saint John (Public Commenter, Kensington Way neighbor)]: Good afternoon. I'm Helene Saint John. I reside at 217 Kensington Way. I have letters here that we wanted to make sure that the planning commission did receive, along with a, newspaper articles that were sent. Thank you for your time.

[Mariu Kanam (Public Commenter, 8th Avenue neighbor)]: Hi. My name is Mariu Kanam, and I live at 1726 8th Avenue for the last forty something years. So we were there for the big earthquake when the foundation of the house is split like that, and we were out of the house for three years. In order to stabilize the the hill, which we discovered that was a sand hill, the honorable Nancy Pelosi had to make an appeal to the federal government to get the money because the city and the state didn't have the funds for the retaining wall, and they were very concerned that if we slide down furthermore, it will affect the 7th Avenue. So the owners of the houses on 7th Avenue were totally in involved in all the work we did. Was even suggested by a lawyer, a a professor lawyer from Berkeley that we have the right to see to to what to sue the city for approving construction on that hill seventy years ago. We were dissuaded to do that, but the concern is there. This the hill it's a sand hill, doesn't have any base of rock, and we don't we know that was a big geological survey done after the earth earthquake, and you must have it somewhere. And that the hill cannot or the wall cannot take more load. The stress on that hill and on the on the wall, it's calculated. It ends at the last house at the Moraga Avenue, doesn't continue on the open space or paper or street, whatever it's called. So there there is nothing done for that part of the hill to be sustained. So I think that it's a big danger for us. I won't tell you again, three years out of the house, dollars 300,000 to rebuild nine piers into the soil on the sand soil. So constructing there is a dangerous activity, and I suppose that the city will be liable if anything happens. Thank you.

[Frank (Public Commenter, 8th Avenue resident)]: Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Frank. I'm on 1808th Avenue. We've had this building prior to the earthquake, during the earthquake, and, of course, post earthquake. I would like to submit this on behalf of my neighbor, also my sister, who cannot attend this meeting. You've heard all the discussion already, and I'm here to ask for compassion. This stack of papers or the executive summary seems to be compassionate to one person, the owner of Kensington LLC. I'm asking you to consider compassion for me and the other homeowners on 8th Avenue from the 1600 Block all the way to the end of 1800 Block. Because we all have our homes on top of that retaining wall. It's held by the retaining retaining wall. There are not many of us here present today. I believe it's because they weren't notified. But, however, the Lance Wop, the real estate group, did follow California law. I read that. It's quite clear. But some of us, were not notified. And, you know, just because you do you follow the law, it's not necessarily the right thing. And that's where the compassion comes in. That's why the rest of my neighbors aren't here because I suspect if they knew, they would be here joining us. I'm asking for compassion for the people who were here before, during, and after, like I previously said. We walked on those broken streets of 8th Avenue. We waited for the demolition. We waited for the construction of the retaining wall. And we waited for the construction of our new building. Some of us have two mortgages, one for the previous building that was destroyed and the one that was rebuilt later on. And that's why I'm asking for compassion. I want you to consider that. When I built when we built our building, we built it with windows on the side of our building because we're adjacent to the Paper Street. It was approved thirty years ago, more than thirty years ago. I have a view of the Golden Gate Tower. I'm gonna lose it. I have a sewage line at the very bottom of my property, and it's adjacent to the sewage line that's going to be plugged. And one of the words was missing about when you plug a sewage line, you're actually abandoning that sewage line. There's always downstream effects if if the engineer doesn't look both upstream and downstream. That means potentially because I have a sewage line in my backyard, I could be flooded with wastewater.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you, sir. That is your time.

[Frank (Public Commenter, 8th Avenue resident)]: Okay. May I just say one thing? The last thing.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: That is your time, sir. If commissioners have clarifying questions, they'll call you up. Okay? If you wanna submit that, you can just leave that right there. Next speaker, please.

[Steve Chan (Public Commenter, 8th Avenue neighbor)]: That's for 1798 8th Avenue. I'm Steve Chan. Thank you. Thank you for the consideration.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Last call for public comment on this item. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner vice president Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Let me say that while I'm interested in land swaps that create additional housing, this particular project as it was described for me as a commissioner created more work than what I felt I need to spend on it. The fact that the background of the project was not properly explained made it almost impossible to fully understand it. The first thing I was asking myself, do I have a jurisdiction to deal with a land swap? What is the San Francisco Administrative Code saying? How are real property transactions being handled? And so I had to dig deep to figure out what the background was because the background just was not described in, the report that is in front of me. And, it is just today here in this meeting that I understand the complexity of not only the existing condition for people uphill, the the hill itself, but also even more urgently, the downhill conditions which deal with and consequences which people are still affected with today. It's I'm really burdened by the lack of having had a full introduction to fully understand this project. I'm not quite sure why we were not given more detail, but I personally found it very difficult, and I feel not fully informed by technical questions that I would like to see answered in order to opine on it today. And, again, I'm interested in the idea of positive land swaps, a win win if the technical under chassis for this project wouldn't be as difficult as it is. So I'm interested to listen to hear what my other fellow commissioners have to say, but I am on the fence on this one. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. Just, you know, the the item, as I understand it, just to confirm, you know, the item before us as a planning commission is about the rezoning of the parcels, that are involved in the land swap at Moraga and Noriega. And, but I'm I'm gonna back up for a second and just say I I can understand why the concerns exist for Edge Hill. That's an area that I I run on pretty frequently. There's, you know, the trail that runs alongside that area, and I've looked into that place before because it's an interesting feature in the city. Everyone should go check it out sometime. But, but, you know, I've seen the history of of collapses that have happened on that hill, and so I understand the concerns that are coming from that. The community who's been interested in seeing development not happening on the Kensington site, it is quite a sheer hill right there as well. For those who came out and raised their concerns for the properties of Muraga and Noriega, I agree also that's a very steep hill and you have a long and well informed memory of what's happened at that property in the past. However, I you know, as I understand it and from looking at the zoning maps, every other parcel surrounding those two areas that are part of the swap at Noriega and Moraga are all zoned the way that we are going to be that what's before us to potentially rezone them to R H 2 And 40 X. You look at the zoning map, everything there is already that except for these properties that the city owns. The This action to me is not an action of approving a project. There is no project before us. It is rezoning. And so what I'm thinking about is the fact that anybody who comes forward and proposes a project after this has been rezoned will have to go through the full permitting process. They will have to submit their geotechnical analysis. I certainly hope it is, you know, still possible to build on that site given that a lot of folks spoke about how they rebuilt on these properties in conjunction with that retaining wall. And if it's a place where you just cannot have something, then that raises a lot of concern for me about the fact that rebuilding was allowed. So, you know, I think that, for me, I I just I don't have concerns about the rezoning, but I also wanna just put it out there that this is the first step in a process. It is not a project, and I don't know. It's possible if somebody comes forward with a project, it might actually be proven to not be feasible to build on the slope. We'll see if, when, and if that happens. But I do support the rezoning. It matches all the other zoning on the surrounding properties. It seems very reasonable to me. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you, Commissioner Brown. Yes. It is pretty clear today what it's coming in front of us is asking us to consider the purpose of looking into rezoning these lots proposed in front of us. And I found this pretty click clear in the packet. And I just wanna reiterate today is really for us what's asked for us is to consider the rezoning component of it. So with that, I actually want to take a moment to just thank you, supervisor Melgaard, for spending a lot of time taking on this, from what I understood, is your predecessors for decades, even prior to supervisor Yi, had also attempted to try to come up with a solution. So I applaud you working with the community, try to find amicable solutions, and don't give up on it. So thank you for that. And thank you to the department staff and everybody to actually try to work it out. And, I see the department of the Real Estate is here too. So, Sally, thank you for doing that. In general, I'm also supportive of that, with Commissioner Braun's, deliberations. But I would like to also listen to what my fellow commissioner has come in. So Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you, President Su, and thank you, supervisor Melgar. It seems to me as well and that, the neighbors on the 8th Avenue I guess that's my question as to what has been the conversation with the 8th Avenue neighbors as well? Has there been any communication with them or what has been transpired?

[Myrna Melgar (District 7 Supervisor)]: So, no, there hasn't been the level of engagement with the 8th Avenue neighbors as I've had with the Edge Hill neighbors, because, the Edge Hill neighbors have been working, on this before I was elected supervisor, whereas we identified these parcels as possible swaps only fairly recently. So I'm, as a supervisor, moving as fast as I can to do this. So it was, you know, within the last few months that we nevertheless, they have been notified. I have met with some of them. Let me just say for the disposition of ownership of a property, there is no notification requirement. It's very different if this was a project that there would be a three eleven notification and, you know, a full disclosure of all this. This is about ownership. So, you know, we it's not the same requirements. Nevertheless, you know, I have tried to engage, you know, in in Mike Farrah in my office as well. But, you know, once this is done, I just wanna point out that there are legal requirements for any project in terms of your process, but also the building inspection process. Earthquake codes have changed significantly since the nineteen eighty nine earthquake. So, you know, this any project here would have to be code compliant. But that's not what we're talking about today. We're talking about just zoning, and the swap is not what is being proposed. That will come to the board of supervisors at some point if you approve the item today. Thank you.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Sir, sir, you're out of order at this moment. Okay, please.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you, supervisor. I think, and you can sit down. I don't have any more questions. I think for me and, you know, when I it looks, you know, when we're talking about safety, and I understand and there has been history of land swaps here in the city that I'm also aware of. And in terms of the particular land swap on this, I'm not really questioning that. I think it's just be you know, we're it's a commission, and there is opportunity to speak with the community. I think it's really important as well for the community to be well aware of of of the land swap. And I understand. I think if anything, my concern is around the Surplus Land Act is because, in terms of the surplus land act, you can actually build affordable housing on this if if it's if it's available. Sure. You can talk about it if you want. But yeah. I I but, again, even that, there will need to have some assessment on that Yes. And geologist study on that.

[Myrna Melgar (District 7 Supervisor)]: Correct. So as you just pointed out, the surplus lands act now requires us to take a few extra steps for a activity just as this one. Mhmm. The state now requires us to advertise these parcels to nonprofit developers for possible development of affordable housing, which we did twice. Mhmm. And nobody took us up on it because they're single family and, you know, the RH lots not not, you know, suitable for affordable housing development. But that was done. And in addition to that, a new requirement that is now in case that wasn't before is the requirement for HCD to approve this potential swap, which they did. So we did do all those steps already.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I'm and, you know, in in what it looks like, I mean, there is a neighbor, the Kensington Way neighbors that concerned about their safety. And I also hear about the 8th Avenue neighbors as well who's also concerned about their safety as well. I think for me, in this is more like how can be the neighbors feel confident in terms of this land swap since this is going to be an arch to NI, you know, you this is zoned for that as well, or their surrounding neighbors are are actually zoned for that as well. So for that reason but I think in in I mean, the neighbors also spoke about geology and safety reasons as well that I think should be heard and should be, you know, explained to, if anything, about the process of this. You know? I mean, my concern is, like, we're giving up the the the city owned land that can be built for affordable housing, but, you know, that's being turned into an arch, you know, into an arch too. Actually, that's my main concern. But, again, the neighbors are concerned about the safety that they have that I think they need to have that space as well to bring it up for the next development that may happen or perhaps if the city can buy it back from the the developer itself. Maybe that would be the case. But but, yeah, I understand that what is going through on this. I would say it's for me, I find it complicated, but I do, you know, resonate in the in terms of the reason for safety on the Kensington Way.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: It is complicated, but I spent three hours driving around yesterday, and it was complicated to get around Edge Hill and actually get and pinpoint all the lots we were talking about, but I did. And I went up Edge Hill and I went around it four times. It's all one way up there. It's Billy Goat Country. It's beautiful. But you can clearly see the danger of landslides because it's there. It's just basically it's it's just layer after layer. So then down to Muruga and Noriega, and this is purely zoning today, and I don't have a problem with that. I'm for it, but on an observation down to Moraga, I'm not a geologist. I am not a, an engineer, but I've worked in construction, and there isn't a problem building in modern day construction codes on Muruga or Noriega. In fact, you'll actually help the neighbors on both sides. But on an observation, I couldn't help noticing that all the neighbors on Marraga and Noriega have basically taken the property and they're utilizing it for themselves. It's landscaped out and it's basically incorporated. One of them, I couldn't help but note, 808 1818th Avenue on one side, and then the other side is actually four units that totally in have included this into their property, as has Moraga down the road as well, but not with the same amount of upkeep. But on Noriega, it's meticulous. It's big it's like it's part of the building that was built there, which it's not because it's not their property. It's their neighbor's property, and it's the sitter's property. So I find that weird. Well, more than a little odd because it's not their property. It's the neighbor's property. But you wouldn't think that to look at it. You know? So I do not have a problem with this today. I get that the neighbors who are utilizing this as their own property would, but it's not their property. So from a zoning point of view, I don't have a problem with this, and I would make a motion to go forward with this.

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: Second.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. And then, before we are ready for the vote, commissioner vice president, you have a further comment?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Yes, I do. Supervisor Malgor, I have a question for you. At what point is suitability, buildability, and life safety being addressed? Is that at the time of a building application, or is it at the time when the city considers doing a land land swap from one to the other?

[Myrna Melgar (District 7 Supervisor)]: You know, I trust that the folks at the Department of Real Estate who were in charge of getting an appraisal to, you know, assess whether this was a comparable piece of land, that we could swap knowing the, goals of the swap did their their job and their due diligence. And so I don't you know, this is sort of above my pay grade, even though, as you know, I am a former planning commissioner and a land use geek. I think that, you know, the fact that it is being proposed for rezoning and that the parcels next to these are zoned for this same zoning proposal, that it's adequate for building. Now whether or not it would support a specific project at the bottom of the hill on Laguna Honda or at the top of the hill, I think that would be a question for both you and your staff, because that's what you're there for, and also the building inspection department, which enforces the codes and, as you know, has a process. If there is an issue that is geotechnical, as to the suitability for a parcel to be built.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Did you bring somebody from the Department of Real Estate who may be able to opine on that and support more another? If you would mind that

[Myrna Melgar (District 7 Supervisor)]: There is someone here from the Department of Real Estate.

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: She could

[Myrna Melgar (District 7 Supervisor)]: She could who is probably known to you, but brand new to this job. So welcome.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Okay. Thank you so much.

[Sally Orth (Director of Real Estate, CCSF)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Sally Orth, the director of real estate. And so, yes, I can answer any questions you have about the appraisal process.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I actually would like to just restate the question I asked supervisor Melgar, and that is, are life safety, building suitability, etcetera, being considered when parcels are being swapped.

[Sally Orth (Director of Real Estate, CCSF)]: So what the Department of Real Estate was asked to do was to evaluate the fair market value of the parcels, which was done through independent appraisals. And through the board action related to the land swap exchange, was reviewed and approved through prior board action. I think has been has been discussed here, when you get to the question of of suitability of construction is gonna be very related to the specific project that would be built upon the property, which isn't yet determined or or before the body. So I can't speak to anything related to a specific set of conditions for construction at this time. What the Department of Real Estate looked at was the fair market value of the exchange, which was determined to be a fair market value transaction.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: This is really good. And I think it's director Phillips. You wanted to have some comment?

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: Commissioner Moore, I was just also going to attempt to answer your question because I think it is more in in planning's purview, than our director of real estate. Although, I understand your question was related to the land swap. So, and I and I think we can put this in parallel with the many rezonings that you see as planning commissioners here. We outside of CEQA and as as, you know, the the California Environmental Quality Act where there are topics that we review under a rezoning. Buildability is not we cannot and and don't assess buildability as a planning department when we do the rezonings. We assess it under the California Environmental Quality Act. We do the rezoning. And then the specifics, as I think, Sally restated, thank you, are are examined per project when the project is brought forward through the permitting process.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I I I'm glad that we had several people answering that question because, ultimately, I want the neighbors to hear of what is basically in front of us. Ultimately, it's a question of buildability or how something is built. In an area where left and right and up and down, there are indeed houses, so this is not an area where there are no houses at all. There comes the issue that any measure anybody who builds will take has to meet every aspect of one building, a building that can stand on its own, but also takes into consideration how it affects people up, down, left and right in the situation that you are in. So what it means is that as this project potentially moves forward with different or a single application for related houses to be built by the person who is purchasing the purchasing the lot, the entire questions that you brought today, which are technical and very specific, have to be brought up again because the building will have to meet the difficulties of the circumstance in which the parcels are being developed. And for that reason, I basically have to move away from asking technical questions which would not be answered at this particular moment other than what technically is already in our package and what the experts on soil spoke about today, which indeed makes it clear that uphill, there's a difficult situation where you are and left and right there is also. So it is basically in the spirit of that that I asked these additional questions, but I as I said earlier, I am interested in the land swap and in the rezoning in in terms of what's in front of us. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. And I think we're ready to vote.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Very good, commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval on that motion. Commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. Commissioners, that will place us on item 10 for case number 2025 hyphen 7,361 PCA, inclusionary housing waiver in land dedication in well resourced neighborhoods. This is a planning code amendment.

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department Staff)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Veronica Flores, planning department staff. This next item is the inclusionary housing waiver ordinance introduced by supervisor Melgar. So I will invite her to speak on this item, and then I will return with the staff presentation. Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar (District 7 Supervisor)]: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I thought she was gonna speak before me. So thank you, commissioners, for hearing this item. I wanna give you a little bit of background of why I introduced it first. And that is, as you know and have heard in commission meetings before, the mayor has introduced a family zoning plan. Now some of my colleagues are working on amendments to that plan, which is gonna come to the land use committee on October 20. I have chosen to instead introduce separate legislation to address all of the concerns that I have with a zoning plan that don't go far enough for me in what I think are my constituents. And so this is one of the pieces of legislation. I purposely chose not to amend that plan because I didn't wanna hold it up, frankly. We are under very tight timelines from the state to get that rezoning right. And I know a lot of my colleagues have amendments. And so I wanted to make sure that concurrently, I have legislation. Some of it has to do with you. Some of it doesn't even touch the planning commission, like, for example, the small business fund. But this does. And so what I was trying to do with the rezoning plan is to ensure that rental housing was built in my district. And the reason for that is that District 7, like most of the West Side, is at 75% single family homeowner occupied. And of the 25% that is renter occupied, more than half is in Park Merced in one, you know, development that has its own development agreement. So that presents a problem for us because, you know, for young people like my daughter who's living in my basement for free, who needs an apartment to be with her boyfriend, there's very little in our neighborhood where she can go. And for seniors who have now, you know, four or five bedroom homes, and their kids left thirty years ago, if they wanna downsize and wanna stay in the communities that they love where they have friends, a church, you know, a community, there's also very little units, housing stock where they can go. And so I'm afraid under the rezoning plan, what we have seen a lot of on the Eastern neighborhoods is condos. We've seen a lot of condos, and that's great. We need them, but we need rental housing. And so this legislation is an attempt for an incentive to build rental housing. I am a firm believer in rent control. I think that it has been one of the most useful tools that we have in our toolbox to stabilize communities over time when prices fluctuate. So this legislation is option to the inclusionary housing obligation that developers have that instead of doing that, they would, from the get go, have all of their units opt into rent control. What that does from a construction financing perspective is essentially defer that obligation for twenty, thirty years because rent control departments only become affordable over time. So I am well aware that we are giving something up from the get go. But what we're getting is two things. One is more rent control departments, which we are losing every day. Every day, we are losing rent controlled apartments, because 1979 was the last day that those were built. But also, we're gaining them potentially on the West Side, which has very little rent stock, rental stock, and very little rent controlled stock. So I have been working with a group of folks on the West Side in my district, but on the greater area to hone a lot of these proposals. It is not a standalone proposal. As you probably have heard, I also have an enhanced infrastructure finance's district for affordable housing development. I have another proposal for

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: transfer of development rights for

[Myrna Melgar (District 7 Supervisor)]: rent controlled buildings. There's a whole bunch of ideas out there. This is not alone. But I do really believe in this, because I believe that we need more rent control units to add to the stock and also rental housing units on the West Side. I think in a high interest environment like we are right now, this provides an incentive for developers, and I have heard that feedback from, my development folks. I think there are a couple of things in your staff recommendations, that are good and one which I will respectfully, disagree with. And that is they liked it so much that they are saying that we should do it citywide. And I do not agree with that because I don't think that on the East Side of town, we have the same disparity about rent controlled units that we have on the West Side. And that is one of the goals of the legislation. But the second goal is that I am also a firm believer in deeply affordable, restricted, 100% affordable housing. And what we have relied on as a source of dollars for affordable housing construction is the in lieu fees, a 100% of which have been generated on the East Side Of San Francisco. None of it has come from the West Side because we haven't built anything. And I do not want to jeopardize those dollars without identifying a new source. And that is not today. We don't have another source of funding, so I would rather not mess with it. You have probably received communication from the Chinatown Community Development Center and, where they have expressed some concerns about this legislation. And I am actually happy to incorporate that feedback when it comes back to the land use committee. Their main concern is that it stay where it's intended to develop rental housing and more dense rental housing. And I share those goals. So they are proposing that we look at the jurisdiction of where this is applied to the areas that right now are low density, where there really is a dearth of rental housing. And I am totally on the same page as they are. So if we are gonna restrict the geography and take out, you know, those areas in Districts 3 And 2 where there already is dense housing, you know, not not to have them, I I'm also all for that. So that being said, I hope that you can support this. I think it is a good incentive. It is not a prohibition. It is not an impediment to development. It is an incentive to see the behavior that we want to see, which is you know, the development of rental housing and rent controlled housing. And I will take any questions, but also miss Flores will say her presentation, and I will stick around for your deliberations. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you.

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department Staff)]: Thank you, supervisor. Just want to give an overview of the proposed ordinance in front of you today. So under the proposed ordinance, the planning code would be amended to allow the city to waive the inclusionary housing requirements for projects in areas outside of the priority equity geographies. There are two paths to qualify for this inclusionary housing waiver. First is to subject all units in the project to, excuse me, all net new units in the project to rent control that these units remain rental for the life of the project, and they will need to execute a regulatory agreement with the city to reflect and uphold this. The second path to qualify is by dedicating land to the city for the mayor's office in housing community development to facilitate a housing project. Such land that is identified as a potential, dedicated land needs to be located outside of the priority equity geographies. The department supports this proposed ordinance and really supports the goal of increasing more rental housing in the well resourced neighborhoods. As the supervisor mentioned, there is the trade off. Projects not providing the inclusionary housing at this time or paying into the in lieu fee requirement. But this really does create more opportunities for rent controlled units. And that really does supports residents as it guarantees that there's limits on the annual rent increases, which creates stability for our residents for as long as they remain in those units. The department recommends you adopt a recommendation of approval with modifications of, I will go over these recommendations very briefly. The first is to explicitly prohibit condominium conversions of the net new units resulting from this proposed ordinance. The department has coordinated with the supervisor and also has some potential ideas to execute this. Some suggest language from the city attorney's office, so that could be reflected in the regulatory agreement. And it's something that we can continue working on after the planning commission hearing, just throughout the legislative process. But one idea is to explicitly note that the units have to be held in an undivided ownership that cannot be subdivided. Second is for the land dedication alternative, and that's to specify the minimum housing requirements for the dedicated land. Right now, the proposed ordinance refers to an established process for land dedications under section four nineteen point five a two. However, it does not specify the minimum housing requirements. The supervisor is in agreement with the recommended modification of 35% of the potential units that could be provided on the principal project site. And lastly, the department recommends this inclusionary housing waiver be applied citywide, instead of just outside of the PEGs. Again, as the supervisor mentioned, we support this idea. We support increasing opportunities for rental housing throughout the city. So this is something that we would like to see recommended, if not now, in the future. We understand this is a shift or departure from the intent and really the goals of this proposed ordinance. Again, that's to increase rental housing on the West Side of the city in the well resourced neighborhood. So we understand that the supervisor is not inclined to take this last recommendation at this time. This concludes the staff presentation, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. With that, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item.

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: Hi. Georgia. I'm a little out of my depth here. I just read it this morning. But I wanna focus on a couple of things. One, this doesn't cover section three seventeen, so that's why I'm out of my depth. But if that's in the TPO and in the mayor's legislation, three seventeen is still there, the definition. Just leave it at that. I guess I have a question about what miss Flores just said. Does that undivided ownership, that means cooperative. Right? So it won't be like a two two eight Vicksburg scenario where it was supposed to be rental housing and then they made it a stock coop. That's a question you don't have to answer. Maybe she'll answer it. Again, it goes back to what's a demolition. I know this is for 10 or more units, but I've seen some projects where they added, you know, six or seven units to what was there, three or four. And the whole concept of this this this this this this is confusion that I have that I think exists out there that when you do an alteration, it's great because if there are units there, they get to stay rent control. Well, I just don't think that ever happens. I'm sorry. I haven't seen that happen. You know? I don't I just nah. Sorry. It's just I don't believe it. I'm a cynic. So that's why I'm worried about that. But I think this is a great idea. I think rent control is great. Like someone who grew up in rent control and lived in rent control housing for years, I think it's good that it's outside of the PEG. I don't think even four twenty three should apply to the PEG neighborhoods. And I've said that before, and I think the city should lobby for that because I think that defeats the purpose of the PEGs, and I understand why, the supervisor doesn't want that in her legislation. But, again, you know, I know this involves demolition, making sure that units stay rent control if something's demolished 10 or more units. But what's a demolition? So I think that's it. I think those are my only points. Oh, and I thought the findings were great, justifying rent control. I mean, I thought they were the best I've ever seen, and everybody should memorize them. Okay. Thank you. They were. They were really good. Thank you.

[Brianna Morales (Community Organizer, SF Housing Action Coalition)]: Good afternoon, members of the planning commission. My name is Brianna Morales, and I am from the Housing Action Coalition as their community organizer. And I'm just here to say that we're really encouraged to see supervisor Melgar's continued, work and being able to modernize how San Francisco delivers inclusionary and right controlled housing in our city's most well resourced neighborhoods. This ordinance recognizes that a one size fits all inclusionary framework doesn't always produce the housing outcomes we need, especially in places that has seen very little builds in the previous decades. And so while affordable housing remains to be incredibly difficult to get financed and subsequently built, We need to offer as many creative, flexible solutions to actually bring affordable homes to fruition. At Hack, where we have members of all types of builders and industry folks, including including affordable and market rate. We know how flexibility and being able to have choice really does make or break a project. And having predictability, flexibility allows builders to do things that are a little bit more risky and a little bit more creative. And so these are the types of projects and policies that we're really excited by and hopeful for. We're also really invested in the equity part of this plan. It's aligning with our housing element goals in order to see increasing housing choice in high opportunity areas. It promotes racial and economic integration and removes barriers that was able to keep entire swaths of land in San Francisco untouched. It's a smart step towards trying to bring out every tool in the tool book to get housing built, including meeting our mandated housing element requirements. So we appreciate the supervisors continued work in bringing multiple options, multiple plans of actions to the table to tackle creating affordable housing, and we are excited to see how we can continue expanding pathways to build more homes of all types of all income levels in every neighborhood. Thank you very much.

[Eric Wu (Assistant Staff, Chinatown Community Development Center)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Eric Wu. I'm assistant staff with the Chinatown Community Development Center. I'm speaking to share concerns with the proposed ordinance. I wanna start by saying that while rent control is a vital protection for existing tenants under this proposal, the units will be market rate and does not generate affordability at initial occupancy, making them out of reach for, to most working class families and seniors. So we want to center the conversation on affordable housing for low income working families and seniors. The city currently has no consistent dedicated funding source for affordable housing. The, 300,000,000 affordable housing bond passed in 02/2024 has already been allocated. And without any affordable housing money, the inclusion in housing program is an extremely important tool for the city to reach its affordable housing arena goals, which the city has fallen short of in the previous housing element cycle. Since its inception in 2002, the inclusionary housing program has created more than 4,700 affordable units throughout the city, including in high opportunity areas, allowing low income working class families to live in neighborhoods where they can access schools, jobs, public transit, and other neighborhood amenities. Waiving inclusionary requirements would result in fewer equitable affordable housing opportunities for the residents, like those getting displaced by no fault evictions and others who need it the most. Furthermore, inclusionary affordable housing requirements were already temporarily reduced in 2023, based on the recommendation from the inclusionary affordable housing program, technical advisory committee. This was a balanced approach toward the feasibility of new construction and a need for affordable units. We strongly support efforts to expand rental housing options across all neighborhoods, but such expansion must not come at the cost of our inclusionary commitments or the long term production of affordable units in the high opportunity areas. We urge the commission to recommend adoption of limits that preserve a balanced and equitable housing strategy, ensuring that any waiver program begins at a modest scale, is geographically targeted and includes meaningful public oversight. We respectfully urge the commission to recommend amendments, adding clear limits and reporting provisions before forwarding this legislation to the board. Thank you.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Malgour. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you, President Tsao, and thank you, Supervisor Malgour. I'm not sure if you or the planning staff can answer this question. I have some few questions over, like, technicalities in terms of, like, how it's going to apply with s b three thirty In terms of as we know, in terms of s b three thirty, there is a requirement on in terms of re replacement. And also, there's also other provisions in it that, in a way, preserve the the income or the income and also the eligibility for affordability. And and so yeah. So will this ordinance also be applicable to s b three thirty?

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department Staff)]: Thank you, commissioner Imperial. The net new units resulting from this proposed ordinance, those are the ones that would be subject to rent control. All of the s b three thirty replacement requirements, all the protections under s b three thirty, that still remains in place. So that would still be the same even after this ordinance. If there is a proposal where there is an existing unit already on the property, we may see one inclusionary unit, for example, that just through SB three thirty, it is retained, it is protected, And then the rest of the units so then I'm I keep saying net new just to try to differentiate. But the net new units, those units would be fully rent control. So, that's just an example of what we might see. But just to further emphasize, all of the s b three thirty requirements would still be in place.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I see. So there will be so there will be the in a way for s b three thirty projects. There will be an inclusionary part of it, and then there will be also the rent control that will be part of this legislation, where the legislation would apply to s b three thirty. Is that what I'm hearing in a way? Yes. Okay. And in terms of, let's say, also s b three thirty, let's say, a developer, you know, did the does the s b three thirty provide land education or as part of the option? I'm wondering if

[Unidentified City Staff (likely City Attorney or Planning/Housing staff)]: that's No. It's it's agnostic in terms of the Yeah. Programs. Right?

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: It's the

[Unidentified City Staff (likely City Attorney or Planning/Housing staff)]: basically, the right for return. So it defers back to what the local jurisdictions

[Elizabeth Mayer (Public Commenter, CARE)]: Mhmm.

[Unidentified City Staff (likely City Attorney or Planning/Housing staff)]: Affordable housing program is. So, obviously, on our end, land dedication is an option Yeah. To meet the inclusionary requirements.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Mhmm. And then for our own local program, our own local density, definitely. Because the local density program is 24 units and more, which can actually, I believe, can call for a 100% rent controlled.

[Unidentified City Staff (likely City Attorney or Planning/Housing staff)]: Correct. As part of the family rezoning plan

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Mhmm.

[Unidentified City Staff (likely City Attorney or Planning/Housing staff)]: They can utilize anything that is within four fifteen Yeah. As an option to meeting the inclusionary requirements.

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: So Yeah.

[Unidentified City Staff (likely City Attorney or Planning/Housing staff)]: Land dedication is one of them.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I see.

[Unidentified City Staff (likely City Attorney or Planning/Housing staff)]: So if this ordinance was to pass, that would be opening up

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah.

[Unidentified City Staff (likely City Attorney or Planning/Housing staff)]: This pathway in terms of meeting your inclusionary requirement this way.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So there will be, you know, with if a developer used the the local density program, and if there are 10 units or more, they can choose the rank this rent control option at this point. And when there is s b three thirty development, they can have the option of the the inclusionary requirement will still apply because it's part of the s b three thirty. And then there will be replacement of rent controlled units where there will be

[Unidentified City Staff (likely City Attorney or Planning/Housing staff)]: Correct. Yeah.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So a good way to

[Unidentified City Staff (likely City Attorney or Planning/Housing staff)]: think about it is s b three thirty doesn't impact our local inclusionary. It just puts a requirement on top of rent controlled units that they have to basically come back as rent controlled units.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I see. Okay. And then my other question was around the land dedication alternative. And so the land dedication alternative, it it seems like in this legislation by the supervisor is will apply outside of priority equity geography. So that means out any so it can be so now we're having more options at this point. We have the inclusionary on-site, inclusionary off-site, rent controlled option, and then land dedication option in the family zoning plan that it's going to be. Right. So this Yes.

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department Staff)]: Yes. So all of the existing options, as long as the project's eligible, this just adds a new path or a new opportunity for them if they are eligible. As in the case today, if they're if the project is eligible for multiple programs, then the applicant then decides which program meets most of my goals, which ones do I want to pursue. So they may be eligible for multiple, but now they have a new path, a new opportunity to consider.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And the supervisor is mentioning that the goal of this, you know, the goal of this measure is to focus primarily where the family zoning plan is going to be. And so I just wanna make sure that that language, you know, you know, is really intentional to be in that way. And I, you know, I think there are some concerns with other neighbors or especially with the letter that we received from CCDC about this requirement where, again, their main issue is about affordability. But I just wanna mention that when it comes to inclusionary housing, and I I know people this is not a popular opinion. But inclusionary housing, there is a rent increase. You get the affordability upfront of the unit, but there is a rent increase which is higher than a rent control. It would be, like, sometimes three to 5% depending how our economy is actually. So I just wanna also you know, there's a give and take, So I just wanna also you know, there's a give and take when we're talking about inclusionary housing. And I'm still big proponent of rent control because it does cap. I mean, it's very straightforward in a cap that makes the unit. Again, it will be a market rate, but the rent cap on this will be according, which is usually 1% and less, if anything. And so, you know, that so there there's that. There there are these trade offs that we deal with, whether inclusionary or rent control as well. And I understand where, you know, other committee members are coming from when when we're talking about the the rent controlled and the market level of rents. But at the end of the day, I think the main the biggest issue still is the affordability where affordable housing funding is something that needs to be prioritized. In terms of the I'm trying to understand as well the recommendation by CCDC and Chu Chu in terms of limit eligibility to lower density districts. I think they're trying to also mention of that it should be just within the family zoning plan and not outside of priority equity geography, which sounds like that's what also what the supervisor is also intending to do as well. For the planning recommendation, I support number one. And also, I think there's number two as well, the alter the land dedication alternative. Perhaps that's something that needs to be specified, But I will not support the recommendation number three. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Lebron?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Well, thank you, supervisor, for, bringing this forward. It's an interesting solution, and I have some some thoughts on that. I I just wanna quickly address the land dedication side of this. I have no I'm I'm very supportive of the land dedication option. I am glad that staff recommended some kind of guardrails or way to think about, you know, the capacity that has to be created through that land dedication option as opposed to just the process which was already in there. So I definitely, do support the recommendation. I think it was number two that was about that from staff. But moving on to the rent control side of this, I think this is a really unique response to the fact that that inventory is kind of frozen in place in a lot of ways unless we can come to regulatory voluntary agreements with with developers and property owners. And I really take to heart the point that the supervisor you made about the the lack of rental stock in general on the West Side of the city and therefore lack of of rent controlled rental stock. I I agree that rent controlled housing is critically important for maintaining mixed income neighborhoods and communities. I've seen it firsthand. I'm sure we all have. But when I look at every block I've lived on and who has managed to stay there at much lower income levels than many of the new entrants to that block, it's rent control almost every time that's played a big part in that. And so I think it is really important for stabilizing neighborhoods. At the same time, you know, with our structure of rent control, with vacancy decontrol, I don't have the concerns I otherwise might in terms of, you know, reducing incentives for development because of rent control. You know, with vacancy decontrol, there's still incentive to build and be able to rent at market rates. So that that makes a lot of sense to me.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I I

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: do have a couple of questions and and thoughts, to kind of go in parallel with this legislation. So, my first question actually is for the supervisor. You mentioned I just mentioned the feasibility consideration for development, whether this impacts the likelihood of development moving forward. I mean, were there any discussions or analyses conducted to look at what influence this option might have on development patterns or the likelihood of development of new housing?

[Myrna Melgar (District 7 Supervisor)]: Yes. So there are a couple of things that I saw. One was a study that was done by the Housing Action Coalition on development and interest rates specifically. And this was one of the recommendations. You know, this idea that it essentially defers that obligation over time rather than it being, you know, something that is paid for out of a construction loan with high interest rate from the get go, but, you know, later, is compelling to me because, you know, we talk about the numbers, right, in a pro form a, interest rates, labor costs, but we often don't think about time, you know, and that is also a factor. And then the your own analysis, Century Urban Analysis also has this for buildings up to 25 units. And it shows that this would be an incentive under certain economic conditions, the ones that we're in right now, with high interest rates. So I thought that this would be a good thing to put out on the table. And like I said, it's an option, not a requirement. So if it works, it'll work. And if it doesn't, nobody's going to take us up on it. And they'll just do what we've always done, which are the options that you already know.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Yeah. And I think the affordable housing tack is meeting again starting next year. Is that it's next year, right? So I was just also thinking, you know, this might be if they conduct that same level analysis they did last time, with the running pro formas, It'll be interesting to see kind of implications of this legislation with the the a specific analysis in the future. I I have a question maybe for staff or the supervisor, but it's about hitting the lower income obligations in our RHNA numbers. And so, you know, these as I understand it, I don't think these rent controlled if somebody produces rent controlled units, that they would qualify as being lower income units. So I guess I guess my question is just what's the what else is sort of coming down the line to ensure that we are ensuring production of the lower income units. There's been talk over time of additional funding sources and things like that. But my concern here is that this doesn't really help us. Anyone choosing this option, it doesn't help us get to the below above moderate income housing units.

[Myrna Melgar (District 7 Supervisor)]: No. That is correct. And I'm not pretending that it does, you know, which is why I've introduced, like, a whole package of legislation. Because I think in this town, we often, you know, have the tendency to be, oh, if we just do this one thing, you know, like, it's gonna solve all our problems. And, you know, our housing crisis has been in the making for decades. And it's not just one thing. It's many different things. And a tool that works for folks who are living on our streets right now doesn't solve the problem of single family home ownership, you know, at the other end. There are different things and different tools. So one of the things that I have introduced is, you know, the need for an enhanced infrastructure financing district for the West Side to produce affordable housing funding that is count not countercyclical the way that this, is. You know, right now, all of our money is one time money that gets paid by developers when the market is producing market rate units. And so when the market dries up, we have no money. Or occasionally, we go to the voters, you know, hat in hand, asking them for money for a bond. That is also one time money. So I am interested in exploring every way that we can to have steady sources of funding that are not subject to market whims as much, to produce affordable housing always. And I'm also interested in building the capacity of of nonprofit developers on the West Side, which we don't have right now. We've had a couple people who have dipped their toes in, but not, like, the, you know, East Side of town. And so that is another part of the package that I've introduced. I mean, I'm hoping that it'll pass as well. It's not gonna come before you, I don't think, because it's, you know, something it's a it's a budget issue, not a not a, you know, zoning or planning issue. But we're thinking about it as well. And the same group of folks that I've been working with on this have been working on that as well.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. And yeah, let's let's try to get some increment financing again. That would be great. Okay. So I there's some smaller stuff too. So that language that that miss Flores suggested about protecting against disallowing condos for properties that have opted into, voluntarily opted into providing rent controlled units. So, Ms. Shivers raised the same question I had actually, which is that language didn't necessarily sound to me like it controls for TICs because this is about the language seemed like it was about the ownership being subdivided in a way. And as I understand it, TICs still have single ownership.

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department Staff)]: Thank you, commissioner Braun. TICs are tenants in common seat. This was one of the concerns or questions that we had at the staff level. And in discussing with the housing implementation team and the city attorney's office, we really tried to capture all of those unofficial condo conversions or other ways that properties may be divided. So we feel we have a good starting point and able to prevent any type of subdivision, unofficial or official in the records. And we can continue to revisit that with the with the supervisor and the city attorney's office. But we did consider this as well, and that was one of the concerns that we want to make sure we did not encounter, that we did not lose the rental unit as a rent controlled unit, and it stays outside of the TIC discussion. But we will make sure that the upcoming language safeguards this.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate you working on that. And I'm I'm in full support of making sure the language protects against that situation as well. And just a little more. So the you know, I think one one concern that I have is that it's already very difficult for a renter to determine whether or not a housing unit is subject to rent stabilization. And, you know, there's the nineteen seventy nine rule. There's the, number of units in the building or property rule. But it's it's an exceptionally difficult thing to do. And now we're talking about building a lot well, potentially having new housing units that are subject to rent control, but they're new. And so somebody with an entry understanding or even somebody with a very advanced understanding of our rent stabilization might not be able to identify that those are rent controlled units. I know that we have the rent registry, and so good actors should be, you know, submitting their rents to that and there could be an oversight mechanism, to ensure that those units actually are being rented under the rent stabilization rules. But, I guess it would just be helpful for me to know, I mean, what what are the ways that we are gonna track implementation of this, ensuring that they're actually the regulatory agreement is being followed? And what are the ways that renters looking for housing can know whether or not something is subject to rent stabilization? All they see is it's for this much per month, and that's usually it.

[Myrna Melgar (District 7 Supervisor)]: So I'm sorry. I've gotta go soon because I have another meeting. But I will say that thank you for bringing up that point. We did not put in the rent legislation a requirement for the planning staff to send it over to the rent board for inclusion in the registry, but we could do that. I mean, that would be a very easy thing to do rather than wait for the developer to do it or, you know, you make them do it and then check off the box or something. I mean, I think that's very easy to do because supervisor Sandy Leafu already did the heavy lifting by requiring that they have a registry and have a database. So that's all right there.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you for that. I mean, I don't know if I need to put that as a recommendation. But I would just strongly suggest that yeah. Like you said. Okay. That Okay. And so just to wrap up, I am in full agreement with recommendations one and two from staff. I don't wanna go as far as recommendation three regarding application citywide for all the reasons that have been discussed. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you, Commissioner Braun. And thank you, Supervisor Maggard. If you like to stay, we're happy to have you. And if Jen is available Expert. Thank you. Appreciate we appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'd like to thank, the supervisor, always playing the long game here. Basically, there is no one size, fits all, no quick fix, but this is an option, and it's an it's another option. It's a different option to what we've have, and we're in a problem where we are today because it is we have been looking at it boom and bust one size fits all money today, no money tomorrow. So this will get developers, future developers, or people who are maybe not developers today, but maybe tomorrow because this is an option for them, an option that is outside the box than what we're ordinarily dealing with. The fact that, SB three thirty three is taken into account on this is phenomenal as well, but it's not just the rent control, it's the rental stock that basically on into the future that has been diminishing. This actually allows that to grow for, as was mentioned there, time. Time is never taken into account and people are never taken into account, future generations are never taken into account. If they were, our rental stock would be would be a lot better than where it is today, and our housing stock. So based on all that, I think it's a great option, and, I'm in favor of it. So thank you, supervisors. Melgar.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I agree with everything you just said, commissioner McGarry. I'm also very supportive of the ordinance. I don't need to overly opine. I did appreciate all the modifications of the planning staff before it. I understand the concerns around the third one. I do I would love to see, though, how this ends up playing out. If this is an option that ends up getting exercised a lot and it ends up being the trigger that stimulates a lot of housing, production, I it would be really curious to to get some sort of memo or a report back as to if this is something we should, consider more broadly across this the city and in some of these other areas. And with that, I'm going to make a motion to, adopt a recommendation for approval with modifications one and two only. And then

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: do we wanna just

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: layer in the suggestions that have been mentioned? There was a suggestion to add the TIC language in addition to modification number one in addition to the condominiums and add the rent controlled units to the registry at the board. And then I'd love, a memo in in one to two years' time just to see how this plays out. Yep.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Commissioner Campbell, the supervisor mentioned a number of modification based on feedback to CCDC, Choo Choo letter that she was interested in considering. So I would like to see those considered as as she mentioned them herself.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: We'll add those as well.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Naimbeerio,

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: do you have some

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: more questions?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Just have a clarifying question on the rental registry. Just wanna make sure that it means that the planning staff will work on the reporting requirement to the rental rental registry. And then for us, I guess it's also good for us to assess, like, when do we when should we do that kind of reporting? Or I don't know. Like, yearly and Phillips?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Maybe directly

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: That's something I would like to ask if that is possible.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: If Sarah

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: has a Commissioner Imperial, I I think the point about how we track them is a valid one. I don't think we're prepared to give you the best recommendations on how to do that on the spot. So we'd prefer time to work with a supervisor past here. Yeah. Thank you.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I'll just keep it I mean, the language that you use

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Suggestion. Suggestion. Yeah.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Thank you. Okay.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yeah. I can second that. I support that. Are we ready to vote?

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: If there's no further deliberation, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications one and two, not three, and suggesting that consideration be given to TIC language, a rent controlled registry, a one to two year update memo, and the CCDC and Choo Choo memo, considerations. On that motion, commissioner Campbell?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission President Soh?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. Commissioners, that will place us on the final item on your agenda today. Number 12, case number 2025Hyphen004308, IMP at 1001 Pachero Avenue. This is an informational IMP presentation. However, as they set up, I will say that, in order to satisfy their IMP, you need to close the public hearing sort of formally. So at the end at the end of the public hearing and your deliberation, you need to close the public hearing, formally, on the record to sort of satisfy the IMP requirements if Understood. Find them satisfactory.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Sounds good. Thank you.

[Laura Aiello (Planning Department Staff)]: Good afternoon, President Tsao, members of the commission, Laura Aiello with department staff. The project before you is an institutional master plan for the Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center. Planning code section three zero four point five requires post secondary educational institutions and hospitals to have an institutional master plan, IMP for short, on file with the department. The purpose of an IMP is to provide information at an early stage with regard to an institution's plans and to provide an opportunity for public involvement prior to substantial investment by the institution. The planning commission must hold a public hearing on the IMP plan, which will be for receipt of public testimony only and does not constitute approval or disapproval of the IMP itself or any of the projects described there within. Any proposed modification or project envisioned by the IMP as part of future development of the institution will require separate approvals. The planning commission will retain full discretion on reviewing those applications when they come in at a later date. SF General is located within the Mission neighborhood along the Potrero Hill border in the southwestern quadrant

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: of the city. This

[Laura Aiello (Planning Department Staff)]: historical hospital site has been in operation since the mid eighteen hundreds and provides a full complement of inpatient, outpatient, emergency, skilled nursing, diagnostic, mental health, and rehabilitation services. It is the only level one trauma center in San Francisco and Northern San Mateo County, and thus has a service area of one and a half million people. The project site is owned and operated by the city and county of San Francisco Department of Public Health. The site is zoned public and designated as a category a historic resource in the SF General historic hospital Historic District. Master plans also document developments that have occurred since the previous IMP hearing and describe anticipated projects. The last IMP submittal for the hospital was presented here in 2008. A major development since that time was completion of the new acute care hospital and trauma center in 2015. Other accomplishments include upgraded emergency generators, completion of a new UCSF Pride Hall research and academic building, which supports the research that enables the hospital to maintain its level one trauma center designation. Ongoing projects include voluntary seismic upgrades, technology upgrades, clinical lab renovation, and public health lab relocation from 101 Grove Street. Future projects include infrastructure improvements, equipment replacement, and interior renovations. During the course of the public notification for this hearing, no comments were received. In accordance with the planning code, the IMP addresses numerous topics, including the nature of the institution, its history and growth, services provided, service populations, and employment characteristics. As noted in the executive summary, the IMP has been reviewed by the planning department for completeness, and the department believes that the IMP contains all required information. No formal planning commission action is required, and your acceptance of the IMP by closing the public hearing does not indicate approval of any project. By closing the public hearing, the commission acknowledges that the IMP contains the required items outlined in planning code section 304.5 and that there has been a public hearing. This concludes my presentation. I'll be available to answer any questions. Our colleagues from the Department of Public Health are here to further discuss the IMP. Thank you. Jonas?

[Mark Primo (Oversight Advisor to the Director of Health, DPH)]: Thanks, Laura. Commissioners, I'm Mark Primo, oversight advisor to the Office of Director of Health. Joining me today is Jason Zook, Director of Capital Planning and Programs at Zuckerberg General. I'm just going to briefly go through this PowerPoint that's coming to you on paper. And obviously, there's like three areas that we want to update you on. Number one being an update over the last seventeen years to the 2008 IMP. And then as Laura said, some of the major accomplishments, ongoing projects, and then what we see for the foreseeable future. So then I'll just jump to the institutional overview to give you guys a flavor of the rich diversity of both the patient population as well as the services offered at Zuckerberg General. And I'm not going to go through each of these percentages. Basically, it looks like there's almost an even split between gender, Ethnicity seems to be around 41% or 42% focused on Hispanics. And this is all data from fiscal year 'twenty one-'twenty two. We track age 18 and 64. And on an annual basis, at least in twenty twenty one, twenty twenty two, we had over 360,000 ambulatory visits. Now I'm gonna talk a little bit about the campus overview. It's about 24 acres in size. It's Zone P. And it basically consists of the new acute care hospital and trauma center, the existing hospital that I think you're well aware of, Building 5, a series of outpatient clinics, some administrative buildings, and then, of course,

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: our PowerPoint.

[Mark Primo (Oversight Advisor to the Director of Health, DPH)]: So the accomplishments, the three big ones on campus over the last seventeen years, of course, are the acute care hospital, which we number Building 25. It's a base isolated building over four fifty square feet. It's nine stories, although we put two stories down below grade where the ORs are. And if you recall, the placement of the building is in between two other buildings where there used to be open space. So up on the 7th Floor, you can actually see a really beautiful roof garden that's open for different functions as well as just to commemorate new staff coming on and also retirements. If you have a chance, you should either talk with me or basically talk with Jason about getting a tour of the building. It's also, I think, one of the best integration of the city's art enrichment program into the hospital, where we used all local artists. And I think the budget on that was near $7,000,000 But it's just beautiful when you go inside the building. It doesn't remind you of a hospital. And that was the intent of design of that building. So that was finished in 2015. And along with that, we replaced some generators in this other building, which is the Service Building, and that's Building Number 2. So as this was going on, we also negotiated with UCSF on getting some of their staff, research staff, out of their existing buildings into a new building. That was opened in 2023. So I'm gonna let this next piece go to Jason Zirk.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Sure.

[Jason Zook (Director of Capital Planning and Programs, ZSFG)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Actually, Laura did a lot of what I was gonna do, so I'll just kinda fill in the blanks. Just the, major accomplishments we've had, the 2016 bond, program, which is actually ongoing. We've completed a few of those projects, Most of which Laura, mentioned one that was not mentioned that is, a really important one is our new psychiatric emergency services expansion project, which will add approximately 300%, square footage to the to the unit. We also have, in agreement with the, nurses union. We are, looking into providing childcare. We're in negotiations with one of the Walgreens stores down the street on Potrero to acquire that building or at least that building. And that's a, ongoing project we're working on. That's not part of the bond. That's separate. We have the we're we also have projects in this upcoming 2024 bond. One of our buildings, Building 3, we have seismic upgrade and renovation of that building. That will include the relocation and rebuild of a aging pathology lab and provide additional administrative and office space for folks we'd like to relocate out of the brick buildings in the future. In addition to that project, we have critical repairs. We'll be addressing IT infrastructure, chiller and cooling tower project, fire alarm and, fire life safety in Buildings 5 And 25, and, many other relocation projects. So that's it. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: If that concludes your presentation, we should open a public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Vaughn.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thanks for bringing forward the the, update to the institutional master plan. I just have one one question. So you mentioned the psychiatric emergency services expansion. Would you mind just explain a little bit more about what what bond measure that's part of or kind of what the where that's located or what the phase is?

[Jason Zook (Director of Capital Planning and Programs, ZSFG)]: It started as part of the 2016 bond program. It's actually funded by three different funding sources including the twenty twenty twenty twenty bond and the 2024 bond. It's currently in construction right now. When we finished the new acute care hospital, we relocated our acute care services into that new building, leaving a lot of, you know, space available to be remodeled. The old emergency room on the 1st Floor in Building 5 is currently the construction area for the new expanded psychiatric emergency services.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I see. Okay. Building 5.

[Eric Wu (Assistant Staff, Chinatown Community Development Center)]: Alright.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Alright. Thank you. I I I will say I I think my I don't wanna just be too critical on the details. I I it was a little hard to follow the institutional master plan at times reading through it. It kinda felt like there were parts that may have been updates to an older version or something. It was at times, it was just tricky to kind of understand what was the projects. We were talking about projects from 2008 and their status. And, so it's fine. I'm happy with the document. I got it. But, it was, yeah, it was just a little tricky to follow at times is my one observation.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner and Vice President Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Not trying to have the last word, but I think this institution master plan follows a typical format. I think it is thorough. And while we do not live every step of the way, this is typical, detailed, very much, appreciated, the steps the hospital has taken. Seeing it from nowhere to somewhere over the many years watching Mission Bay, I think it's a great story, and I'm in full support that this definitely fulfills the requirements by which staff and the commission typically looks at these plans. Thank you so much.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Well, thank you for coming here to show us what you have accomplished and what your future plan is. I live near those neighborhood, and I can see also just throughout the past twenty something years that improvement not only within the hospital campus, but also the infrastructures around it. You have made Pretoria Avenue much safer for all of us, and I really personally excited to see that you are looking for the Walgreens site for child care, and I do hope that it will have opportunity for not only the staff or use for the hospital, but the community that actually can really needed, childcare to help our young parents to continue to stay in the workforce and and thrive. So I applaud you for that. I'm in support of all of this, and I wanted to I'm gonna saving my little formal closing comment until all my commissioners had, share their comments. So I'll, turn the mic to Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'd just like to say I'm in full support. Two of those ambulatory visits came out of my house. Not our house, but I t boned two years ago, and I was taken taken. And but I'd like to say the phenomenal work that's done in, in basically our only trauma trauma center here in the city and Northern San Mateo, 1,500,000 people service. The work you do and how you do it, and the people there are absolutely phenomenal, And I would like to take you up, on that tour in a future We'd love to. In the not so distant future. Thank you for everything you do. Great.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yeah. Me too. I also really wanted to say forgot to say that, thank you for, the support continuous support of our local artists and invested in them. It's, the amount of dollar that you mentioned, it's not small. It's very significant. So thank you. I I do look forward to I don't think I ever had a chance to see those art, and I would love to see it. Yeah. So formally, in closing, I will have to make announcement. We will formally close the public comments.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Public hearing.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: IMP.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Public hearing.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Did I say right? Yeah.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: The public hearing.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: The public hearing.

[Jonas P. L. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Right. Okay. Thank you. And that concludes our meeting. Thank you. Thank

[Jason Zook (Director of Capital Planning and Programs, ZSFG)]: you. Thank you.