San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: to

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 11/06/2025. When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on 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 queued 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. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commission Vice President Moore?

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Braun? Here. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry? Here. And Commissioner Williams? Here. Thank you, commissioners. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item one, case number 2024Hyphen11548DRP Hyphen 2 at 2867 Green Street. Discretionary review is proposed for continuance 11/13/2025. Item two, case number twenty twenty five hyphen zero zero six two four six PCA. Definitions, family dwelling unit planning code amendments, is proposed for continuance to 11/13/2025. And item three for case number 2020Five-nine56 C. U. A. At 1801 Haight Street, conditional use authorization has been withdrawn. 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. 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 Lebron.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Move to continue all items as proposed. Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue items as proposed, commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Aye. Commissioner McGary.

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Soh.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero, placing us under your consent calendar. All matters listed here under constitute a 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 2025 Hyphen 001905 CU 8440 Potrero Avenue, conditional use authorization. And item five, case number 2022Hyphen008315, CU at 1045 Devisidero Street, conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that either of these two consent calendar items be pulled off and considered under the regular calendar. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your consent calendar is not before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Move to approve items four and five on consent.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve items on consent, Commissioner Campbell?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president so.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Commission matters item six, land acknowledgement.

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: I'll be reading this. The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land, 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 their ancestors, their elders, their relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community, and by affirming their sovereign rights as first people.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Item seven, consideration of adoption draft minutes for October 16 and 10/23/2025. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Move to adopt a minute.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: And Commission President Soh.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, seven to zero. Item eight, commission comments and questions.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Commissioner Imperial. I just wanna follow-up with the planning director on the study analysis on s b 79 and when will that be at the planning commission. Yeah.

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: Commissioner Imperial, thank you for that. We we did present on SB 79 at at the land use committee of the board this week so that commissioner so that the supervisors had that information in hand as they were looking at the family zoning plan. What I will do is follow-up with information for all of you, and we will look for the the next available scheduling opportunity so we can present that here as well. But we'll get that information to you more quickly than the hearing. Thank you for that request.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Commissioner Moore? We all read the papers, particularly the news surrounding Union Square. And I'm delighted that some of the larger retailers which had exited the city before around COVID are coming back and exactly creating that critical anchor between high end and normal shopping. And I'm delighted to see that the largest storefronts are filling, and we can recapture the importance of downtown and Union Square.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Alright. Commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to department matters. Item nine, director's announcements.

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: Commissioners, great to see you today. I wanted to talk about a couple things at the city level before getting into some more direct department matters. One, I think as a city, we were incredibly proud to be distributing replacement food benefits for those who who lost what we now assess as probably a month gap in service and receiving needed nutritional benefits from the federal government. So between a partnership of city funding put on reserve and philanthropic funding, we were able to get within within striking distance of the total dollar value of the benefits that were lost or delayed by the federal shutdown. The city has been actively, through HSA and many civic partners, including here in the Tenderloin, distributing cards that will help the families that miss those benefits get those. That's been actively underway for the last couple of days. So I just think it's a real point of pride for our city. I also wanna note that I know we have, as a city, received many requests from other cities asking how we pull this off, and and I think looking at that as a model for their city as we continue to look at federal uncertainty. So we're we're very proud of that support that the city executed here. You the Urban Land Institute conference is also in, the fall meeting is in San Francisco this week. And I only mention that because as commissioner Moore noted about, the, you know, burgeoning start of some improvement in tenanting in, Union Square, we are hearing from many of the attendees who are from out of state out of town, out of state visiting here for that conference, that they are seeing the improvement in San Francisco, and they're feeling it. And it's really wonderful to have, just like we do with so many of the actual business conferences held at Moscone, real land use professionals looking and seeing that, you know, at the success that I think we've all been working so hard on over a number of years across all our communities. I also wanted to announce that we are very sad to be losing one of our senior leaders this week. Miriam Chong's last day was yesterday at the planning department. She she wanted to keep it very quiet, so we're respecting her wishes. But I did feel I had to share with you today. As you know, Miriam, played an invaluable role in reshaping how the department, the planning department works with communities, and how in that work with communities, how we actually do our work. So it has been incredible growth for our department through her leadership. We're we're very sad to leave her but to lose her, but, we will be continuing and deepening the work that she helped us all start in a slightly new configuration. So there are three areas of work that Miriam led, our equity plan, our policy and strategy work, and our community work. That work will all transition to some new teams. Lisa Gibson, who you all know very well, who, is our our ERO, is also going to step into a leadership role to provide senior management oversight and support to the equity plan and the equity council. So the same staff that has been leading that work will continue that work, and Lisa will step in to provide senior leadership to make sure there's extreme continuity. And then the staff working on community planning and development and policies and strategies, including our liaisons for communities across the city, will be joining the team looking at advanced planning led by Rachel Tanner. So that's how we're gonna continue that work in the near term, and we appreciate your support as we, navigate on with all that Miriam has helped infuse the department with in a broader way. One of the things we're particularly excited about, even even with Miriam's loss, is it does present an opportunity for us to take our equity work and our equity plan, out of a division level and put it across the entire department, across all divisions. And so you we now have an organizational structure that will allow that work, which Claudia Flores also leads, and you've known Claudia has been with the department for a long time, to infuse, not just the community equity division, but our citywide division, our environmental planning division, particularly given Lisa's leadership in our current planning division. So we're really excited about that that infusion with this with this slight shift as well. And then the last thing maybe I'll just note is I think we've had a couple commissioner questions on the city economist's report on the family zoning plan simply because that didn't come to this body. I know Aaron Starr in his, report will address that a little bit. But if you have further questions after he gives that report, we can dialogue at that time. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: I have questions, director, Phillips, on the reorganization because of, miss Chiam's departure. It sounds like miss, miss Tanner is going to take on. And what's going to happen in terms of the, the citywide. My understanding from the last year is that the equity work will be infused under citywide. Is that was that because of that plan? Or

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: So there's kind of two ways our and this is an extreme oversimplification, as you know. But to for a minute, if you'll humor me with the extreme oversimplification, there's kind of two directions our our our equity work has really deepened. One is how do we work as a department internally and externally to make sure we're meeting our our equity based goals? And, you know, we have our phase one and phase two plan that that exhibit those goals. And so that work, again, will be kind of elevated out of a division and at a department level, you know, some not not living within a division to be, led by Lisa Gibson with the current team still working on that. And that's, you know, that is how are we hiring? How are we, how are we doing community workshops in general? How do we make sure that folks understand the changes in state law as we see ministerial changes so they understand their options? Then there is the, community equity work we do at the ground level, whether that's the Tenderloin Community Action Plan, our recently initiated Fillmore Community Action Plan, the Mission 2,030 work that we are working on. Those community plans will, continue with the teams they have reporting to Rachel Taylor.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Yes. Thank you. That that's really sad news for me personally. A couple of questions around the folks that are going to step up into leadership positions for the equity division. Usually, those those people in those positions have, you know, good good relationships or at least good with communities. And so I'm just wondering, you know, if that was part of, the decision to put those folks in those positions. I think that those relationships I know Merriam had, those types of relationships with a lot of communities of color around our our city. And so I'm just a little concerned or I should say, I just would like to make sure that those relationships still continue on that positive track. And so that would be my first comment on that. And then, you know, as far as the equity division, Is there plans for an expansion? Is it retracting? Is it because I see there's folks moving around. I mean, what do we have any kind of vision for that department as as moving forward now that, Miriam's gone?

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: So maybe I'll I'll answer both sides of your question. So one I mean, we're right there with you. Relationships are incredibly important. And while no one can ever replace Miriam, we obviously will like, we we have great leaders in staff on the planning department staff who you know. They'll definitely have to expand some of their relationships to get to the level that Miriam had, and we're committed to doing that work. It's something agencies always have to do as as staff moves around, unfortunately. So we're committed to doing that work, and we're excited to do it. And I think what is, most important acknowledgment within that is that, Miriam, as most good leaders do, has built a great team of staff doing the work, and that staff will continue to do the work. So, we also have those staff relationships continuing to happen. None of that will change. Mhmm. And then on the second one, no new vision other than I think what I think Miriam has established a great vision that we've embedded within the department, and we're just carrying on that work. The the only slight shift I would say is that, you know, our department wide equity work really has the ability to be department wide now. It was nurtured and incubated within our community equity division, which was fabulous. It got to a place of strength, understanding, and, frankly, plans with implementation actions that allow us to kind of elevate that up to a department wide level so that we're really executing it in all corners of the department. Mhmm.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I I'd be interested in in, you know, kinda understanding more about how that is all gonna happen. Is there any yeah. I'm thinking about community and relationships with with the planning department, and I was just wondering, is there was there any outreach to any of the community organizations that work closely with the planning department to see, like, maybe who who they thought might might be, someone that to step into the role of of, you know, of leadership. And so just more, you know, out of an equity perspective, these these these community organizations, they do a lot of work, with the planning department. And and so I was just wondering if that was something that was a consideration, when picking someone for Miriam's

[Lydia So, Commission President]: position?

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: Again, I I there is no there there's no picking of anyone. We're just trying to continue the work with the the leadership team that we have. But I think to your point, one of the things that has been critical is is we've been knowing that Miriam's transition, was coming, that we've been working with our partners, with the equity council, and with staff to figure out the best path for this work. So, yes, we've been

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: So you so you haven't really talked to community or any of the organizations about

[Lydia So, Commission President]: We have.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Who they thought

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: So I guess that that that has not been the question. So I think as you are aware, commissioner Williams, we we do not we are in a hiring freeze in the city. So, there are no new positions that we're creating,

[Malena León Ferrera, Senior Planner, SF Planning]: if that's the question you're asking.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: No. I'm I'm just with existing staff, I I was I was kinda just getting to, who who would work best with community as far as representation from the planning department. Because I know that there's been there's been many years of conversations and people that, have, you know, have developed important relationships with community different community organizations. And I was just wondering if, again, if that was something that was well, I I think it's important. Let me just put it that way. Obviously, it's up to you. You're the director. But I just kinda wanted to to throw that in there that that I think it's it's also important that whoever steps into those roles has a good working relationship an existing working relationship with with community.

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: We appreciate that comment. And that obviously is fundamental in in how we move forward.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Yeah.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thanks for that. Thank you. It is I really wanna just say a very, brief appreciation for Miriam's legacy in, shaping our city, with her leadership and help our department when we start to adopt our racial equity as part of our mission statement, and her, leadership and success to help our department implementing that become part of our DNA for every urban planning staff that we have under your leadership now. It is, admirable and I really wish her well in her future wherever she wants to pursue. And thank you for sharing with us with this announcement. And I appreciate all my commissioner's comment, but I also think that Miriam is a really highly respected, urban planning, expert in the Bay Area, and her legacy is forever respected in our department. So thank you. Do we have any other, updates or comments? Are we ready to move to the next item on our agenda?

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Very good. Item 10, review of past events of the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Appeals. There was no historic preservation commission hearing yesterday.

[Aaron Starr, Manager of Legislative Affairs, SF Planning]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Aaron Starr, manager of legislative affairs. This week, the land use committee first considered, excuse me, a frog in my throat, supervisor Walton's ordinance that would amend the planning code and zoning map to establish the San Francisco Gateway Special Use District. Commissioners, you heard this item on September 25 and recommended approval. At the hearing, there was a comprehensive presentation by staff followed by public comment. Public comment off start off strong with opposition to the project, calling it union busting. However, most of the comments after were in support of the proposed project because of the jobs it will bring. Several union representatives spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance during public comment. After public comments, supervisor Walton thanked everyone for coming and reiterated that labor has been at the table with this project from the beginning. With supervisor that was with that, supervisor Melgar made a motion to move the item to the full board with a positive recommendation, and this motion passed unanimously. Next, the committee considered the mayor's ordinance adaptive reuse of historic buildings. The mayor's office requested that this item be continued so that additional amendments could be made based on community feedback. Because it was an agendized item, the committee did take public comment. Many spoke in opposition to the item. Community members, from North Beach cited concerns over the changes that would allow formula retail in North Beach. Community members in Chinatown expressed concern over the fact that it would allow cannabis retail in Chinatown, and hotel union members took exception to the idea of allowing hotels without ACU in historic buildings. There were also some public commenters who spoke in favor of the ordinance. The committee then continued the item to the call of the chair. Next, the committee considered the mayor's ordinance on planning fees. This ordinance would shift the timing of fee collection from the issuance of a building permit to the submission of a development application. Second, the ordinance includes changes to the environmental fee, review fees. Commissioners, you heard this on October 23 and unanimously adopted a recommendation for approval. There were four public commenters in opposition to the proposed ordinance arguing that developers should pay fees upfront. However, it's not clear the commenters understood what the ordinance did as it would make developers pay fees upfront. Without any questions or discussion in the matter, the committee voted to forward this item to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report. The committee then considered supervisor Connie Chan's ordinance that would require a conditional use authorization if the new use would displace a legacy business. This item was continued from last week's hearing because supervisor made a series of amendments. Those amendments include, first, general plan findings, since this commission determined the ordinance to be inconsistent with the general plan. Second, she added, added legacy business to the definition in planning code section one zero two and categorized it as a use characteristic. Use characteristics are things like formula retail or a drive through, something that can apply to a wider, variety of uses. Third, she added a provision that exempts business is categorized as small business enterprises from the CU requirement. A small business enterprise is defined in the business and tax code as those making under $5,000,000 a year. The Office of the Treasurer estimates that 96% of businesses in SF fall under that threshold. And finally, she amended the administrative code to allow businesses that have been in operation for fifteen years the ability to be considered as a legacy business. Prior to this, the minimum to be considered was twenty years. During the hearing, supervisor Melgar indicated her support for the proposed ordinance with the amendments as did supervisor Cheyenne Chen. Supervisor Mahmood though was more skeptical and asked staff questions related to the amendments. He wanted to know if staff could support the program with the proposed amendments. As we represent you, the planning commission, at the land use committee, our recommendations to the board cannot change unless you change it. However, as staff, we did not feel the amendments changed the fundamental issue around requiring a CU for replacing a use. CUs are designed to determine if a particular use is necessary or desirable at a given location, not whether a new use is worthy of displacing the previous use. There was public, comment mostly in support of the ordinance with some detractors. In the end, the committee voted two to one to send the item to the full board with supervisor Mahmood against. And then finally, the land use committee considered the mayor's suite of ordinances related to the family zoning housing plan. These items were continued from the October 20 hearing. To begin, Ted Egan, the city economist, presented the office of economic analysis economic impact report for the family zoning plan. This report looked to assess economic impact of the rezoning. This analysis was intended to determine whether the family zoning plan would have a positive or negative impact on the city's economy and not to assess or question the proposed rezoning's capacity. The report found that the family zoning plan would have a positive impact on the city's economy. It stated that the that more housing that is produced in the future, is greater benefit to the city, and that the current economic conditions for housing production are very challenging, regardless of zoning. This echoes the feasibility study the planning department published earlier this year. During public comment, there are approximately 65 speakers. Comments, vary greatly between being opposed to and supportive of the rezoning broadly and various amendments proposed. Regarding the general plan amendment, there was no specific discussion by supervisors and little comments from the public regarding the matter. For the zoning map, supervisor Cheyenne Chen proposed to further amendments further amend the map by removing parcels in D 11 from the rezoning. This is in addition to her prior proposed amendments to remove all low all parcels located in the priority equity geographies SUD from the rezoning. This proposed amendment remove all parcels in the Ocean Avenue NC District on the south side of the street that constitutes the 10 blocks within D 11. This amendment was incorporated into the duplicated file for later consideration. For the planning co text amendments, supervisor Cheyenne Chen, Melgar, and Sauter proposed clarifying amendments to their proposed previously made amendments from October 20, which were accepted and incorporated into the duplicated file for later consideration. Next, the committee voted on previously proposed amendments from the October 20 hearing. These votes were to move the amendments from the duplicated file to the original file. These amendments are characterized as amendments that do not have a substantial negative effect on the rezoning capacity and did not, introduce notable new constraints to housing development. The first exempts the demolition or conversion of hotels from the local program. I would note that sites with motels are not exempt. The second affirms that nothing in the local program or housing sustainability district abrogates other requirements outside of the planning code. The firm The third affirms existing law that protects using the local program are required to comply with article four of the planning code. The fourth adds additional incentives to the local program to provide two bedroom units. The fifth strengthens review of the residential flat modifications. And the sixth adds limitations on significantly altering historic buildings if using the housing sustainability district ministerial program. All other amendments proposed at the October 20 hearing, of which there were approximately 20, were maintained in the duplicated file. At the end of the hearing, the committee continued all pieces of legislation to the next land use committee hearing on November 17. And that concludes my report. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Seeing no questions from the commission, 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 accept agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. We can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners, for item 11, case number 2020Five-eight704 PCA, tenant protections related to residential demolitions and renovations. This is the planning code and administrative code amendments.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy/Acting Planning Director]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Good to be back here. We got a full house today. Very excited to bring before you the tenant protection ordinance that has been in the works for a while. And before we kick it off, I just wanna thank Commissioner Imperial. You were instrumental in helping us get on this path and were with us with several meetings, and it's really great to have such collaboration from our leaders like yourself. Wanna recognize supervisor Cheyenne Chen who is here from District 11, as well as supervisor Myrna Malgar from District 7. Thank you both also for your incredible leadership. Thank you, Charlie, also for your tireless efforts and expert facilitation through many, many, many, many meetings. So we're really excited to bring this forward today. This, this bill has a lot of support because we are a city of renters and a city that supports renters and supports protecting our housing stock, but also the humans. Right? The people, the households that are living in those homes and making sure that we can grow. And as we grow, we don't leave folks behind or leave folks out, that we're building more housing and not not losing our existing housing. So, I will, first ask, if the supervisors wanna share a few remarks, and then we will have our staff person, our senior planner, Milena Leon Ferrera, who will give the staff presentation. So supervisor, Cheyenne Chen. Thank you.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (District 11)]: Good afternoon. Thank you, director Tanner. Good afternoon, commissioners, and good afternoon, director Dennis Phyllis. My name is Cheyenne Chen. I am the district eleven supervisors and the vice chair of the land use committee, and thank you for the opportunity to speak about tenant protection ordinance this afternoon. I come before you with this legislation to extend the rights of tenants who face displacement when a developer or landlord pursue the demolition of a property that houses tenants or may have in the past in order to build new housing. San Francisco has always been a city that protects tenants, but due to recent law passes by the state of California, tenants are now exposed to a host of new displacement risks. There has been so much focus at the state and local level on housing production and entitlement. This legislation attempt to recenter the conversation to address, the impact to existing tenants and residents. SB three thirty, the Housing Crisis Act of California, created a pathway for developers to demolish to demolish existing homes and to evict existing residents. It is imperative that we take steps to the local at the local level to help stabilize tenants and local communities. The proposed legislation established common sense, roots for the developers, and common sense protection for the tenants and residents. The ordinance applies citywide. It creates a set of new policies and system of enforcement. The legislation provides for extensive tenant notification that is linguistically accessible at all steps of entitlement. Relocation assistance to all displaced tenants with additional assistance to low income tenants, a relocation plan and specialist to facilitate the implementation of required protections, a right for tenants to remain in their home for at least six months with time specific notifications, a right to return at prior rental rate if demolition does not proceed and units are returned to the rental market. A right of first refusal for lower income tenants to move into newly developed units at payroll rent payroll rents at all and affordable rents, whichever is lower. Replacement of all protected units with a combination of rent control and below market rate units. Updated finding in the conditional use process to ensure objective standards that consider the impact of tenants. Additional tools to protect the rights of tenants in the event that landlords see to avoid these requirements. The legislation designate tenants who may

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: have been displaced as a result

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (District 11)]: of harassment from landlords, owner moving evictions, or buyout agreements as current occupants, thus conferring the same rule as existing tenants when these development projects occur. Additional relocation assistance to tenants who are temporarily displaced as a result of capital improvement projects that extend beyond three months. A private rights of action for tenants and community based organization. The change in the state law as well as the family zoning plan have promoted a tremendous amount of fear and anxiety among tenants from elderly tenants who are reliant on their support network in existing rent control housing, and they are terrified of displacement from their home when landlords choose to redevelop. Or the real fears of tenants who are forced to absorb unmanageable rent increase on the private market when their landlord redevelop their buildings. We have been working very diligently to ensure that the strongest possible protection and the work continues. I will be introducing additional amendments to the legislation to this legislation that are responsive to the community priorities, and that we have heard, including one, a five year look back to clarify the requirements of for buildings that withdraw units from the rental market under the Alice Act, and then proceed to to demolish and redevelop. The amendment would establish protection for those tenants who have been displaced. And including in the definition, that development project would be evaluated under the standard of demolition under the planning department in section three one seven b two b in order to trigger the protection and requirements under this ordinance. The language in private right of action will be amended to match the language that currently exists in the rent ordinance.

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: A

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (District 11)]: clarification that project sponsors are required to contract with a relocation specialist form from a list of from a list provided by the department. A clarification in the criteria that must be met when tenants who experience harassment file claims before the rent or prior to project sponsors submitting development applications. A clarification regarding the disclosure provision of buyout agreements in the finding for conditional use authorization. This legislation is informed by underground experts of tenants and councilor, lawyers and advocates who have been taking calls that is really panicking from our community members when things when displacements happen. So they are really fear of evictions. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of our race and equity in all planning coalition, and also the San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition for their strong partnership in crafting this ordinance. I also want to appreciate the planning department staff, Molena Molena Leon Ferreira for her technical expertise, and my staff team, Charlie Schmoss, for his stewardship for this legislation. I also want to really appreciate, the partnership of the planning department, from Joey Kumas, of the Ramboeur, Manroupe, Perhan, and Audrey Pearson from the city attorney's office, and I also want to appreciate their partnership in continue, the amendment that we're gonna work on together. I will also pass it along, right now to the department, for their presentation. And I know that the community stakeholders, will continue to work together to provide critical input, and I look forward for their testimony as well. And I also look forward for your support and and also continued partnership. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, supervisor Chen and supervisor Malgarty.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Hi, commissioners. I am the supervisor for District 7. I am here in full support of this important legislation introduced by supervisor Chen as one of eight supervisors cosponsoring it. I also want to thank the community groups, in particular, the Anti Displacement Coalition, Charlie Shammas in supervisor, Chen's office, and Jennifer Fieber in my office who have worked with your staff arduously to get us to the finish line. I believe this legislation will solve many of the challenges for tenants that are that may come up with our rezoning activities.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (District 7)]: I want to describe some friendly amendments that my office has drafted with the city attorney. I want to, you know, supervisor Chen and I are limited in what we can discuss as I am the chair of the Land Use and Transportation Committee, and she is the vice chair. So the Brown Act does not permit us to work on things together, unfortunately, but we are all on the same page and wanna meet the same goal. I want to, assure everyone that these are meant to enhance and not compete with the ordinance. They are the byproducts of many discussions, that my staff, Jennifer Feber, had with tenant advocates, anti displacement, activists, and also our own knowledge of the code, and the rent control ordinance and the long standing concerns that we've had with upzoning in the city. As a former commissioner, I am interested in giving you useful tools to make targeted decisions at hearings that will both encourage new construction and protect existing residents from unfair displacement. To that end, the first amendment I want to describe is to reorder the conditional use criteria. There are 12 criteria in supervisor Chen's legislation, and I'm not changing any of the words in those criteria, but I am suggesting that we pull out three of the criteria that you must follow exist and and say that you must follow existing rent laws and make those three criteria a requirement, not an optional part of the objective standards. Then for the remaining nine criteria, we I'm suggesting that we lower the percentage to 70% because there's now less criteria. There's nine, not 11. I have run some real world scenarios, in sort of at back of the envelope, and I and I, you know, suggest that you do the same. And I believe that this new formula will allow owner occupied projects that are small, so they have nothing to do with inclusionary or replacing rental units to easily meet the threshold, and be approved. At the same time, it would make it more difficult, and unlikely for someone who would seek to demolish rent controlled units unless they are including many of the other desirable trades that are in the objective standards. The second amendment addresses a conditional use authorization inside in the inside the PEG and outside the PEG distinction. State laws have changed since we wrote our section about when CU applies, and it is now very convoluted to understand. For example, s b 79 projects, there's an outright prohibition of, demolition of more than two rent controlled units if they're occupied by tenants in the past seven years. We have not incorporated that provision in our code and probably should. But then SB four twenty three says you can't get streamlined approval if a tenant has lived there in the past ten years. So I'm suggesting that we go with SB four twenty three definition and do a ten year look back outside of the priority equity geography, and that inside the peg, it remains as written. This is just to trigger ACU. That's it. This decision whether to approve demolition and why still lies with you. The longer time period will also help curb speculators from evicting all those tenants and letting it sit empty to get around replacing those units as we have seen happen. Otherwise, we may lose, rent controlled stock outside the peg. After speaking to the, city attorney, there's also an interest in cleaning up this language, you know, to make it consistent across the board, and with the state law more generally. So I remain committed to doing that when things calm down and we get things done the way we're supposed to do by the state deadline. But I remain open to hearing back from you about that. And finally, the third amendment, I am suggesting that we use a similar project for Ellis Act notifications that LA has adopted. We have been working with them, with folks in LA and also Berkeley on all rent controlled issues because they have very similar issues in responding to all of the new state laws that have, come down. There, when you file an Ellis petition with the city, you are also asked to disclose if you intend to demolish the building. You can change your mind down the road if you haven't made that choice, but we are just asking for transparency when you know what you're doing and you follow established housing policy. Otherwise, Ellis could be used to get around the replacement unit requirement and enhanced relocation that you are about to adopt. So those are the things I'm proposing. I've all already shared them with planning staff earlier this week. We will also be sharing them with HCD staff as we have all the other amendments to make sure we get to the finish line and are still compliant. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts today. I'm available to discuss these things any time. And, again, I want to thank my staff, Jennifer Feber, for her dogged stick to itiveness in all of these issues and planning staff and my dear colleague, supervisor Chen, and her staff, Charlie Shammas. Thank you.

[Malena León Ferrera, Senior Planner, SF Planning]: Alright. Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Malena Leon Farrera, department staff. I will be going over the proposed ordinance known as tenant protections related to residential demolitions and renovations sponsored by supervisor Chen and cosponsored by seven other supervisors. For brevity, I call the proposed ordinance I'll call the proposed ordinance as the TPO. Commissioners, you have before you a complex proposed ordinance. I will do my best to cover the most relevant parts. City staff and supervisor Chen's office staff are here to respond any follow-up questions. Okay. I will first cover the background for the TPO, then I will go over the changes the TPO proposes to the planning and administrative code. Then I will talk about anticipated amendments, followed by the department's proposed modifications, and finally, I will offer closing comments. Let's dive in. San Francisco's existing regulatory framework includes some of the strongest demolition and tenant protection controls in the country. In 2019, the housing crisis act, also known as s p three thirty, was adopted. It introduced replacement unit and tenant protection requirements when demolitions happen. Since then, planning has been implementing SP three thirty according to directors bulletin number seven. The TPO is in response to community advocacy for stronger residential tenant protections associated with redevelopment and major rehabilitation projects in light of the family zoning plan. The TPO codifies and expands upon the requirements of SB three thirty to achieve these goals. Thus, it's important to understand SB three thirty demolition requirements. SB three thirty requires no net loss of housing, meaning any unit demolished must be replaced. It also establishes special requirements for the replacement of protected units, which it defines as units occupied by lower income households, permanently affordable units, rent controlled units, and units with Ellis Act evictions. For protected units, SB three thirty requires those to be replaced at equivalent size, meaning the same number of bedrooms, and at affordable rent or price. It mandates units to be affordable for at least fifty five years. SB three thirty also extends four tenant rights to existing occupants. Right to remain up to six months prior to demolition, relocation benefits for lower income households, right of first refusal for lower income households for a unit at an affordable price or rent, and right to return if demolition does not proceed at prior rental rate for all tenants. SB 330 has not changed our demolition controls or their impacts. Demolitions in San Francisco remain rare with only 18 units lost per year, representing point one, sorry, point 00004% of San Francisco's housing stock. Furthermore, 90% 95% of evictions are due to other causes, namely owner move in, Ellis Act, and capital improvement evictions, which could be related to the malicious, but those are the reasons why people are being evicted, the the the type of eviction pathway people are using. The goal of the TPO is to create clear, consistent, and transparent policies to ensure strong implementation and enforcement of its tenant protection and replacement unit requirements. The TPO also aims to minimize and mitigate the risk of displacement due to residential demolitions as new housing is built to replace it. Finally, the TPO addresses other tenant protection issues such as those just covered as well as tenant harassment. It is important to note sorry. I missed a slide. It is important to note that the TPO was developed through a collaborative process between CEDAR leadership, tenant and housing advocacy organizations, and in coordination with other city departments. Leadership came from supervisor Chen Chen's office, the planning department and the rampart in coordination with the mayor's office. City leadership actively collaborated with the race and equity null planning coalition, also known as rep, the San Francisco anti displacement coalition and members of the public such as Georgia Schudisch. This work was also done in collaboration with other divisions within planning, MOCD and DBI. While SB three thirty establishes minimum requirements to be met, the goal of the TPO is to stretch and strengthen those requirements to better protect tenants and to ensure proper replacement housing. To achieve the this goal, the TPO proposes amendments to the planning code and administrative code, namely the rent ordinance. The TPO proposes amendments to the planning code that go beyond SB three thirty in three main areas, enforcement, tenant protections, and replacement units. Together, these changes close key gaps and ensure stronger, more consistent implementation of tenant protection and replacement of protected units citywide. Before I discuss the most impactful amendments, I want to clarify that when a project is submitted, the first thing we establish is if the project is a demolition. If it is, we then establish if the project requires a conditional use authorization, a CUA. If the project is considered a demolition, then it must comply with SB three thirty requirements regardless of whether or not it requires a CUA. The TPO strengthens enforcement of SB three thirty requirements by making sure it is the planning cost demolition definition that is used for all state laws and projects, which is more expansive. Once SB three thirty requirements as are triggered, the TPO proposes tying project approvals to tenant protection compliance. For replacement units, the TPO proposes tracking new newly created protected units on PIM. We want to emphasize that the TPO is not proposing any changes to the standards that trigger a CUA. Through the TPO, you, the planning commission, will retain the discretion you have today. The TPO retains this discretion by creating 12 objective findings in line with state law requirements. Project sponsors would have to meet 80% of the findings or the at least 80% of the findings or the application would be denied. This slide provides a summary of these 12 findings. To strengthen tenant protections, the TPO proposes to expand the definition of existing occupants from tenants in occupancy at the time of the project application to also include tenants in occupancy at the time of a preliminary application, which happens six could happen as much as six months earlier, tenants who vacated the unit due to tenant harassment, noncompliant buyer agreements, owner move ins, as well as tenants who were temporarily evicted for a capital improvement project that is now seeking a demolition permit. Different look back periods are offered for some of this. The TPO also propose proposes greater relocation benefits for lower income households. Old tenants will get local relocation payments that are already in our rent ordinance. Under the TPO, lower income households would also get additional monthly relocation payments for up to thirty nine months. These payments would be equivalent to the difference between section eight for market rent and rent affordable to that lower income household. Oh, I guess my thing didn't work. Okay. As an example, say we have a family of four at 50% AMI in a two bedroom unit. Section eight per market rent for a two bedroom unit is $3,981 Rent affordable to that family would be $17.54 dollars Thus, this family would get an additional monthly payment of $2,227 for a total of more than $86,000 if the project takes more than thirty nine months. In the back of the presentation packet are tables of these payments and what they will look like for different AMIs and unit sizes. The TPO proposes to expand the rate of first refusal for lower income tenants by offering prior rental rate as a choice for rental projects. Rent increases for these tenants would be subject to rent control. Above low above lower income tenants would also have right of first refusal for a rental unit, but at market rate with units subjected also to rent control. Not they wouldn't have a right of first refusal for ownership units. The TPO would also grant a private right of actions for tenants and organizations representing them so that they can seek penalty penalties and damages if project sponsors violate their rights under the new requirements. Finally, the TPO would require extensive tenant notification that is compliant with language access requirements from application to lease up. Tenant notification would inform the tenants of their rights and necessary actions. The shaded boxes show notifications that the planning department would be responsible for. To strengthen the replacement of protected units, the TPO proposes that all protected units be replaced with comparable units, which it defines as having the same number of bedrooms and full bathrooms, at least 90% of square footage, and accessible when applicable. Replacement of protected units would be as we are currently requiring and in line with SB three thirty. However, the TPO proposes that all affordable replacement units are affordable for the life of the project, not fifty five years as required by s p three thirty. To strengthen other tenant protections, the TPO proposes amendments to the rent ordinance in the administrative code to address temporary evictions due to capital improvements, tenant harassment, and buyer agreements. For capital improvements, tenants would get additional monthly payments when a temporary eviction is extended past the three months, and this is for lower income tenants, sorry, with the goal of avoiding renovictions. It provides more effective tools for the rent board to make tenant harassment findings when sufficient evidence is presented, which could preserve tenant rights when the unit vacated is redeveloped. And for private agreements, landlords would have to disclose the impacts of a tenant's eligibility for SB three thirty rights if the tenant were to come into such agreement. There are many more changes proposed by the TPO, but this is some of the ones that push the envelope further. I will now cover anticipated amendments for this ordinance. As we heard from this sponsor, supervisor Chen, during opening remarks, she's introducing five more amendments. The planning department has collaborated closely with supervisor ten's office in drafting them. We have evaluated them and we're in full support of these amendments. We also received communication yesterday from supervisor Melgar about the amendments she outlined today. The department would like to have time to evaluate them further, but we look forward to the commission discussion about them. Sorry. I will now go over the department's proposed modifications. The first recommended modification is to amend the residential demolition definition in section three seventeen B as well as make other minor changes to that section. You can see the proposed changes in the handout we distributed. These changes differ slightly from what was on the staff report in that we have removed the last sentence for residential mergers to ensure internal consistency in line with community feedback. The proposed changes simplify and replace complex lineal foot require measurements with square footage to make it easier to interpret by by sponsors, analyze by planners, and enforce by inspect inspectors. The proposed amendments allow you to partially lift a whole building without classifying it as a demolition, ensuring consistent treatment of projects of the kind. The proposed amendments not only simplify the definition for better review and enforcement, but catches more projects as demolitions, triggering the proposed tenant protection requirements. The second recommended modification is to add to finding b of the project that the project was not proposed changes to more than 20% of character defining features. In practice, the historic preservation commission has the power to allow certain modifications to historic buildings as long as preservation standards are met. This proposed amendment promotes alignment between preservation and planning review processes while maintaining character defining architectural features for these projects. The third recommended modification is to change rental units in finding C to residential units and to add compared to the existing residential units and unauthorized units as defined in section three seventeen subject to the same rent increase limitations to the end of the finding. The text in the staff report had an error that we have fixed here. This change aligns the definition with planning code terminology and it ensures that the comparison is against the total existing resident units at the site, including unauthorized dwelling units. The four recommended modification is to merge finding d and d. This change would support smaller projects that add housing units, but that don't trigger inclusionary housing replace house inclusionary housing or replacement requirements with no impact to setting high standards for other projects. We believe supporting projects that go from a single family home to a four ownership unit to four ownership units have a positive impact on housing supply. I can provide further analysis on this topic during discussion and how it aligns with supervisor Melgar's proposed amendment. The fifth and final recommended modification is in alignment with supervisor's supervisor Chen's modification. The department is recommending to amend section 317.2 to ensure that project sponsors contract with a relocation specialist from a vetted list provided by the department. This change would help better support tenants during relocation and project sponsors in complying with state relocation laws. To close, the planning department recommends that the planning commission adopts a recommendation for approval of the proposed ordinance with modifications and anticipated amendments by the sponsor supervisor Chen because it supports stronger tenant protections, enhances accountability, mitigates tenant displacement, and balances growth with housing stability. Before moving on to the discussion, I would like to elevate the importance of this ordinance, not just in its impact, but in the way it was developed. A truly collaborative process between elected officials, city agencies, and the community. I would like to acknowledge community members and commissioner Imperial for advocating for this work. Rep and the anti displacement coalition for the dedication, patience, and steadfastness. Supervisor Chen and her office in particular and in particular, legislative aide Charlie Shamos for being a fantastic collaborative partner. Rachel for being so supported supportive of this ordinance, and Lisa for giving me the honor of working on it. Joey Kumas from the rent board who joined us every week to guide us and answer questions, and Audrey Pearson and Manu Pradhan from the city's attorney's office for their work on such a complex ordinance. As you can see, there are many more to thank. To everyone, thank you for your time and support. The the proposed ordinance is now before the commission so that it may adopt the recommendation of approval with modifications and anticipated amendments by the sponsor supervisor. Chen. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. If that concludes staff presentation, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. If you plan to speak, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Come on up.

[Tina Valentina Guire, Director, Castro LGBTQ Cultural District]: Good afternoon, commissioners and, director Phillips. My name is Tina Valentina Guire. I'm the director of the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District, and I'm here to strongly support the TPO ordinance as proposed today, including the amendments by supervisor Melgar. What I could share is that our work with the cultural district privilege prioritizes housing and tenant protections, and my district in particular acknowledges the need for many more units for queer and trans folks in the city. We are experiencing great oppression on the federal and global level, and we serve as a location for refugees coming from throughout the world looking for respite and, safety. San Francisco as a mecca still stands, as a a great symbol for all of us throughout the world. And in order for that to happen, we need rent control units. We strongly support what has been proposed. What I can share is through our findings of our CHESS report is, the only thing that I can add is I hope that there are cultural competent, location specialists that are able to provide services when they're needed. Through our assessment in the CHESS report, we found there's a a great dearth, a great lack of data collection in terms of sexual orientation and gender identity throughout the entire city. Simply speaking, there is no data collected in many of these many services that are provided by the city, so it's impossible to say how many people are queer and trans that are receiving services right now, and therefore, it's impossible to assess if the providers are actually able to represent communities that are underrepresented in a culturally competent way. More than that, I wanna share on a personal level that I am a renter in the 94114 zip code, that's the Mission Dolores Castro area. Been there since 1987 and my building just got sold last year. Thankfully the new owners were great and they work with units buildings with units like mine. I acknowledge that I am extremely lucky and many others have been displaced, not only in the Castro but throughout San Francisco. Because of that, I urge you to adopt the TPO with supervisor Melgar's amendments. Thank you.

[Fred Sherburn-Zimmer, Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco]: Hello. I'm Fred Sherburn Zimmer from Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco. We support new housing, especially affordable housing, but no tenant should have their home bulldozed. Whether they're a low income senior or a janitor or whether they're a couple who are teachers with two kids. But if their home is going to be demolished, as we seem to be required to let people do under state law, we need real protections for those tenants to return. I really want to thank supervisor Chen and Charlie for the long amount of work they've done to put the TPO. This has been complicated, hard to get around all the finagglings of the small print of state laws so that we can actually protect the residents of San Francisco. But we know that landlords, investors, and realtors lie regularly to tenants. This is one of the reasons we need a strong look back and we needed even a stronger definition of demolition. I wanna tell you all a story. A friend of mine lived in Noire Valley in a three unit building that had 12 tenants living in it, many of them for decades. Someone bought the building. He said he was going to do an owner move in with his family. Everyone in the building ended up taking unreported buyouts. My friend said it wasn't worth fighting if the other two units already were going. Three years later, the landlord never moved in. She went by recently and there was a notice about demolition. One of the tenants who was evicted, an eviction that never shows up on any record, isn't recorded at the rent board, is still living on their couch three kept friends' couches three years later. Another lives in their car. Others left San Francisco. My friend lives nearby but pays a lot more than she did in that unit. This is why we need the strongest protections we can. And we need a city that decide that doesn't decide that those who can pay for million dollar condos are more important than the tenants who already live here. This is why we need this legislation with all of its amendments, and we need to strengthen the definition for demos. We need to not reward landlords and investors for Ellis acting or other problematic, shady, or under the table evictions. Thank you very much.

[Chantal Abrinto, Rep SF Coalition]: Good afternoon, commissioner. Chantal Abrinto with the RepSF Coalition. I want to focus my comments on the collective work we've all done so far and work we can all continue to do to make this tenant protections ordinance as strong and supportive of tenants as possible. First, we're very appreciative of supervisor Chen and are especially grateful to Charlie Chiamas from the d eleven office and Malena Leon Ferrera from the planning department for the long hours dedicated to researching, coordinating, and drafting the TPO, and working in coordination with Rep SF and the Anti Displacement Coalition over the course of many months. We also wanna appreciate the hearing on tenant protections and displacement that was held earlier this year in February in front of this commission that was initiated by Commissioners Imperial and supported by Commissioner Williams. We know there are amendments coming and we're optimistic that the District eleven office and planning staff will continue to work diligently to make the necessary changes possible. As you've heard, together we're navigating a complex web of state laws and local programs that make this ordinance necessary. This legislation aims to accomplish much of what our coalitions set out to do, including enhancing noticing and language requirements, expanding relocation assistance, and establishing consequences for tenant harassment, among many other interventions. However, there are still some significant issues that have not been fully resolved, including issues around the Ellis Act, conditional use findings, harassment and wrongful evictions, and the definition of demolition. Today, you'll hear from members of our coalitions about crucial outstanding concerns and recommendations. Addressing these issues to close loopholes and strengthen the TPO is imperative. So we request that as you all are doing, listen carefully to the proposed amendments and discuss them during your deliberations. It'll take all of us working in coordination to ensure that this TPO is as strong as possible. Thank you.

[Joseph Smook, Rep SF Coalition]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Joseph Smook with Rep Coalition. How we define demolition is more important than ever. We're grateful to Melena, Matt, and Kelly at planning for working with us on this issue, and for Georgia Shudish's thorough work to analyze a massive list of case studies that substantiate recommendations for improving the definition. Staff's recommendation moves in the right direction, but it doesn't address some substantial issues. The TPO deals with a complex set of issues including SB three thirty, which dangerously allows the demolition of existing sound housing. When tenants are displaced by demolition, the TPO will ensure access to relocation benefits, a right to return, and replacement units. But what happens when a sponsor gains the calculations and avoids qualifying as a demolition? Consider a likely scenario where a project proposes to move a rear facade back several feet. The amount of demolition to the front and rear facades, roof, and floors would be calculated to be less than the threshold, but they would use the new density decontrol provision to convert three two bedroom flats into five studio units by gutting and rebuilding the interior. This scope of work must be considered a demolition, but even under planning's current proposal, it wouldn't be. We support George's recommendation to lower the threshold from 50% to 32%, but currently that only addresses vertical and horizontal building elements and does not address interior walls. We request that the department study, one, a threshold for removal of interior walls, and two, the most appropriate way to treat modifications to door and window openings, and three, treating as a demolition whether a building is raised a partial or a full floor. Both are major scopes of work that will displace tenants for longer than three months and should be considered demolition. We hope you will direct the department to study these recommendations expeditiously so we can get this definition right for the TPO. Thank you.

[Virginia Barker, Member of the Public]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Virginia Barker. The proposed tenant protection ordinance is not strong. It is empty. Although the city has the ability to do better, the proposal only conforms with the state. And I do appreciate the presentation and the outline of where planning staff thinks that the ordinance goes beyond, the state. However, those are administrative implementation issues. They're really not substantive. The proposed ordinance allows the rent control stock to be diminished by demolition and tenants to be diminished by menace and eviction. It shifts support for those who are not served by an unregulated market, including the city as a whole, from rent control to means tested affordable housing. This is privatizing the commonwealth and socializing cost burdens. Not only is there no funding for affordable housing construction, the stability of rent control is gutted and tenants are made vulnerable. Both affordable housing construction and rent control are needed to provide adequate housing. Rent control provides stability to tenants and a fair profit to landlords. A fair profit is one that is commensurate with the risk taken. Residential rental is a low risk business. People pay their rent before anything else. What has shifted here is that landlords are no longer satisfied with a fair profit. The up zoning legislation is bullying forward policies that will allow investors to better control the supply of units and increase their advantage over tenants. They are creating risk for tenants and reducing risk for themselves. Also, they can profit not by providing a product at a fair price, but by extortion. We have to say no to this. It is an extractive economy where people become the objects of strip mining techniques and devastation ensues. There are so many things lacking in this ordinance, among them no right of return at the old rent and no right of first refusal for all tenants and no recognition of tenants' financial losses. But with my limited time, I will focus on one critical life saving modification that you can make. Give all tenants, especially seniors and those with disabilities, if evicted, one year to move. It is brutal and cruel to expect that one could move in six months in this market. For seniors and people with disabilities, the housing search is much more complex as the city recognizes with one year for Ellis evictions. Earlier notification of a planning and a project and planning does not count. This is the very least that we should expect of our government. If you are going to kick us out, don't kick us to the curb. Better to cease this unsavory upzoning business altogether.

[Zachary Friel, South of Market Community Action Network (SOMCAN)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Zachary Friel. I work with Somcan, a member org of both RepSF and SF Anti Displacement Coalition. We would like to elaborate on the issues we see with SP three thirty and why it's absolutely critical that we get the TPO right to address these outstanding concerns. The Housing Crisis Act passes SB three thirty in 2019 presents a host of new threats to tenants that did not previously exist. SB three thirty one streamlines housing project approvals and allows for demolition of existing sound housing, including tenant occupied and rent control apartments. Two, establishes a requirement for relocation payments to be paid, but no system for enforcing it. Three, establishes a requirement for developers to replace demolish units and provide displaced tenants with a first right of refusal to move back, but does not provide any system of accountability for these obligations to tenants. And four, it requires developers to provide notices to tenants but without sufficient lead time for tenants. SB three thirty also creates incentives for displacement. Project sponsors have been known to use the Ellis Act, owner move in evictions, capital improvement evictions, harassment, and other means of forcing tenants out of their homes. Project sponsors will take advantage of these eviction pathways to get around their obligations to pay tenants relocation benefits and to avoid providing tenants the right to return. The planning staff report characterizes SB three thirty as a tenant protection measure, when in fact it is a measure that preemptively allows developers to demolish existing housing, including rent controlled and tenant occupied apartments. While s p three thirty does require developers to meet a set of minimum standards in exchange for permission to demolish someone's home, we must emphasize that these standards are nowhere near sufficient, nor are they accompanied by any systems of enforcement or accountability. To address these concerns, we ask that you support the solutions outlined in the joint letter sent by Rep SF and SF ADC, and that will be further elaborated in, subsequent comments. Thank you so much.

[Theresa Dolala Suitsan Khan, Member of the Public]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Theresa Dolala Suitsan Khan. We're asking for the strongest tenant protections for everyone from one story and above because citywide upzoning is already unfolding. Upzoning is being framed as a solution to the housing crisis, but in reality, it accelerates displacement, deepens inequity, and threatens rent controlled and affordable homes across our city. My own family went through four eviction struggles, and it was hard. No one should ever have to experience that. Upzoning demolishes one to two story homes and potentially three and rent controlled buildings, erasing the very housing that keeps working families here. Planning department is eyeing 20,000 buildings. That's potentially sacrificing over 20,000 people and countless small businesses at risk. So it's okay to demolish rent controlled buildings to build new affordable housing? That's a big question mark. State laws like SB three thirty and the Ellis Act make this worse. SB three thirty is not tenant protection. It's a developer streamlining law that fast tracks demolition of sound occupied rent controlled homes without any real enforcement or accountability. To address the Ellis Act, developers must be required to declare their intent to evict and demolish from the start, and tenants must receive stronger relocation assistance and the right to return, vacant or not. Without stronger local protections, SB three thirty and upzoning together will invite more Ellis Act and owner move in evictions, pushing out the very people these policies claim to help. That's why the TPO must be strengthened now before upzoning begins. We need a real enforcement, accountability, and protection for all tenants. Let's face it. Upzoning will likely move forward, but you commissioners, we rely on you. You have the power to make sure it doesn't move through our homes and our lives, protect our communities.

[Ramon Bonifacio, Tenant Counselor, SOMCAN]: Good afternoon, commissioner. My name is Ramon Bonifacio. I'm a tenant counselor with South of Market Community Action Network, SOMCAN, a member of Rep SF and SF ADC. And, yeah, in my work, I talk to tenants every single day who are experiencing harassment, intimidations, pressures to leave their home. Many of those tenants live in rent control building that developers or landlords wants to clear out so that they can pursue demolitions or redevelopment projects. What we see on the ground is that harassment has become a tactic of displacement. It's not it's how tenants are pushed out of without a formal evictions ever being filed. That's why the harassment protections in the TPO are absolutely critical. For years the ramp board has had the power to hold hearings on harassment and wrongful evictions petitions but in practice those hearing almost never happen. Tenant files, they wait, and nothing moves forward. The current structures gives the executive director of the Christians to decide whether a hearing even take place. And as a result, many serious cases are never heard. Supervisor Chen's legislation takes on an important step forward by removing that discretion and setting objective criteria for when a petition should move forward. But there are still one major fix needed, the standard that says harassment must be, quote, unquote, be severe that it has materially materially clearly impacted the tenant's enjoyment of the unit. That standard set the bar far too high and it effectively prevent tenants from ever getting a hearing in the first place. The severity of harassment should be evaluated during the hearing, not used as a reason to deny one. As someone who works directly with tenants, I can tell you people are losing their home not just through evictions notice, but through fear, pressures, and exhaustions. We need a ramp board process that actually protect tenants, not one that filtered them out. I urge the commissions to support those amendments and ensure that harassment protections in the TPO are strong, enforceable, and accessible to the people who need them most. Thank you.

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Anna Christina, a member of the of the Rep SF Coalition. SFADC and Rep SF support supervisor Chen's legislation to create, clarify, and implement systems of support for tenants facing increasing risk of displacement due to an expanding network of state bills and local ordinances that place tenants in increasing payroll. While this TPO is poised to accomplish much, as noted in the planning staff report, there are still issues that have not been fully resolved. The housing crisis act passed as s b three thirty creates incentives for displacement. Project sponsors have been known to use various means of forcing tenants out of their homes. Project sponsors will take advantage of these eviction pathways to get around their obligations to pay tenants relocation benefits and to avoid providing tenants the right to return. Further amendments still need to be made to address harassment and wrong wrongful evictions. We expect that supervisor Chen's forthcoming amendments will address this issue, but I'll summarize it here. The TPO amends the admin code to require that the rent board executive director schedule hearings for petitions of harassment and alleged wrongful eviction. Currently, the TPO says the executive director may do this, but it's not required. As written, one of the criteria for evaluating whether a tenant's petition will move forward to a hearing is that the alleged harassment is so severe that it has materially impacted a tenant's enjoyment of the unit. This criterion must be removed so the severity of the alleged harassment is evaluated during the hearing process rather than used to prevent petitions from proceeding to a hearing. While the TPO is still not perfect, we remain optimistic that the District eleven office and planning staff continue to work diligently to make the and planning staff continue to work diligently to make the necessary changes possible. We will continue to work collaboratively to ensure the TPO does everything that San Francisco tenants need it to do. Thank you.

[Annabelle, Tenderloin tenant]: Hi. My name is Annabelle, and I'm an academic worker and low income rent controlled tenant in the Tenderloin. I wanted to voice my support for this amendment, sponsored by supervisor Ched and expanding tenant protections as I know many people are working on right now. I was very concerned about the stability of my rent controlled unit after seeing the initial proposals coming out this year, And this has somewhat eased my anxiety. But I do want to note that it's not enough to provide compensation or remediation pathways for tenants who are displaced, But displacement, especially for elderly tenants, can be life threatening. In my own rent controlled building, which has 27 units, elderly neighbors rely on the network within the building to ensure that they're healthy, that they're cared for, and when something happens, someone's able to intercede for their needs, whether that means having your neighbor let you in when you lose your keys and you get locked out or having someone ensure that your unit is safe and habitable when you're ill. I think that it's important to note that for some elderly San Franciscans, many of whom have lived here for most of their adult lives, displacement might be damaging not only to their mental health but also to their physical well-being and it's next to impossible for some tenants to restore those networks they spent decades building if they are displaced. So thank you to supervisor Chen, and I also ask that everyone here consider elderly tenants' needs and networks as this goes on. Thank you.

[Brianna Morales, Housing Action Coalition]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Brianna Morales, and I'm with the Housing Action Coalition as their community organizer. We are a member supported nonprofit that believes San Francisco should be a place where our people of all income levels can live, work, and belong. At a time when we need to produce more housing and protect housing we already have, this helps keep long time residents in their communities while giving mission driven builders a clearer path to create new homes. This legislation builds on the protections laid out in s b three thirty, the Statewide Housing Crisis Act, which we also strongly support. California set up a strong baseline to ensure no net loss of homes and this local update helps make sure San Francisco is carrying out that clearly and consistently. These updates reinforce what's already outlined in the housing element, producing more homes while protecting the ones we have, and ensuring residents aren't displaced in the process. By aligning local rules with state law, this proposal brings more transparency and predictability to the development process. Clear standards benefit everyone, tenants, builders, and city staff alike, and help us move towards the shared goal of adding and preserving housing in a fair, balanced way. We appreciate the city's continued work to align housing production and tenant stability. Both are essential to solving the housing crisis, and both are priorities for us at HACC. So we thank the planning department, commissioners, and supervisors for your time and ongoing commitment to keep San Francisco a place where everyone has a home, and we look forward to the discussion surrounding the modification and amendments. Thanks.

[Annabelle, Tenderloin tenant]: Sorry. I did

[Georgia Schuttish, Housing advocate]: be fair. George Ishutosh. This new definition of demolition is a step in the right direction under the TPO. But honestly, as the person who has probably used the word section three seventeen demo calcs more than anyone else in the room, it would be better to make the threshold stronger if the goal is to live up to the words in the section three seventeen findings. And those words are right in front of me, but you know what they are.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Do I give that to one of you?

[Georgia Schuttish, Housing advocate]: Anyway, it's to protect rental housing. It's to protect people who live in rental housing and need financially accessible homes. These words, as I wrote in the letter, are foundational to the ideal of protecting tenants and creating a generous and kind outcomes under the TPO. I urge this commission to take a bolder step with this definition beyond the recommendation from staff. This would be a step that previous commissions did not have the moxie to take. For years, it has been suggested that the demo calc should have been reduced to meet the findings at least once, if not twice. The code empowered the commission to do this. Two times is always better than one time. At two times, the new value for the proposed section three seventeen b two b would be a threshold of 32% or greater. The commission should give great consideration to this. Unfortunately, San Francisco missed the opportunity to preserve starter homes as was the approved policy in the 2014 housing element, which did not wanna see this typology of smaller, more affordable family housing demolished, but many were demolished using the current demo counts. Now is the chance to ameliorate that missed opportunity by creating a new definition with a threshold of 32% or greater So there was no net loss of housing while the city expands and densifies. Please think about all the relatively affordable housing that could have been preserved in the past decade. Housing with two units, whether they're flats or with a UDU with tenants, all of them with tenants potentially, please think about what a threshold at 32% or greater would mean for the tenant protection ordinance. And here is my little handout, and here's my 150 words for the minutes. Thank you very much.

[Peter Stevens, Build Affordable Faster California]: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Peter Stevens. Build Affordable Faster. Great to see you all. First, I'd like to say thank you to everyone who worked on this. You know, it's come a long way. I think we're moving in the right direction. I'd like to remind you of the immortal words of Salt and Pepper, push it. You know, we've come pretty far, but there's a lot more we can do. We currently have a situation where we have an upzoning plan that seems to have confused capital markets and financing with families. This is the last line of defense here for working families, this TPO. So I say we do support Cheyenne Chen, supervisor Chen's amendments and let's work all together, be a city of yes, save our working families and together we can push it. Thank you.

[Aristos Kamiji, Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Aristos Kamiji. I'm here on behalf of Mission Economic Development Agency, and I serve as our lead housing rights council and our founder of our eviction defense program. On behalf of my organization, I wanna voice our support for, many of the provisions in the proposal that strengthen tenant, protections for our vulnerable residents against displacement. And in doing so, we truly appreciate the work of Supervisor Chen and her staff. We also wanna recognize the planning staff handling the important job of adapting our code to new state regulations as well. We understand that supervisor Melgar has additional provisions today that will strengthen tenant protections, including closing an Ellis Act loophole. Another addresses one of our key areas of concern. We concur that it is important to have not only a checklist of CU criteria options, but also need to ensure that the most critical protections are enacted as mandatory to ensure the safety of the tenants we serve. As someone who has been blessed to be born and raised in this beautiful city, I've seen the mission continue to lose thousands of low income residents. And as interest rates fall and the new building cycle heats up, we want to ensure that the city is doing everything it can in partnership with us to keep these essential workers, our neighbors, our peers in place, not just in the mission but also in other PEGs across the city which are recognized for special protections in the housing element. So in addition to adding mandatory CU requirements, we think it's important to explore another layer of protection for demolition of protected units in these vulnerable areas, such as adding a tenant look back period or similar mechanism. Thank you all. We look forward to working together as always further and further. God bless San Francisco. Thank you.

[Zach Weisenberger, Young Community Developers]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Zach Weisenberger with Young Community Developers. As attention remains on the mayor's family zoning plan, I wanna emphasize the importance of strengthening the citywide tenant protections ordinance. We've submitted a letter outlining these points in more detail. We greatly appreciate supervisor Chen's leadership on this ordinance and strongly support both her and supervisor Melgar's forthcoming amendments. First, we support supervisor Melgar's proposal to establish mandatory demolition standards that developers must meet to receive a permit. Tenant protections cannot be treated as a checklist that developers only need to partially meet. They must be firm requirements that prevent the loss of existing homes and displacement of long time residents. Second, we support supervisor Melgar's Ellis Act amendment, which would require owners to declare any demolition intent when filing Ellis paperwork. This ensures tenants remain eligible for enhanced relocation assistance and a right of return. This will prevent misuse of the Ellis process and align San Francisco with best practices in other cities such as LA. Finally, we urge the city to consider adopting additional mandatory demolition standards for priority equity geographies or PEGs. PEGs have borne the brunt of development for decades, remain among the most upzoned neighborhoods, and continue to face the highest displacement pressures. They require added protections, for example, prohibiting the demolition of all rent controlled units that have been tenant occupied within the past seven years. Provisions such as these would directly reflect the intent behind PEGs PEG designations and fulfill the city's commitment to provide heightened protections for these communities. Together, these amendments will ensure SF's demolition standards are both objective and equitable and grounded in the lived experiences of those most impacted. We urge the commission to adopt both supervisor Chen and Melgar's amendments that were presented today. Thank you.

[Ken Fujioka, Chinatown Community Development Center]: President Tsao, members of the commission, Ken Fujioka, Chinatown Community Development Center. I I wanna join with others in in thanking supervisor Chen and her staff for working on this legislation as well as key members of the planning commission planning staff. And then also supervisor Malgards' very helpful amendments to address some additional concerns. But I I wanna also personally remember the elders, our elders, who organized and fought against displacement and demolitions in the past. Some who I've had the privilege of working with and learning from, Bill Soros, of course, and Neil de Guzman, the International Hotel Struggle, people like Banyan Chen of the Community Tents Association, who fought for and helped establish some of our controls on demolitions and and housing, and and for a reason. That those the housing that we that this city preserved in the past through the conditional use process are are housing that people are being that people live in today. And and for that reason, we have to have much greater concern about removing erasing in many instances in the planning code, those three seventeen principles. And and not just erasing them, we need to replace them with comparable standards that protect where people live today. And

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: in

[Ken Fujioka, Chinatown Community Development Center]: in that regard, those concerns are reflected in the letter submitted by ADC and rep. And and we we raised concerns also with the inadequate, in our opinion, analysis of the risk of demolitions presented by the present proposed amendments to three seventeen and the demolition controls. As the ADC letter reflects, that the data the predictions of low demolition rates, the current demolition rates, are because of those protections. And so really the analysis needs to be what what were the rates of demolition before with the protections that we are now eliminating? What were the rates then? And so those go back to pre 1986. And at that time, the data is that there were seventeen seventeen thousand demolitions on the ten years prior to the the adoption of the controls. So we urge you to consider additional protections that are actually authorized by state law. Section six sixty six three hundred point six c specifically authorizes local governments to provide additional demolition controls to protect lower income households, and we think that avenue needs to be further explored in the amendments that also need to should be added to the protections that are provided in the TPO. Thank you very much.

[Sunny Angulo, Tenant]: Echo Peter Stevens Salt and Pepper. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Sunny Angulo and I'm speaking today as a tenant who has benefited from the stability and affordability of my rent controlled home which is part of a very tight knit community, a diverse community of tenants in our rent controlled building. And I don't say unit for a reason. These are homes. These are homes with families, seniors, students, struggling workers who work multiple jobs where we built caring relationships, supported dependence, and contributed to San Francisco. Rent stabilized homes continue to represent the single biggest concentration of critical housing that is affordable by design. Which is why we've consistently built our housing policies around the fundamental principles that preservation of rent controlled homes are fundamental to achieving our Casa Compact regional housing strategy as well as true implementation of our housing element. A spokesperson for the real estate lobby recently flippantly kinda opined online that housing advocates were far too precious about our rent controlled homes, and it's really no big deal to demolish someone's home and replace it with a market rate unit. That is absolutely antithetical to our pro housing and our pro people policies right here in San Francisco. And if San Francisco, of all places, cannot execute housing strategies of thoughtful infill development, production and con and conversion of other uses to housing without displacing existing tenants from their homes, then we are failing. Much of the discourse around protecting tenants homes has been kind of shrugged off by politicians as a as a gun to our head moment when if we don't accept the state's efforts to undermine our own local laws and policies, we will lose local control. You know, respectfully, if our local electeds cannot even send an email with legislative concepts without running them by anonymous, unelected bureaucrats in Sacramento for approval. I mean, I'd say we've already lost local control. I wanna thank the supervisors here today that presented their amendments, have been working very hard on this, and especially their legislative aids, I see you legislative aids, that have pushed for stronger representation and real advocacy to the state. We are often told with respect to Trump's overreach that we must comply preemptively and we must, you know, we must not challenge the powers that would erode our protections for our communities. I think the same concept can apply here locally and it preemptively gives giving up our local control to protect tenants in the stability of our homes that hurts us all. With that, I wanna support the amendments that are being proposed today and encourage the board of supervisors through your guidance, your support to go beyond what is being proposed. When I hear the words objective standards, I think of baselines that are backed up by facts and evidence and clearly support our stated housing goals of improving and conserving existing housing stock and preserving units at risk of conversion from affordable to market rate, which should be forcing us to be more creative and exercise more political will to get units constructed that don't displace residents. I think there can be cases to be made that s b three thirty allows us to do more for lower income households in both demolition controls and relocation and then ensuring there are stronger mandatory controls for the priority equity geographies That is your not only ensures the majority. Thank you, Jonas. Thank you.

[Meg Heisler, San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Meg Heisler here on behalf of the San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition. I first wanna start, as many of us have, thanking supervisor Chen, Charlie, and Melina for taking on this important work, for their patience with us throughout this process, and for their ongoing commitment to getting the TPO right. This has been an undertaking, I think, beyond what any of us could have imagined at the outset. There are many reasons why the TPO is needed, including SB three thirty, the various state density bonus programs, which incentivize and streamline the demolition of housing, including tenant occupied rent controlled housing. As has been mentioned, state laws, specifically s p three thirty and also the Ellis Act, both necessitate and constrain the TPO. So understandably, there are several outstanding issues that we have been working on diligently that still need to be addressed by amendments, including those described by supervisor Chen and supervisor Melgar earlier. I will just focus on two. Others have been mentioned already. As written, the proposed changes to this CU process create options for developers while shortchanging tenants and communities. There must be mandatory standards, that ensure landlords and developers are not rewarded for harassing and evicting tenants with a demolition permit. Tenants must have an opportunity to share their stories, in public, and the commission must be able to weigh those stories in their decision making. I will also mention that we see the Ellis related amendments as essential. Tenants that have been Ellis ed, displaced by Ellis, should not be cut out of the enhanced relocation assistance afforded by the TPO. If they are, Ellis will be seen as the discount option between Ellis and the TPO. So I just wanted to mention those, and echo many of the comments shared earlier, and these proposals are also, outlined in our letter. Thank you again to supervisor Chen, Charlie, and Melina, and to you commissioners for your consideration of these matters. Thank you.

[Abby, San Francisco Communities Against Displacement]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Abby. First, I wanna thank and express strong support for supervisor Chen's legislation, which moves the needle forward for city wide tenant protections. Today, I'm speaking on behalf of the San Francisco Communities Against Displacement Coalition, which represents communities of color in Chinatown, The Mission, and the Bayview. Two years ago through the housing element process, the city and the board of supervisors recognized that these neighborhoods have been disproportionately impacted by decades of redevelopment and displacement, and that they require different solutions and stronger protections. That's why the priority equity geographies or PEGs were created. While not a perfect framework, PEGs reflect an understanding that equity requires place based policy. Within the context of the tenant protection ordinance, we ask that the city build on that intent and rethink what protection truly means for these communities. Historically, the conditional use process has been one of the few avenues where tenants and community members could raise concerns about new developments and where commissioners could hold developers to higher standards of design, community benefits, and community preservation. With the restructuring of that process under the TPO, we're concerned that the very principles that guide guided equitable decision making could be lost, allowing developers to pick and choose what to comply with. We are therefore grateful for supervisor Melgar's amendment, which moves the most important tenant protections outside of the 80 past rule that and make them mandatory. But we ask commissioners to go further than that to strengthen these standards by explicitly directing the city to adopt anti displacement policies for our most vulnerable communities and ensure compliance with things like existing and future neighborhood specific design standards, as well as adopt stronger demolition protections to protect and control tenants in the pegs. Doing so would align the TPO with housing elements call for targeted anti displacement policies and ensure that state objective standards still advance real world equity goals. Adopting such such stronger and targeted standards are in fact authorized by state laws. We hope that you will continue to ask tough questions and hold the city accountable in balancing our housing production goals with the preservation of our vulnerable communities. Thank you.

[Gwen McLaughlin, Small Business Forward (Rep SF Coalition)]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Gwen McLaughlin, and I'm here today with Small Business Forward as a part of the rep coalition. We are here today in support of Chen's TPO legislation tenant protections and work to curtail the displacement of long term tenants who can't afford to lose their rent control departments. We know that the vast majority of small business workers who can still afford to live in our city are here because they live in rent controlled units. Please protect our rent control homes and prioritize preventing displacement from those homes. Thank you.

[Asia Duncan, Build Affordable Faster California]: Hello. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Asia Duncan and I'm with Build Affordable Faster California, and we are in support of supervisor Chen's legislation along with the proposed amendments given today. Thank you to her office and her staff And along with Rep SF Coalition. This legislation establishes important protections, which are very meaningful to tenants. Such as expanded relocation assistance, a relocation plan, a right to remain, a right for a first refusal, replacement of protection units with a combination of rent controlled and BMR units, and additional tools to protect the rights of tenants in the event that landlords seek to avoid these requirements. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you for everybody being here today. And I think in light of, supervisors' time, I would like to see if, my commissioners would prioritize questions that you have, to supervisors first. Okay. You wanna go ahead? I know you I know you. Commissioner Imperial, go for it.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: I'm waiting for other commissioners to go first. Just kidding. Just to see. Well, I know that the supervisor's time are limited. I guess my first question is around supervisor Malgar's addition or their amendments. I don't know if Ms. Lo can come up. So I guess my question is, first, if you're lowering you're proposing to lower the threshold to 70 the standard. I did not see which one are you trying to reduce and why is that lowering it to, 70% threshold

[Annabelle, Tenderloin tenant]: So the

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: in terms of the the CLA. Yeah.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (District 7)]: So the three so again, we we don't change the actual criteria that was in the initial substitute or the substitute ordinance, but rather there's three that we are moving towards, I think, towards requirements because they're actually required by law. So in the the way that we had interpreted the substitute ordinance was that you kinda get a freebie. You get points for things that you're supposed to already do. So by moving them out of the criteria for the objective standards for findings, the the rest of them then actually become actual objective standards where you're actually giving I'm just gonna simplify this points, right, for things that we want to see in in projects when you're making that approval. And so because the threshold there's less objectives, we were working with the city attorney and again we want this to be a fair process. Right? It can't be like impossible to meet and so that's why it became 70% as opposed to 80% because the three that we took out are now actual requirements. They're not things that you get credit for as part of those objective standard findings. I hope that makes sense. And I'm happy to read the the ones that we are moving towards requirements. So it's that project sponsor must comply with notice requirements of three three seventeen point two and have relocation plan for tenants, which is already required. Must not have a rent board decision showing wrongful endeavor to recover possession of rental units through harassment in the prior five years. And the last one is if the unit was vac vacated through a buyout of a tenant, the buyout agreement must be filed at the rent board as required under 37.9 e of the rent ordinance. So all three of those have already are provisions that you need to follow as parts of other parts of the code. So that's why it didn't make that much sense to put them in objective standards because they're supposed to be requirements already. I hope that clarifies the proposal.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: And the 70% is just to because I'm trying to understand what's the difference between 7080% from what I see in in terms of the CUA. And I also see in terms of the supervisor chance and also rep SF amendments as well is to make sure that the the COAs are are requirement are mandatory, not just like in and so so you're also adding that the 70% is a requirement.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (District 7)]: Yeah. You have to meet 70% of the remaining criteria of the nine other requirements. And maybe Malena can explain more. This whole 80%, 70% thing was, I think, a little bit of an art and a science between the city attorney's office and the original sponsor as well as the planning staff. So, Malena, if you wanna come and opine on that, that'd be great.

[Malena León Ferrera, Senior Planner, SF Planning]: Hi. Yeah. Malena, city staff. Yeah. So they need to lower that that standard because if not, it would be impossible for certain projects that we would want to approve to pass, basically. And I have tables on this, which you would like me to share. Sure.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Yeah. What would that look like in terms of the 7080%?

[Malena León Ferrera, Senior Planner, SF Planning]: Oh, can we get the oh, this is gonna be hard to read. Okay. So when we were looking at those percentages, we wanted to keep a high yield for people to have to clear. Right? We want good actors. We want them to do right by tenants. And so that it was a a play on numbers of what was the right percentage that would really make project sponsors kind of be good actors when it comes to taking care of tenants. So this table that you see here is just analyzing the proposed ordinance as it stands today, right, with the 12 different things. Should I go over there? So on the left side, you can see three sample projects that we did as well as just an imaginary example. It talks about the units that are demolished and then the units that are built and then whether or not they're getting points for these 12 different findings. At the end of the table, you see a total count. So basically, there's 12 findings as the total, and then the sum of the findings that the project is getting and what percentage they're achieving, basically. As you can see, all of these three projects, you know, they were single family homes that converted into several units or, you know, the first one is like five units converted into 33 units. These three projects converted into condos. For this one in particular, they're not getting points for increasing rent control housing and they're not getting points for it being a rental project. It's still clearing, right? It's still adding units to to the housing market, and so they are clearing. But if they don't satisfy any other requirement, they already are not clearing. So it's forcing them in a way to just be good actors. The problem with how well, let's not talk about the staff modification. So when Melgar's off this one's offering this one's analyzing the standards by Melgar's change, and you see that the results are the same. She's had to lower that percentage because if not now, those projects would not clear. As you can see here, they are clearing because they're coming above 70%. But if we had kept that percentage at 80, those projects would not have cleared. We are also offering a staff modification to this because as you can see, the last project does not clear. And I would love to talk about that if you give me an opportunity to talk about it. Sure. Yeah. This is

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy/Acting Planning Director]: a good time.

[Malena León Ferrera, Senior Planner, SF Planning]: Okay. So let's go back to the previous example. Here, if you have a single family home that is demolished and then replaced with anywhere with nine units, say nine units, right, that single family home does not qualify for replacement units. And then because it's building only nine units or less, it does not qualify for inclusionary housing. So it would not be generating any affordable housing. A project like this would not be clearing the standards. And I think these types of projects are projects that we sometimes do want to be able to support. I mean, it's single family homes converting into multiple units, and that's adding to our housing supply. So we had proposed this change of merging two of the findings in order for these types of projects, smaller projects, to be able to clear the review process. I don't know. Something just got lost in so many changes that it didn't make the cut. But our suggested staff modification is that those two that talk about affordable housing are merged such that it says that it either does not demolish affordable housing or increases the number of affordable housing units. When we make this merge, those smaller projects clear and as you can see, has no impact on these other projects. The standard is still high for them. If they miss anything else on this list, they don't make the cut. Now with supervisor Melgar, it's the same issue. It's that those projects are still not clearing if we don't make the staff modification. So we still even with supervisor Melgar's amendments, we would still it's the department's opinion that we should still make these modifications so these smaller projects clear, and as you can see, the standard still remains high for these other projects. If they miss one, they already don't make the cut. You know? And, you know, I we just think this would support the type of projects we do wanna support.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy/Acting Planning Director]: Maybe just to to summarize, I know it's complex. I know Yeah. We may have more questions for the supervisors and the supervisors' aids. I think that the point is, continuing work on what the standards are for the CUA findings and finding that right balance, right, of ensuring that we have high integrity of the projects, and we're also having projects move forward that, are meeting again our our city's goals and objectives. And so that is both the number overall of criteria and what they say, as well as what is the threshold percentage that a project must meet for you all, the planning commission, to be able to grant that conditional use. Because if they're not meeting that 70 or 80, then there's no option for that project to move forward. And so that's really the balance we're we're trying to to see in all of this.

[Malena León Ferrera, Senior Planner, SF Planning]: And if you go back to that, do you mind putting the table up again? If you go back to this table, these projects are condo projects, right? We cannot force a project to build rental housing if they want to make it into an ownership. We can force them to satisfy our requirements, but we cannot force them to take it out from the rental. Like, that's our understanding and guidance from the city attorney. So if you see here, anything else that they miss in this list, they now have to turn that project into a rental project to clear. Either you're a good actor or you just build a rental project basically in a way. Yeah.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Thank you, Melina. Or yeah. Thank you, Melina, for the explanation. And again, I think it's it it sounds like there you know, I I am, as of now, leaning toward what is the ordinance, which is 80%. And I understand why supervisor Melgar would like to do this in terms of, like, what kind of development. It seems like it's gonna be more applicable to the smaller type kind of development or you know? But but I you know, again, this I'm still leaning toward what is what we have right now in our ordinance. But I think I will also leave it to the community to have this further conversation in terms of whether they agree with supervisor Melgar's on the CUA trigger. My third question too on supervisor Melgar is the the the look back on the on the last ten years. And part and also it says too that it would amend the look back rent control units to ten years outside of the priority equity geography. Why is that and why not?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (District 7)]: Sharon, if I could answer that first point. The 70%, again, I think that calculation, again, was working with the city attorney to get to our goal. So So I think we have that shared goal is that we wanna have a high threshold for good actors. Mhmm. And so I think that that number is fungible to be honest with you. It it's not that we want to lower the threshold. It was more that we want to ensure that while taking out some of the criteria to make them requirements that the remaining criteria could be met. So we are open to rejiggering that because I think all of us share the same goal. Supervisors Chen and Melgar, the community and probably the commission as well. So that's the first part. The second part about the 10 look back. So one of the things that we have seen as the supervisor had described earlier is that we've had so many different changes in state law. The look backs are all over the place. At the time the city passed the housing constraints, legislation, we did put in a provision that outside of the priority equity geographies, so mainly the well resourced neighborhoods, that if you added a additional unit that you would not need a conditional use, if if you met the criteria. And that look back was, I think, five years. Mhmm. And at the time, that seemed to be on par with what everything else was. Right? We wanted to push it further, but at the time, it didn't seem like that was really going to fly because there was not other provisions that we could look to. Since that passage of the housing constraints legislation, we have seen new state legislation that now have ten year look backs with s b four twenty three, seven year look back with s b 79. And so we are trying to again enhance and and and broaden that net, especially in this market. Things aren't happening in five years. So we're thinking that a ten year look back seems to be fair. And so that's just in alignment. Why it's outside of the PEG is because that's what was written into the housing constraints legislation. I believe we have other provisions already in PEG, to provide further protections given the current conditions. And now that we have state law, that provides even broader look back periods. I hope that answers your question.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Yeah. That answers. Thank you. I guess for me, before I go back, because I also have other questions too, but I sorry I didn't, you know I I just wanna say thank everyone, and I wanna really give a shout out to Rep SF and San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition to really working this through. You guys are the experts, and all of the experiences in the last decade has been, the way I see this when I was reading this, like, you know, I was I was moved by this of how extensive this is. And even though there's still a lot of amendments, I mean, if you take this, like, every amendment, it will take about two to five years to probably accomplish this and to do this within a year. But at the same time, a lot of issues has been raising for the last decade on this. And so this is something that is a really step in moving in the right direction. And, again, you know, it's the community that should be the experts of what's going on when it comes to tenant protections ordinance. And, again, I also you know, I thank the planning department to really working on this as well. I also didn't expect expect together with other folks that this would go that excessive. I really yeah. I I was just like, let's have this conversation. But I didn't think of, like, really even going to the rent ordinance because even changes in the rent ordinance can be so political. And we and many advocates have known this. And you go through a lot of opposition just to amend something in the rent ordinance. And so so, yes, I just wanna and also I wanna miss Shuresh, you know, there's part of me that I wanna say sorry because you've been coming here in the in in my tenure in five years, and we just don't know how to deal with this demolition. And I think it's really on part of you know, it's really on us at this point now with the commission to really face this challenge and really try to address this challenge. And we have that, discretion to do this, and we haven't really moved anything. So that's why I'm in a way, I'm I'm apologizing that I feel like I lack as a commissioner to not push this, but I think we should and I would be, you know, advocating for us to really relook the definite relook on the standards of demolition because there has been a lot of, you know, units, tenants lost because of this. And the displacement has happened in the last ten years is it's measurable. And many of that perhaps because of the demolition and also the reason why you don't see that much eviction or, you know, nuisance in the ramp board is because those things are not recordable. So so yeah. So that's why, you know, when I was reading this ordinance, I was pretty moved. And I know there still has a lot has to change because it's been so a lot of years has gone by and we you know, and things need to move forward. One thing that I wanna have a question or also with this letter from the rep SF in terms of the conditional use and to make it mandatory instead of just like I think there is some some language on whether shall approve or approve, and I think we we need to make it more as a mandatory at this point now. And I support that what the RepSF is also advocating for looking into. And in terms of the Ellis Act and looks like RepSF is also you know, there's RepSF and supervisor Melgar and also supervisor Chen are aligned in that. It seems like it seems like it. And in terms of also in discretion of the you know, to put the intention that whether this going to be demolished or the disclosure to to demolish. In terms of the the buyouts as laid out by rep SF, that's also needs to yeah. It seems like these are all the things that's going to that needs to be amended as well. The harassment again, the issue of the harassment has been ongoing for how many years? And this is something that needs to be addressed. And and I support 100 support on what Rep SF is advocating for on this harassment when it comes to 10 tenant protection ordinance. Many of the eviction or displacement issue is actually because of harassment. And those are so, again, the the demo the demolition definition, I think we should start again looking into that. I would love to have other commissioners for us looking into that and how we go with that process and how we reconsider that process as well, to make sure that when we're going through the idea of of or categorizing what definition of demolition is, that we're always in mind as well the the protections of tenants at this point too. Because in the last decade too, there has been a lot of rent evictions. And and, again, this is we need to uphold the type the definition of that where we make sure that the tenants are or the previous tenants are are going to be protected and and lower or hopefully no more rent evictions. Those and one thing too that the I know the direct groups by we we got the letter from CCDC, META and YCD in terms of the priority equity geography, which they you know, they're strongly mentioning to not require demolition within the priority equity geography. And and so that's something that should also be discussed. I believe that supervisor Chan also mentioned about no demolition of rent culture under the local program, but I think it goes beyond what the CCDC meta is trying to say too in terms of, like, not requiring demolition within the priority equity geography and also requiring enhanced relocation assistance beyond forty two months, and also adopting the objective design standards. These are really good. I hope this, you know, changes or should also consider these things as well within the priority equity geography. I even though the family zoning plan rests more on the on the West Side, I owe you know, the the East Side will also still feel the changes when it comes to the state laws. And so, you know, I think citywide should should be protected. So these are kind of my comments. And, again, I I feel like this is going the right direction. And I hope that, you know, I hope the community stays strong in pushing for all of this. Thank you for supervisor for pushing us on this, and really listen to the community when it comes to the tenant protection ordinance. Thank you.

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

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: This is a really exciting day. It's great to see the tenant protection ordinance coming forward. And what's really exciting is I just want to kind of echo something that Commissioner Imperial said about how far this has gone. And I remember the first hearing we had on the earliest work on the on what is not the tenant protection ordinance, and it was so rooted in the minimum requirements of SB three thirty. And to see all the changes that we've made now at the local level, it's it's very exciting. This is a this is a great day. I don't want to make too extensive comments. I'll just say that I can really see in the amendments that have been put forward by supervisor Chen and then also supervisor Melgar, I'm seeing that there is a lot there are a lot of issues raised by Rep SF and other SFADC and other letters we've received that are really being addressed through those amendments. And I'm happy to see that. I have no concerns. It was good to see the Ellis Act kind of five year look back for identifying tenants and then tightening those disclosure requirements for the buyout agreements.

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: And

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: so it's great to see that those are being incorporated. That has my absolute support. I think one thing that I do wanna bring up is that I can see the logic when it comes to the conditional use authorization threshold. And this is still a bit of a moving target, and I appreciate I thought it was very sensible to take the three mandatory aspects of those criteria and say, no, you just have to do those. That was something when I saw that coming forward from the community too, I said, yeah, of course. And so that leaves the nine. And I think I would just say one thing in contrast to Commissioner Imperial. It makes sense to me to go from 80% to 70% in those criteria when we are reducing them so much. If they go to nine, and then with the staff recommended modification, it goes to eight. And I do support the staff modification of kind of merging two of those criteria in order to support smaller ownership projects. However, I think that there is still plenty of room to figure out what works there. And so I support the basic direction that's going and finding the right threshold. What the number needs to be also kind of depends on the mix of those criteria in the end. But to me, it makes sense to reduce a little bit just because the number of criteria has gone down so much. And then, let's see here. Oh, and then on the definition of demolition, I I really appreciate the case studies that the department brought forward. It's good to see how, with the change to the surface area, we are catching more projects. And with that 50% definition, we're catching more projects. I guess my one question is would be maybe to staff, actually. You know, what what what's the there's some discussion about whether the 50% threshold is the correct threshold, and I'm curious if there's any other light you can shed on how we got to 50%.

[Malena León Ferrera, Senior Planner, SF Planning]: Yeah. You know, with this change, what this change does is already reducing those thresholds in a way. Right? Like, that's sort of the effect it's having as you can see with the the examples. And I just wanna make a correction. In the examples, I analyze you know, this is changing it to square footage. In their front and rear is linear linear feet. My assumption is that if you're removing that linear feet, you're removing the whole area going up. It does still we still analyze some of those and they still trigger the demolition when you look at square footage. And for the corner lot that's there, it still trigger the demolition, the new demolition definition. So this new demolition definition in a waste is having the effect of reducing thresholds. Right? It's already catching a lot more projects and having the effect that we want, which is to characterize projects that are making major alterations as demolitions. Going beyond 50% could potentially put us in a situation where someone just altering their own home would trigger a CUA, like someone genuinely just trying to improve their house. We also heard in the West Side that people want support to be able to build more housing intergenerational housing within their units, and our concern would be that making the thresholds too low might hinder their ability to add more units or to add intergenerational units there. So I I I think if we wanted to go lower, I I I would suggest we analyze what the effect of that would be such that we're not triggering projects that really we don't wanna trigger as a demolition and force people who should not be forced into a CUA to go through a CUA process.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy/Acting Planning Director]: I would also add, you know, this is our first step to commissioner Imperial's point on addressing this topic in a long time. Yeah. And we can always come back and address it again. So we can try this out. We're we're not having a ton of development right now, but we can look at projects that do start coming in and understand, you know, how we've gotten it right. And if we haven't, we can we can come to you all with further adjustments.

[Malena León Ferrera, Senior Planner, SF Planning]: Yeah. And we feel like this is a really positive change. I mean, the analysis shows they'll catch a lot more projects. It's simple to understand both on the project sponsor side and on the on the planner side. The previous option gave two different options of people having playing with the numbers in a way, and it required a lot of back and forward between staff and the project sponsor. It was hard to conceptualize, and then it ended up causing that some of these projects that should be demolitions were not being considered demolitions. It also starts sort of shaping buildings in a different way. Right? Because if you sort of wanna blow out the rear to extend your building, then you're already at 50% probably. And if you wanna go up, you're already at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at at step in the right directions, and the the enforcement staff made some changes that also strengthened this, like the I don't know if you saw, but on the second page, like, including the creation of an open connect sorry. No. That's on mergers. Where an existing and stair open opening is in field, that shall be considered the demolition. So I feel like the changes we made is is just catching projects better

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: Okay.

[Malena León Ferrera, Senior Planner, SF Planning]: If that makes sense.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: No. No. Thank you very much for that explanation. And and like I said, you know, seeing the the examples that were analyzed, it was helpful. And and I'm comfortable moving forward with the current, staff recommended modification to the definition of demolition. But I I think it does merit paying a lot of attention given, as as has been said, you know, we are that becomes incredibly important when it comes to thinking about, what triggers the tenant protection ordinance protections in some cases. Okay. So that's those are all my my comments and questions. And I would just say, you know, I I support absolutely support the legislation with with the department recommendations and with I'm, you know, in support of all the amendments I've heard so so far as well. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: This has this is one of the most massive collaborative efforts I've seen in a long time. It has pretty much happened behind the scenes, and I'm blown away by the results that you all have created. The list of thank yous, which you put on the screen, I'll echo every name. I will not repeat it, but I want to call out one person, and that is my colleague, and Commissioner Imperial. I do want to thank you for holding up the flag so high. I really appreciate it. Yeah. Kenneth, do you not hear me? Oh, I'm so sorry. Thank you. It was a personal comment. Yes. I appreciate it I appreciate what my fellow commissioners are are pointing out, and I wanna drill down on two particular points as question, as suggestion, all in support of what I've heard today, including the amended suggestions for further examination and expansion of, what is in front of us. I have heard from multiple people speaking today the importance of the demolition controls to sharpen and expand protections. And I believe that through the many years that I've watched demolition sitting here, and fighting and not responding as a commissioner to the challenges that miss Shulish posed for probably more than ten years now, week in, week out, begin, week out with examples and exact pointing out deficiencies in calculating, I like to add to the list for the department to look back on 214 State Street, 655 Alvarado, 310 Montclair, 49 Hopkins, 4118 21st Street, and the list goes on. Those are older projects, but they really hit home of what was possible in terms of calculation, including people finding ways to create demolitions which were not traceable because of the difficulty of pointing out exactly where the shortcomings were. And this commission has been challenged before to amend calculations, but we never had a perfect situation where we, as commissioners, had the real opportunity to do so. Actually, supervisors in the past have attempted to do so, and it never worked. Some of these supervisors are not with us anymore. They were of of people in the past. However, I would like to see that the department, together with Ms. Sudich and others, go back and perhaps reexamine the threshold because what we need to do is sharpen and expand on protections. Young community developers eloquently spoke to it, reps spoke to it, and I believe that this is a time just to spend that little extra time with people of experience, including perhaps asking Mr. Nikitas, who helped greatly in the past, to really lay out what the issues are, to take one more sharp look at it because this is a major part where weaknesses lie. If the department and everybody on the team is willing to do so, this is what I would strongly encourage. Something was said today which actually ran a chill down my back, and that is the importance of the expansion of harassment protection. Harassment protection is one of the most physical things one can think about, and to find metrics for that is even harder. I don't even know how people today address harassment. I do not know that. But I I know particularly as a person, I'm not sure if she's still here, spoke about her own experience in the when controlled unit in the Tenderloin where people showed physical and emotional consequences out of harassment. I believe that we need to spend a lot of attention to that very nonmeasurable piece of protection. Because once people have the effect of depression or ill health, I think there are almost non mitigable circumstances by which people are affected. That's why I believe I would ask the supervisor and everybody else who's working with this to help clarify of how these protections can indeed be codified and quantified. Overall, I hope that all questions that have been raised, all issues that need to be further examined still have a little time to find their way to settle down and be addressed. And under the leadership of supervisor Chen, I hope that we can fully deliver this new legislation for tenant protection in the very near future. Thank you very, very much. Thank you to everybody.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Thank you. Thank you, supervisor Chen, and staff, and the Planning Department for all your work on this very important legislation. I agree with pretty much everything that's been said, but it's not a joyous occasion for me knowing that there will be people impacted by this new state bill. There will be vulnerable seniors, people with disabilities that will be now legally kicked out of their homes. That's not something that I think anybody anywhere would be happy with. And so as much as I appreciate all the hard work that has gone into, the tenant protection bill, I me personally, there's I I come here today with with a heavy heart, because I understand the the the situation that the city the city legislature, are in because of the state mandates and restrictions on tenant protections. And it whatever we do, it won't be enough because we should not be demolishing occupied housing. Period. And, so, I mean, that's just a general comment that I want to get off my chest. But again, there's so many questions. This legislation is huge. There's questions that have come in from all over. But one of the things that some of the commissioners have touched on, the demolitions and the demolition calcs, I think, given the fact that we might be in for a lot more demolitions in the future and given given that we may be displacing residents, then I think we need to look at the demo calcs again. And I think we need to adjust them, further. And so I would be very happy to have that conversation. I think it's something that we'd all have to, to really look into. But I don't think anybody here, wants to see people getting kicked out onto the street because, because of a technicality or because we didn't look at something that was important, like the Democrats. And so that's one thing. There there's a question about the PEGs that was raised, in one of the letters, from CCDC. And, I think this is probably maybe more for the city attorney, possibly, and and I'm sorry I I wasn't able to to let you know ahead of time that I'm gonna be asking this question, or maybe a few. But as far as the the priority equity geographies, you know, can we require or is there room for additional demolition controls in those areas around the city? And I think that's the basic question that several community organizations are concerned with. And I was wondering what your thoughts are on that issue.

[Kristin Jensen, Deputy City Attorney]: Thank you for that question, commissioner. Deputy city attorney, Kristin Jensen. I'm not sure I understand though the sort of the context for your question. Are you asking whether under s b three thirty there's additional room for demolition controls?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Yes.

[Kristin Jensen, Deputy City Attorney]: Well, I think the sponsors have been talking to others in my office about Mhmm. Sort of what s b three thirty allows and doesn't allow. I haven't been part of those conversations. So I'm not sure if they've explored other options. But perhaps one of the sponsor's representatives could get up and and help us answer that question.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I I was just wondering, you know, because the city attorney has been, you know, instrumental in

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: all

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: of this. And, and I think it's it's something that we need to look at, given the fact that, again, that we're going to be there's a possibility that in these vulnerable areas where we have vulnerable communities, that they can possibly be getting displaced from their homes. And so, I think it's worth it to take a second look, especially in those areas, to see if the state will allow some extra protections. And so, that's why I'm asking you.

[Malena León Ferrera, Senior Planner, SF Planning]: I can say Thank you.

[Kristin Jensen, Deputy City Attorney]: It sounds like that would be a good question. And I think somebody else was about to jump in.

[Supervisor Cheyenne Chen (District 11)]: Yeah. It was a good question

[Kristin Jensen, Deputy City Attorney]: to send back to staff to look at.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy/Acting Planning Director]: Yeah. And and certainly, supervisor, or mister Tsiamas can can add more. I think on slide 10 kind of outlines the way this specific ordinance goes goes beyond as miss Leon Ferreira noted and adds additional protections for tenants here locally. This is, of course, in addition to all of the tenant protections we already have as a city, which many cities and

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: cities

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: don't have. I'm asking specifically for the the priority equity geographies.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy/Acting Planning Director]: In terms of adding additional protections in the

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: pegs? Yes.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Yes. Mhmm.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy/Acting Planning Director]: I think I I don't know if the supervisor we've looked at that specifically in part because there are quite a lot of protections for the PEGs, but we can certainly take a look as we continue to work if there are additional areas that folks are interested.

[Kristin Jensen, Deputy City Attorney]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I I mean, you know, get give again, given given everything that that we're looking at, I I think it is worth taking a second look. I I think it's a third look and even a fourth look if we have to if it if it means, saving somebody's home. And so yeah. And so I guess those conversations will we we can continue, And I'm sure the supervisor's office, it sounds

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: like

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: they're in agreement with that, and so I'm glad to hear that.

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: And

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: something else in in the letter that that, one of the letters that we received, from Meta and YCD and CCD, it was and it's around it's around s b 79. And and and and it says that, you know, it sets a floor for for for protections and that the that local standards can actually, excuse me, that San Francisco can exercise authority to ensure local standards reflect in our equity values and prevent future waves of displacement. Let's see here. Local jurisdictions. Oh, here it is. SB 79 further authorizes cities to adopt additional anti displacement policies targeted to vulnerable communities. Government code sixty five thousand nine hundred and twelve point one five seven and sixty six thousand three hundred point six. And then it goes on to say that San Francisco should exercise that authority to ensure local standards that reflect our equity values and prevent future ways of displacement. I know yeah. I I know SB 79 is a new law, but has anybody explored that in in in context of the the family zoning, plan, you know, going a little bit further as SB 79 allows? Or or how how is that how is it how is that gonna interact with with the family zoning plan?

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy/Acting Planning Director]: Thank you for the question. I know we're gonna come back, I think, in a week or two, a couple weeks, with SB 79 specific analysis and information so we can maybe, fold that answer into there because we wanna make sure we give you accurate answers, regarding kind of where that lets us go further and what the statute says. That said, you know, we continue and I think we have supervisor Chen and Melgar and others who wanna continue to advance more and more tenant protections. I don't think this is the last ordinance we'll be having on this topic Mhmm. Even though it's certainly a monumental one. So that's something we could we could look at and work with the supervisors and other offices to add

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: more. Absolutely. Thank you, miss Tanner, for that. I just, you know, I want to just emphasize that the more tenant protections that we can afford San Francisco residents, I think, given what we're up against, is appropriate. And I hope that my fellow commissioners feel that same way. There's a lot of vulnerable tenants out there. And it's it's actually very, very unfortunate that we're in this situation. I think our our our residents deserve a lot better than what they're being faced with here. And so I'm

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: going

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: to leave it there for now. I think I might have another question in me in a little while. Thank you.

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

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Great. Thank

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: you. I think I'm thinking a lot about this through the goals and objectives of the family zoning plan, which we're trying to incentivize densification and building of more housing. So, obviously, we wanna continue the tenant protections, but balancing that with the creation of new housing and increasing density. So I I sometimes I think about this as, like, when we do the ballot measures in California and we're reading the proposition and we're like, because you read the definition, you're like, of course, we want to do this, but we also wanna understand the impacts of it over here. And I guess I'm just thinking about it, you know, both economically and also with, like, some of our smaller builders in the city who are gonna try to do the right thing and wondering how the additional protections could impact, you know, in terms of, like, relocation assistance. That's more that's more dollars. It it's makes it more expensive to build a unit. And additional time also adds to the expense of building housing. So I guess I'm just wondering if so we make informed decisions here if we've done any sort of economic analysis or if we have any data on how these additional protections might impact our you know, the family zoning and the goals of the family zoning plan.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy/Acting Planning Director]: I think I'll offer and then, miss Leon Ferrer can add more if she'd like. I think that kind of thought is key in this discussion around, for example, the CUA findings and how many findings needed to get met. And I think the one case she was pointing out, a single family home becoming multifamily housing. That's kind of what we wanna see. Right? We wanna say, hey, it's just serving one household now, but it could serve more. And so ensuring that we're not sometimes we can we can have a lot of battle wounds and scars from from the negative things that happen to our communities, and that can lead us to over index for the bad actors. But then also we may we may inadvertently cut off what we wanna see. And so that's that balance that we're working to strike and that I know the supervisors will work together to to strike that balance of being able to have that happen. And what we hope will, I think, be some of the outcomes would be that what we see as terms of, housing that turns from maybe a single family home or duplex into more more homes, we also wanna push folks to look at sites like the vacant lot or, you know, the single story building. Right? And so I think that's part of continuing to to encourage that type of development on what we think of as opportunity sites versus someone wanting to demolish, you know, a large scale building that has lots of households in it or is is filled tenants. That said, we could do a little bit more analysis, and we haven't done, like, an economic analysis. We are mindful because we also have the context of not adding too many additional constraints to housing. And so, really, it's really about preserving existing housing versus adding a constraint to new housing. Again, finding that that balance between those things.

[Malena León Ferrera, Senior Planner, SF Planning]: Yeah. I also wanna add that the law does mention that, anyone who wants to demolish has to, comply with state relocation law, and that payment is called out on state relocation law. So in a way, we're just making it simpler where we're providing a formula. But if you read the ordinance, we're providing project sponsors three ways in which they can comply. They can offer substitute housing at prior rental rate. They can offer this payment or they can have an individualized plan that they come into an agreement with the tenant. This plan sorry. These amendments also don't move away the option of doing a buyout agreement. It simply makes sure that if they're gonna do a buyout agreement, that tenants are informed and that those buyout agreements satisfy all the requirements that the law locally says they must satisfy. So, yeah, I hope that's

[Lydia So, Commission President]: That's helpful.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you. The other sort of high level comment I have is just from through a legal lens knowing that a lot of aspects of the ordinance just raise a number of legal risks for the city. And as the supervisors take a closer look at it, specifically, the relocation assistant payments, the denial of demolition permits following owner move ins, and the denial of demolition permits following tenant harassment, that we're looking at it in a way that still sets the ordinance up for success from a legal perspective. And those are all my comments.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: I have one additional question for the supervisor or mister Seamus. When supervisor Melgar introduced the idea of codifying or putting three of the standards as mandatory in the CU process, she she suggested lowering it to 70%. And I think you yourself said, well, I am considering that, but, I'm also listening to people who wanna keep it at 80%. And I would personally voice my support to retaining the 80%, given the fact that, we all have experienced that it will be extremely difficult, particularly in the beginning of upzoning, to create as many credible protections and the highest degree of support for this legislation. So I would say that my suggestion would say supporting 80%. I'd like to make a motion because I do not see any other names. And although it is president Tso's thing, I would like to make a motion to adopt a recommendation for approval of these modifications, those which were already known when this package was issued, but also those which were read into the record today. I think there's still the same people who spoke today are already on the team, are already part of this collaborative work effort. So all I'm asking for is that that discussion continues a little bit longer till you are all together. You have done a remarkable job. So this is just putting it to record that I ask for continuing communication with each other.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Second. Okay. We have more. Commissioner wanted to have some comments. And Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I I just wanted to remind folks that I know that that there's some issues with the legislation and there could be challenges and things like that. But I would just say some things are worth fighting for in the courts, on the streets, and everywhere else. And protecting tenants and protecting people's homes is one of those things. I mean, in my view, this should be something that we all agree on. And so I would just I just want to kind of throw that in there. And I don't know if I said this, but I do I do I do, I am in favor of everything that the legislation has in it as far as, some of the the specifics. I think that, they're all variables of and getting to the same place, and hopefully that the supervisors can work those final details out. But I'm in agreement with most of what I see. So thank you again.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. Thank you. And Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: I'm in full agreement with everything I've heard today. I would really like to thank the community and every community based organization that came out here today that actively worked on all of this, the supervisors. Georgia, you're in here too. You're you're you're in the first couple of pages. And for the planning department who actually put it all together, And, you know, I'd I would I have to look at this as this is the entire community or the entire ecosystem actually working for the most vulnerable, and basically the good actors to be going forward for the city and county of San Francisco. So I wanna commend everybody here for that, and, the continued dialogue that's gonna go along will only make things better, but it's fantastic that everybody's on the same page here

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: today. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Just a really quick comment that I would like to share here is that I'm really strongly supporting the protecting tenants. No one should have to live in fear of harassment or displacement by irresponsible landlords. So these amendments that we're looking in today to the tenants protection ordinance are reasonable step forward toward this addressing those concerns. And I really applaud supervisor Chen and supervisor Melgaarts working alongside with our fellow commissioners, our team, and also with the local advocacy. Like, Commission Imperial mentioned that they are really truly the expert of this. And we see this long process. It's been I remember it was, like, eighteen months of working or way more than that. So I was really happy to see how response responsive to what we need today and for future. So thank you for that. And I also wanted to say that, this is not the end of the progress, And I really appreciate supervisors working closely with our mayor's office to to to to kinda create this so then everyone knows that things are more in alignment and we have a sense of more assurance for people who live in San Francisco. With that said, though, I do want to urge staff and our city attorney's office to work closely to make sure that we are in alignment we're in an alignment with, all these legal situation that we have to work with to make sure that the word that we put in is in alignment with the Alex Act. I I do, however, also hear some other sense of sentiment of thinking about this is that would this the changes could unintentionally really unintentionally, like, led to, more units being kept off the market in the long run.

[Rachel Tanner, Deputy/Acting Planning Director]: I think that's an interesting question, President Tsao. And, certainly, I think we heard testimony a few weeks ago during the family zoning plan from folks who were saying, you know, I'm a landlord, and it's challenging for me to rent my unit. And we need to kind of look at things from a different angle in their perspective. So I think there certainly could be some work there to understand that, and we do hope, I think, to hear from more stakeholders around, like, are there other adjustments that folks would wanna make? I think the intent I think the intent for all of us is to not have units be vacant. And that's certainly work we need to understand what would, you know, what would compel someone or or incentivize them to keep it vacant versus what would incentivize them to rent the unit out. I think I think it not just this ordinance, but generally speaking, if a property owner does wanna redevelop their their land, they may wanna have a vacant building, and not displace people, to be able to develop that building. And so whether this creates an incentive to have that happen on its own, I I don't believe that it does, but certainly reasonable people could disagree, you know, on that. And I think what's incumbent upon us is to make sure that we're efficiently processing our permits. We are having accountability to the laws that we have and and that everyone feels that it's fair and that and reliable, that we're enforcing the laws that we have and that they're clear, right, that people understand that. So, hopefully, we can do good work to communicate both to tenants and to property owners what are the rules, how can they follow them, how can they stay on the right any as many hiccups or challenges that could deter them from wanting to to rent their property.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Alright. Thank you.

[Malena León Ferrera, Senior Planner, SF Planning]: And Can I also add that, you know, this is being done in light of the family zoning plan and SB three thirty having all of these different rules? So I I think that while I understand that fear, that should not stop us from protecting tenants, you know, in light of these two things happening. And this ordinance does that.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely.

[Malena León Ferrera, Senior Planner, SF Planning]: And I think that's why we have all these look back periods and the proposed amendments, which aim to do some of that work as well.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. Thank you. Any more briefings or debriefing comments? I think we're ready to vote.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Very good, commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with said modifications. On that motion, Commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commissioner President Tsao?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Commissioners, that'll place us on item 12 for case number 2022Hyphen000112ENV for the Islayas Creek Bridge Project. Please note that the public hearing on the draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the draft EIR ended on 01/22/2024. Public comment will be received. However, comments submitted will not be included in the final EIR.

[Janet Ju, Property Owner (175 Margaret Avenue)]: I can't stop

[Liz White, Environmental Review Coordinator, SF Planning]: If we could get the overhead, please. Thank you. Good afternoon, President Tsao and commissioners. I'm Liz White, environmental review coordinator for the Azaleas Creek Bridge Project. The item before you is certification of a final environmental impact report or EIR for the project. The planning department issued a notice of preparation or NOP in May 2023, published the draft EIR in November 2023, and held a public hearing on the draft EAR in January 2024. We published the responses to comments, or RTC, document on 10/22/2025. This document responds in writing to all substantive comments on the draft EER received during the public comment period. Commissioners who were not on the commission when the draft EER was heard were provided the draft EER prior to publication of the RTC document. Now we're here asking for the planning commission to certify the final EIR, which consists of the draft AR plus the RTC. The draft motion to certify the AR is before you. I'll now give an overview of the proposed project. As shown in this image, the Islayas Creek Bridge is located on 3rd Street over the Islayas Creek Channel in San Francisco's Bayview neighborhood. The land uses surrounding the bridge are primarily industrial or commercial. In 2011, Caltrans assigned a national bridge inventory rating of 20 out of 100 or poor in terms of structural sufficiency to the Islayas Creek Bridge. The objectives of this project are to improve the bridge's resilience to sea level rise impacts, address the existing bridge's seismic and structural deficiencies, minimize construction related transit impacts, improve multimodal transportation safety, increase operational utility to muni light rail operations, ensure the bridge is operationally and structurally adequate for its entire design life, and provide a bicycle facility as part of the project that can eventually be incorporated into the city's bicycle route planning. The project would involve the demolition and removal of the existing bridge and the configuration of a new bridge, and the configuration of the new bridge would be similar to the existing bridge. The new bridge would accommodate a center 26 foot wide dedicated light rail light rail trackway, two travel lanes in each direction, and a new pedestrian and bicycle path on the bridge. The new bridge would meet current structural and seismic standards would be resilient to predicted sea level rise impacts up to the year 2100. Working within the city's existing right of way constraints, the new bridge's bottom and top of deck would be approximately four feet and three feet higher, respectively, than the existing bridge, accommodating for future future sea level rise. During the draft AR comment period, many commenters expressed concern about the Azaleas Creek Bridge's construction related transportation impacts. In response to public comments, public works modified the proposed bridge design to potentially reduce the project's construction duration by reducing project construction risks. This design was evaluated in the RTC as the preferred project variant. As shown on this slide, the preferred project variant proposes a a single span precast concrete adjacent box beams bridge. This design is accessible to more fabricators and contractors and would simplify construction activities, thus resulting in potential construction time savings. Under the preferred project variant, the bridge design would be closed to vehicle and pedestrian traffic for fifteen months as opposed to twenty four months. The preferred project variant would have generally similar physical environmental impacts to the proposed project analyzed in the draft AR and would not result in any new or more significant environmental impacts than those identified in the draft AR. The preferred project variant is proposed for approval today is proposed for is for the certification. Second, Public Works and SFMTA identified the development of a community engagement and mobility strategy to address rerouting plans around Islayas Creek Bridge and reduce effects to the mobility network for private vehicles, transit riders, and people walking and bicycling during construction. The mobility strategy identifies a public outreach component. The designation of a point point a point of contact during project construction, and development of context sensitive solutions and oversight during project construction. Now I'll review the proposed project's impacts and mitigation measures. The proposed project would have significant impacts to archaeological and tribal cultural resources, construction related transit delay, health impacts to off-site worker receptors at Fire Station 25, biological resources, and historic resources. Impacts to all other topics would be less than significant. The proposed project identified mitigation measures that reduce most impacts to less than significant. For example, mitigation measure MAQ3, requirements for off road construction equipment, would reduce significant health risk impacts to worker receptors at Fire Station 25 to less than significant levels, and the five biological mitigation measures shown on this slide would reduce significant impacts to less than significant. However, impacts to construction related transit delay and historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. A Caltrans evaluation of the bridge's historic significance determined that the bridge is eligible for listing in the National Register as an example of an art moderne style applied to the bridge. Because the bridge is a historic resource under CEQA, impacts to historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation as the project would demolish a historic resource. Regarding the construction related transportation impacts of the project, the draft AR identifies mitigation measure MTR one, reduced transit travel times for T 3rd Street and 19 Polk riders. The SFMTA is currently evaluating the exact measures that could result from implementation of this mitigation. Given that this evaluation is still ongoing and may be modified based on community input prior to being finalized, the project's potential significant construction related delays to t 3rd Street riders would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. During the RTC, the planning department modified mitigation measure MTR one to identify measures that could be implemented to reduce the potentially significant transit delay impact to the 19 Polk should the Illinois Street Bridge be fully or partially closed to general vehicle traffic to prioritize t third street transit substitute. Now I'll give an overview of the project's alternatives considered. The project team looked at a variety of different alternatives, including six alternatives that were considered but rejected due to infeasibility. Ultimately, two alternatives were carried forward for additional analysis. The first alternative is the no project alternative and would involve no demolition or construction of improvements to the Azleyes Creek Bridge. The second alternative is the preservation alternative, which would demolish the existing bridge and replace the bridge at the same elevation as the proposed project. This alternative would salvage, rehabilitate, and reinstall as many of the character defining features of the original bridge as feasible, including the control tower. The seismic retrofit of the control tower would also require a longer construction duration as well as more in water construction, increasing other impacts of the project. To wrap up, I'll briefly discuss the next steps for the projects, for the project. This slide shows the project's environmental review timeline that I mentioned earlier. Should the planning commission choose to certify the EIR today, the project will seek approvals from the director of public works and the SFMT board at subsequent hearings. In summary, the draft EIR and the RTC comprise the final EIR. The final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the department and provides decision makers and the public with information to understand the potential environmental impacts of the project, project alternatives, and mitigation measures. The department has determined that the addition of the preferred project variant as well as the modification made to MTR one do not change the conclusions of the EIR, do not reflect any new environmental impacts, and do not constitute significant new information that requires recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. The EIR complies with CEQA, the CEQA guidelines, and chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, and is adequate, accurate, and objective. We respectfully request that you certify the EIR. This concludes my presentation. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. With that, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this environmental impact report is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: So my day job as a union rep for the Carpenters Union. We're on 18th And 3rd where drywall went in this week, so the building's gone white on the inside and we're the other side of this building of this bridge. I heard correctly, it's 20% out of, out of a 100, the rating. It's unacceptable, and that was 2011. No. 2011, 2020 out of a 100?

[Liz White, Environmental Review Coordinator, SF Planning]: Apologies. Yes, commissioner, in 2011.

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: Right. So it's not getting any better in the last fourteen years. This bridge has to be replaced. It will be a two year delay and basically my new for the next my new the next two years, I will be having to get to the other side of it. So the little bridge on the side is gonna be open.

[Liz White, Environmental Review Coordinator, SF Planning]: At this time as in the, we identified a mitigation measure for to reduce, transit delay. And as part of that mitigation measure, there is, different menu of options for how transit could be reduced. It is possible that Illinois would be open but there is a possibility that in our mitigation measure we identified that it might be restricted to transit only. But again, SFMTA is gonna be conducting community outreach and that process hasn't occurred yet, so there's not a decision there. And I'll look to if there's anything else to add, Hava? Or

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: I ask because I think every concrete truck coming into the city uses that little bridge by way of cargo.

[Hava Cronenberg, Senior Planning Manager, SFMTA]: Yeah. That's actually correct. So currently, the 3rd Street Bridge, which is the one considering for replacement under this EIR, has about 5% of its traffic is heavy freight. Cargo that Illinois Bridge, my understanding is, was actually built specifically to deal with the cargo and freight associated with all the heavy industrial work that is just to the south. So correct. So sorry. And I'm Hava Cronenberg. I'm with SFMTA. I'm a senior planning manager, and I've been staffing this project with Public Works, and I'm grateful to be working with our planning colleagues today. As as Liz just explained, so my board will be hearing this topic and will be adopting findings as well. And as part of the next phase, our design phase, the MTA needs to understand from the public, the community, all the industries surrounding it, how we're best gonna manage mobility, both for the transit, which is the only impact that is known here in this environmental because traffic is not something part of our environmental documentation needs to consider. But we respectfully understand that we do need to think about it holistically. And so some of the choices that that the public will have to consider and that my board will have to choose ultimately is should we how should we best use Illinois? And so maybe it'll be transit only, Maybe it'll be transit and trucks. Maybe it'll be open. That's just not a decision we're we're ready to make today, but it is something we've certainly heard from others, including including whoever you're representing right now.

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: Right. But the the conference union will be the other side of Firehouse. Surely Firehouse Yes. 25 will have to you.

[Hava Cronenberg, Senior Planning Manager, SFMTA]: Yeah. So I mean, even when we restrict, we always allow for emergency vehicles. Emergency access is always of the paramount consideration.

[Peter Stevens, Build Affordable Faster California]: Great.

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

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I really appreciate the the modifications to the project and then the robust analysis of them that's included for addressing the significant unavoidable impacts on transportation circulation. So, you know, I don't think I often see a situation where, something happens where the design of the project changes so that you can shave time off the construction time line potentially, or at least the closure time line as part of the project. And then I also really appreciate that there's gonna be a community engagement mobility strategy, that that's gonna be done in partnership with the community because I could see this being very disruptive for the transit connection as well. Commissioner McGurray addressed some of the goods movement side of this and then and and construction vehicles. And then but to me, this idea of the train to bus connection that might have to happen at the bridge for a very long time, potentially, that was noted, that that is that seems like a really big challenge, and, you know, a lot of that connects to one of our priority equity geographies. So I'm glad to see both of these changes being added in here. And I felt the analysis is robust and that the response to comments was robust. And so I moved to certify the EIR.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Great. And, Commissioner Williams, you wanna comment?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Yeah. Why not? So this this bridge is on the it's on 3rd Street. It is it's part of 3rd Street. Right? And so what what what's the the timeline, like, the duration that it's gonna be closed? I I just kind of ballpark just trying to wrap my head around the bridge not being there.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: So we we did an additional analysis of the bridge closer for the in the response to comments. And it is on page. But, basically, we we did an additional analysis of the construction duration closure is oh, page two six. The bridge will be closed to most most for a total of fifteen months. It will be closed to transit for longer for up to twenty four months because after they open it to cars, they have to test the trains back and forth on it to make sure there's no issues with the new tracks. So that will be delayed a few additional months. Mhmm. But we have looked at it further, and we've determined that the the full closure to all modes is reduced to fifteen months.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Fifteen months. And then, as far as, like, community engagement, it it I mean, this is obviously, it's gonna be impact this area tremendously. It's that's the main corridor, 3rd Street. Yes.

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: And so

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: just because I I I read through some of it. I don't unfortunately, I don't have the the the the comments to the, or to say the, response to comments. Thank you, commissioner. In front of me, it's it's pretty thick. And so, but my my question is, how is the community, you know, surrounding community, how are they dealing with with the fact that or what what what kind of what kind of conversations have you guys had as far as with the community and and the impacts that that are going to be caused by by the closure. Just and I know that's a lot there, but I just kinda just to get a real quick preview. What what what are those conversations been like and who have you had them with?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Well, I will we did do a lot of outreach for the EIR. But I'll turn that over to my coworker, Thomas Reutman, PM for Public Works. He and my other colleague, HAVA, have been doing a lot of outreach in the community. So they can

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: And it doesn't have to be extensive. I just kind of You

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: want to respond?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: For the public to understand briefly what's been talked about and with who.

[Thomas Reutman, Project Manager, SF Public Works]: I can respond to that.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Thank you.

[Thomas Reutman, Project Manager, SF Public Works]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Thomas Reutman with San Francisco Public Works, the project manager for the project. I have heard exactly the comments that you've just mentioned echoed in community outreach activities. We've we've been to approximately 10 different community organizations in the Bayview area to introduce the project and share and be upfront about the impacts that we we know are coming. And we have heard feedback that that's obviously not welcome, the extra disruption and, the the transit impacts. And we've we've listened, and we've, been working closely with my MTA counterparts, HAVA and planning department, we've, we've explored how can we acknowledge and address those concerns. We're sympathetic to it and, you know, I wish there were a way that we could build the bridge off-site and plop it into place and have very little impact, but with the just the constraints of the project, it's not possible to do that. But we've looked at ways to introduce creative ways to reduce that impact. For instance, building components of the bridge off-site so that we can shorten that downtime by minimizing the time from when we turn it off to when we bring the new bridge in into service again. The transportation aspect has been studied carefully, and we're looking, as Hava just mentioned, to do more iterative engagement with the community and how we can maximize the transportation alternatives to reduce the impacts. Our intention is obviously not to impact businesses negatively, and that's why we're doing this comprehensive planning effort to try to do everything we can to minimize the inconvenience during construction. And we're we're viewing this and hoping that the community views this as a a once in a lifetime opportunity to make a major improvement to the infrastructure that sorely needs it there. And we're hoping that the community and businesses come along on this journey with us to and then enjoy the benefits of it for many years thereafter. I can allude to the groups that we've met with if if you'd like to know. I let me see. I wrote that down. So some of the groups we've met with are the Economic Development on Third Community Group, the Southeast Community Facility Commission, the Bayview Hunters Point, Citizens Advisory Committee, BRITE, which is, Bayview residents improving their environment. We've attended the Ports Southern Advisory Committee. Let's see. The Dogpatch Neighborhood Association, the Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association, and the CCDC. And also recent most recently, the, the Bayview Alliance. So we met with these groups, over the past eighteen months. And anytime that, we have any updates or advances to the project, we share it with the district supervisor as well. And anyone that's signed up for updates from our project website will get notified about the updates.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I really appreciate the thoroughness of your outreach. I think that it's very important. Again, it's a very tricky place to have that bridge replaced, you know, given its central location to that community. And so good luck.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: And

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: Okay. Awesome.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: My you know, I think All those concerns are, you know, are very important. And it's good that we continue to highlight them because there's folks that we need to consider, all the people and organizations and businesses and etcetera that, that rely on people coming through. And so, again, I just I just want to appreciate the conversations that you guys are having with the community. That is that is so very important to build trust.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: And Great.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: I think that's it. Awesome. I think that's it.

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: But

[Lydia So, Commission President]: I wanna say something, can I? Okay. You when you're done. When you're done. Only when you're done.

[Malena León Ferrera, Senior Planner, SF Planning]: Okay. Alright.

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: I had this luxury to kind of seeing this evolution of this project from being on the Historic Preservation Commission, this bridge. You have to we have to make sure that it is addressing the sea level rising concern. And then I as I serve on the SFMTA board of directors, I got briefed on the important necessary to upgrade the tracks and the ability to have to really elevate this bridge to address our sea level rising. And I believe MTA, DPW worked really closely together on this for at least three or five years. And I really appreciate it today. Our staff brought you here with us, and thank you for Lisa's team. Always have a really great presentation. What I think that the only concern I have is really is not our jurisdiction, but we it is yours, is to make sure that the community actually do have equitable access back to the city. As highlighted by the MTA staff here, it's that is the only connector back to the city. It's number 15 and the T line. So public awareness and also being informed of how to alleviate these concerns of basically inequitable access, right, to their to get to their job, to get to their school is very important. I I trust that you have a lot of robust communication staff to to really, continue to do more, if not already have done, to to make that really aware of anything we can do. If we can be helpful, call us back. But I'm all supportive of this, and thank you for doing such amazing job for this report.

[Thomas Reutman, Project Manager, SF Public Works]: Yeah. Thank you for those comments. I appreciate it.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Yeah. Thank you. And I think we're ready to vote. Or yeah. It yeah. Someone had already motioned. Right?

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. There is a motion that has been seconded. Perfect. So commissioners on that motion, which has a second, to certify the environmental impact report. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. Commission President Soh?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Commissioners, that'll place us on the final item on your agenda today, number 13, case number 2025Hyphen001217CUA at 175 Margaret Avenue conditional use authorization.

[Heather Samuels, Planner, SF Planning]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Heather Samuels, planning staff. The item before you is a request for a conditional use authorization at 175 Margaret Avenue to allow for the removal of an unauthorized dwelling unit. The unauthorized unit is located on the Ground Floor and basement of an existing two story single family dwelling. The unauthorized unit is currently vacant and was last occupied in 2023. In 1994, the property owner rented the entire home to a tenant who, around 2011, constructed the unauthorized unit and rented it to subtenants without the knowledge or consent of the property owner. When the original tenant independently vacated in 2022, the owner discovered the subtenants and completed an Ellis Act eviction and buyout in 2023. The owner then filed an application with the department to remove the unauthorized unit and resolve existing code violations. The project proposes to restore the property to its authorized single family use, which is permitted within the RH 1 zoning district. The proposed work includes the removal of a kitchen, restoration of the one car garage and storage area, and conversion of a ground floor room into a media room. If the property were to instead legalize the unauthorized dwelling unit, significant alterations would be required, including the renovations to the kitchen, living area, and bathroom. Additionally, they would need to either remove the interior stair and basement rooms or bring those areas into code compliance by providing adequate floor to ceiling height and constructing a code compliant stairway. Because only portions of the unauthorized unit failed to meet height requirements, the project would not qualify for an exemption to the conditional use requirement. The department supports the project to remove the unauthorized unit on the basis that the project meets our findings per planning code section three seventeen and that the property owner has established good faith effort in correcting unauthorized work. Lastly, to note, the department has received no letters in opposition or support for this project. Thank you for your time. This concludes my presentation. The project team has a short presentation themselves, and afterwards, we will be available to answer any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you. Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Serena Calhoun, Architect (Project Sponsor Representative)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Serena Calhoun. I'm a local architect, and I'm here representing the owners of the property at 175 Margaret. With me also is Justin Goodman with Zacks Friedman for any questions you have about the tenancy questions and issues. As, Heather mentioned, well, she did a great job. This is not a problem of our clients' making. The tenant the the master tenant of the whole house moved someone into the garage, added a cooktop, no oven, no heater, and let them live there without notifying the, the owner that this was happening. And when he moved out of the building voluntarily, he left this tenant behind and a host of concern, obviously, That tenant began filing violations for things like no heat, broken water heater, unsafe deck in the back. We came on to try to solve those problems and obviously didn't see there was there was no full kitchen. There was this head height issue going to the basement that Heather mentioned. There was the unsafe deck. The garage doors just had plywood put on the inside of it. There's no heat. It's a really not a habitable space. And now my client, the elderly mother who owned the building has since passed and her daughters have now inherited this problem. They've spent tens of thousands of dollars in permit, architecture, engineering, and legal fees trying to deal with this issue. And so we are here to ask that you support the removal of this illegal dwelling unit, as recommended by planning staff. And if you have any questions for Justin, do you wanna jump in? Oh, sure. You have some stuff? Thank you.

[Justin Goodman, Attorney (Zacks, Freedman & Patterson PC)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. And thank you for this opportunity to speak. And as miss Calhoun said, said, I'm happy to answer any questions you have about the legal background of this. I was going to speak a little bit on the history of the tenants tenancy, but obviously, planning staff and miss Calhoun have addressed that. So I'll just narrow my comments to a more pointed one about the Ellis Act specifically. I echo Ms. Calhoun's statements that this project meets all the criteria for conditional use approval. But we also think it would be appropriate for the commission to find that this is entirely exempt given that the property invoked her rights under the Ellis Act. And the merger provision in question here is actually preempted on this issue by the Ellis Act. On that point, first, an identical provision just, ordered differently in Section three seventeen was already invalidated in the 2016 case, SFAA versus CCSF. The current version of the Chen legislation, Line 11, actually seeks to delete that. It's, 37.9 a 13 of the rent ordinance. And you'll you'll see in in that provision that's actually edited out and presumably for that reason just to clean up the legislation a bit. Second, the legislative purpose of section three seventeen is to preserve existing housing, identifying it as the greatest stock of rental housing. But the downstairs space in question here, it was never rental housing on its own. The owner, the current owner's mother leased an entire integrated single family home, and it was that tenant who made a separate segregated space without her knowledge or consent here. When you rent property, what you're doing is creating an exclusive right of possession for the tenant as against the landlord, landlord for an identifiable space. And the identifiable space here was the single family home. When she discovered that something had changed, something about the tenant's use of this property, she invoked the Ellis Act. And the Ellis Act exists in part to free landlords to confer an absolute right to exit the rental market and not to be entangled with a tenant's particular, use in this context. To find an unauthorized dwelling unit here on these facts would be to compel the owner to create additional housing units to support San Francisco's tenant population. But this property is no longer rental property because of the invocation of the Ellis Act. For these reasons, we ask that you find the project exempt or alternatively defined that it meets the criteria. And, of course, again, I can answer any questions that the commission has. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. If that concludes sponsors' presentation, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Amor?

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: While the story seems very clear, the circumstances seem somewhat unusual given the length of time that there is a tenant who, has rented this house for twenty eight years. And, it is for thirteen years that he kind of was able to hide from the owner that he had this, UDU sublease profiting or deriving income from this very unusual situation. I have never lived in a rental situation where the owner didn't come by at least every six or eight months because there are inspections for whatever, smoke detector or whatever, all those regulatory things are that tenants are not responsible for, but owners

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: are responsible for, not to talk about intermittent

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: repairs which occur in responsible for not to talk about intermittent repairs which occur in any kind of situation. So it is really only just very unusual preamble to what we're asked to do today. Because once the owner discovered that there was a, illegal sublease, he would take it on with a tenant. That would be the first, order of recourse, including penalizing the tenant because the tenant illegally derived income that was hidden from the owner. I I try to understand that part. What physically is happening with the U UDU is a completely separate issue for me. It is the circumstance, the framework in which is, of course, which I personally do not understand. I could ask the applicant. I could ask miss Wadi, who's always very facile in seeing these kinds of unusual irregularities. Miss Wadi, what is your take?

[Unidentified Planning Staff]: Our take is that this this situation, the property owner had no idea that there was a second unit that was built. So, I mean, I think, you know, to the best of our knowledge, that seems sincere. The when these issues were raised, as Serena mentioned, they came in, they hired an architect to deal with the violations that that illegal tenant sort of called in upon themselves effectively of, you know, the deck, the other issues, the lack of heating, that sort of thing. It sounds like the property owner at that time hired an architect to try to resolve these issues, and it was at that time that they dug in. I don't know if the property owners, the now property owner and Serena can maybe opine as to why the property owner didn't actually walk walk the property and and see that this was going on for so many years. I don't know if they were out of state or not in the area or what that relationship was, but I think from a planning department perspective, we do look at UDU removals very, very closely. These are not proposals that we take lightly. We did feel in this circumstance that the property owner was not at fault for creating the UDU. Oftentimes, we see the scenario of, you know, the property owner themselves has profited and now they wanna remove it, which is clearly not the instance here. And so we felt in this situation, all of the tenants are no longer there, so there's not sort of a human impact anymore at play here. And so we felt it was appropriate to enable the facilitation of this very, very small single family home being restored to a single family home.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: I was never trying to imply that the property owner orchestrated this particular issue. It is just very unusual, and I appreciate miss Callan being actually on the job establishing the credibility of the applicant relative to this incident, which is in itself highly unusual.

[Janet Ju, Property Owner (175 Margaret Avenue)]: Hi. My name is Janet Ju. I am the current owner of the property. I can speak a little bit about that. Both my mom and dad are immigrants to The United States, and their English just wasn't great. And this is the first house that they bought, and they were able to rent it out after they were able to buy another property. So because of sort of this long term tenant that we had, we had a lot of trust in them. They always gave us rent on time. We never had any reason. Anytime that there was anything that needed to be done, they had fixed it. So a lot of times, we just sort of let them do what was needed because they were sort of my parents didn't speak a lot of English, you know, and I was younger at that time. But since then, both my parents have passed. So I would just really hope that you guys would favor us in making this a single unit family home again. Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Let me say that I truly appreciate your being here, and my condolences for the passing of your parents. This is indeed an unusual story, and I am fully convinced that what you are saying is correct. I hope that your parents will not get compensation for the costs you were incurring now incurring now in order to get this straightened out. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: You have further comments?

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: No. I do not. The the case is very clear, and I am in full support for approving it with conditions.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. And commissioner Imperial? Thank you, commissioner Moore,

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: in inquiring about the situation. And, you know, although I'm not usually definitely not a big fan of Ellis Act, but it seems like this, you know, this particular situation is entirely unique and totally understandable from the from the project sponsor. You know, there are times also, I have my personal experience as well where the landlord does not really come to the to the housing or, to the unit, especially if you are renting a single family home. And I have one experience where a landlord and has a tenant that created also the same situation in it. But the good thing is that they're friends. But but in in this situation, you know, again, I I'm fully support, and I'd like to make a motion with approval with conditions.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Second.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. Great. I think we have one more commissioner who wanted to comment on it. It's Commissioner Williams, and then we're ready to vote. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. I just wanted to kind of weigh in that this is an unusual situation, And I just wanted to comment that you mentioned that your tenant fixed things. I'm sure you were very surprised to see he went beyond the pale and really fixed up the property downstairs. Am I right in assuming that the garage is part of this, what was built out? Right? And so when this if this gets approved, and then that will become the garage again. Right? Okay. You know, I'm not really in favor of getting rid of housing. I know tenants are gone, and this is an unusual circumstance. And so I think that been that threshold's been met. And so I'm in support.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Yeah. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Alright. Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry?

[Anna Christina, Rep SF Coalition]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero and concludes your hearing today.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. Meeting is adjourned.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Thank you.