and this with the last hearing for that. because this legislation will make it so that the default is at good housing projects get approved. thank you. [applause]

good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, june 29, 2023. 2 enable public participation sfgovtv is streaming live we will receive public men for each item of each speaker allowed up to 3 minutes you will hear a chime at 30 seconds left. when time is reached your time be up and i will take the next person. public comment in person in city hall first and then the remote access lineful for those call nothing to mitt testimony. call 415-554-0001 then access

code: 2592 095 1637## wait for the item you are speaking to which enter star 3 to raise your hand to speak. you will hear a prompt, you have raised your hand to ask a question wait until the host callsow. when you are unmuted you may begin speak. call if a quiet location and mute the volume on your device. in person lineup on the right.

speak clearly and slowly and state your name for the record. now i would like to take roll president tanner. >> here. >> vice president moore. >> here. >> commissioner braun. >> here. >> commissioner diamond. >> here. >> commissioner koppel. >> here. >> first is consideration of items for continuance item one, 1111 california street a cu authorization for continuance to july 13 of 23. item 2 for 2574 union street a dr has been with drawn. further underwented your consent calendar, item 6 for 11 franklin

street unit 604 a cu is indefinite continueians. and also item 7555, ninth for continuance. >> item 15, a cu authorization request being a continuance to september 7 of 2023ir have no other items for continuance. members, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the items proposed for conticontinuance.

public comment on the continuance is closed and now before you. >> thank you. motion on the continuance calendar. >> move to continue all items as proposed. >> second. >> thank you on the motion to >> commissioner: braun. >> aye >> commissioner am diamond yoochl aye yoochl imperial >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. moore, tanner. >> aye. >> this motion passes sick-wherevero. placing us urn consentful all matters here institute consent considered to be routine by plan and may be acted upon by a vote of the commission of there will not being discussion a member of the commission issue public or staff requests it shall be remove friday consent and considered as an operate item.

items 3, pon prosper a c u authorization. item 4, 580 minna street adoption. findings. item 5, 1100 franklin unit 304 a cu authorization, item 6 and 7 have been continued. members of the public had is your opportunity to request that any of the items taken off of consent. are you requesting that item 3 for prosper be pulled off. >> we doll that. and hear that at end of the agenda or beginning. >> do it let me look at the gone. we should do it after the

legislation. >> we will hear item 3 after the constraints legislation. which is the first item on the regular calendar. >> any other member wish to remove the other items off of consent? this is your opportunity to do so. commissioners? seeing no members requesting to speak. upon item 3 has been pulled off of consent. 6 and 7 have been continued leaving 4 and 5 for your consideration on consent. >> commissioner moore. >> move to approve 4 and 5. >> second. thank you of that motion to approve 4 and 5, commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner upon diamond. why aye >> commissionerim ral. >> aye >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye yoochl commissioner tanner. >> aye >> that passes 6-zero.

the land acknowledgment. ramaytush ohlone acknowledgement the planning commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples this evening thank you. thank you. upon adoption of draft minutes june 15, 20 tea the joint hearing with historic preservation commission. i issued an amended version history that had corrections commissioner moore identified. members of the public this is

your opportunity to address the commission on millions from june 15th. if you are in the chamber call forward if you are calling in remotely press star 3ch >> seeing no requests public comment is closed and they are before you. >> thank you. >> do we have a motion or comment on the minutes? >> commissioner braun wrochl move to adopt the minutes. >> thank you, on that motion to adopt the minutes commissioner braun >> aye >> commissioner diamond. >> aye >> commissioner imperial. >> aye >> koppel. >> aye >> commissioner moore. >> aye >> commissioner upon pedestrian tanner. >> aye >> that passes sick-zero. item 10 commission comments and questions. >> commissioner moore. >> i wanted to share the enthusiastic i heard in the board of supervisor's meeting the other day [inaudible] purchased the oasis a family

housing shelter and extend today to be a permanent housing shelter with the providence partnership. thank you to the activism of the community, thank you to supervisor preston and everybody else who participated. a remarkable achievement and shows what real good activism can achieve. the other thing that disturbed me a bit and everybody has been reading the city san francisco reclassifying the low income lever to be 105 thousand dollars a year. will put i burden on us on how to think about housing. i wanted to thank planning staff last week we had a tour of planning department and over view what the planning career field is like for the presidio

bay project. give a shout out [inaudible]. alex wesley and to julia and the staff and student his a great time. a group rising seniors and early college age folks. [inaudible] including the planning profession thank you for make time other comments or questions? we with move to department matter bunkham director's announcements. >> nothing from me. >> thank you. >> item 12 past events at the board well was no board of appeal's hearing or the historic preservation did not meet yesterday >> good afternoon aaron starr lithe affairs it has been awhile since i presented. all the land use committee not met for the past 2 week. since i last presented the nonconforming public parking

lots in the mission for the casement bar passed the second read. land mark for the castro pass in second recommend commercial adaptive reuse for revitalization passed second read. landmark designation for the church of the fellowship of all peoples passed at second read. the awning amnesty program by the mayor and supervisor supervisor peskin, stefani and chan passed. >> this week at the board 3 appeals ceqa and cu for 1151 washington street. and the cu appeal for 3832, 18th street. the project on washington proposed to utilize the density program existing single family dwelling and construct a 4 story buildings with 10 units on april 20 the commission approved this project. regarding the ceqa appellates argue it is in the eli didn't believe for class 32 exemption

due to unusual ss related shadow. no one soil contamination. geotechnical issues, fire department access and construction to air quality. considered the site location uphill a jaycent to the rooek center to be unusual circumstance and our practice of looking at shadow impacts for project it is over 40 feet in height. >> the department of public health explain site mitigation plans wloo the measures adequate given adjacent to the play ground and occurrence the contammy nanlts present on the property. the board raised the issue of emergency access and agreed as the project create an unusual circumstance for fire access due to the long shape of the parcel and the access provided on a narrow 5 foot wide path way.

4 comments in support appeal. comments focussed on shadow impacts. the hazzard materials and fire department access concerns were mentioned. 11 in support of the project. comments on the need for housing concern about interest in consequences if the appeal were upheld. some noted that the new shadow in the park should be balanced with need for housing and shadow should not precleveland development. the board upheld the ceqa appeal and reversed the exception. the department will review to determine the path forward and discuss the next steps for the experience. >> the appeal was upheld. that appeal hearing was tabled the board denied the appeal for 18th street and up held the planning approval the project. this was a state density bonus

project include a cu for modifications to previous approved demolition of existing 2 story single family residence denial and construction of sick story residential building with 19 housing units the cu authorization had been appealed for a second time after the approval on april 20 of this year. >> project subject to notice of violation from department of housing. staithe the city denied the height waiver to have 5 store and hes not allowing 6. that's all i have i'm happy to answer questions. if there are no questions we can move on to yes or no public commentful members may address on items of interest to the public in the jurisdiction of the commission except agenda

items. agenda items the opportunity to speak will be when the item is roached in the meeting. each member may address the commission up to 3 minutes. when 15 minutes are reached general comment may be moved to the education of the agenda. >> i'm jerry drat ler i sent mayor and board e mail subdivision 13 units to 32 units on alemany boulevard. have you a calm of that. the project has been brought to the public's attention by upon 11 million dollars lawsuit filed by the city attorney against the developer.

the illegal construction at 320 alemanyy is similar to the illegal construction at san bruno. illegal construction balance 've witnessed is possible the city has weak internal controlless. dbi building inspectors did not enforce the code. permits improperly issued. the sprinkler permits for the 4 building between 2006 and 8 were never inspected or finaled by dbi. in 2022, the city attorney general task force issued new noise of violation and planning department notices of enforcement for rilagzs first identified 14 years ago. this begs the question where were the nov's and noe's

improperly closed. planning issues notice of enforce am for the illegal conversion in each 4 building in 2009noe was improperly close in the 2010 and 4 new noe's issued by the planning department in 2022. for the same violations. nothing has been done in the interim to correct this situation. how was this allowed to happen. what are the new controls necessary to prevent a recurrence. corruption in san francisco government continues to exist in 2023. city employees continue to commit similar illegal acts. public oversight should not be reduced until the city

implements internal controls that will prevent somewhere illegal construction. thank you. >> good afternoon. eric brooks representing local grass will roots group. our city and a new coalition. that has formed san francisco ceqa defenders. this is the first time i have been buffer since 20 then. but now i'm finally dufth off the covid dust on come become in. unfortunately, to scold. this is a previous item you approved in a previous meeting. the melgar engardio legislation to completely radically change the west side of the city and

allow 6 story buildings to be put up without environmental review. without community review. sweeping under mining of california environmental quality act access to nus san francisco. other problems with the legislation is that t creates another umbrella area plans that -- -- is like the redevelopment days back in the 40, 50, 60, 70, 80's, et cetera. we categorized wide sections of the city under one roof. say the requiremental impact report for that section is good enough. everything else within it is already gone through the ceqa review. and that's unacceptable the worse piece about the

legislation i wish hunot move today forward it allows condo conversions. the city has been opposing condo conversions for democracied. takes away rentals for affordable housing. sorry to start out negative it good to be back. to see your faces take care. good afternoon, commissioners. i'd like it have a few words on the inconvenience truth about demolitions the policy which is about the e vils of sing will family homes our single family homes truly a single unit of housing demolition is deemed necessary and desirability. the answer is, no.

locality take a look at the excelsior direct that is one neighborhood but i'm sure the numbers greatly apply to a lot of other neighborhoods such as the sunset and viz valley. bayview. so, in exelsior district single family homes have an illegal inlaw by the asian law caucus. controversy to planning data showed this neighborhood primarily made up of home ordinance. theeck cellsior is 70%. 70% tenabilities with half in illegal inlaw units. that's excelsior i mentioned, the numbers could apply to other neighborhoods with large single family modest homes such as the

sunset. if happens today developers fall to building type on their collaboration a single family with no illegal units. they hope they will not get caught special stlal to -- force the right for the tenants they evicted. the case with 249 texas and 7928 [inaudible] from. thanks to director hillous and mrs. gordon [inaudible]. they actually reversed the existence the nonexistence of a second you cans nit i'm grateful. these are only the tip of the iceberg they came to our attention because of the notification process. who knows how many of them fell

for the trap. >> the department's housing imvenn tory showed the majority of unit losses in 2018 and 19 were not single family homes they were 5 plus uniteds xh in like know 93% in 2019 were 3 plus units. so i have brought some -- charts and graphs. over head. please. i'm out of time you can grant me 10 seconds so people can see the startling and horrifying numbers. >> the graphics keeps on. >> you can see these numbers at

this time store. in 2019, for departments data 5 plus units were 85%. anyway, the point that i'm making is where is the racial and social justice if our housing policy are doing the opposite. majority of people in the units are not luxury condos. majority of people were with tenants that is your time. >> thank you. of i don't know much about it from when i understand the [inaudible] melgar propoedz legislation would curtail the environmental protection in the city. i want to tell you something, you have been you have the

[inaudible] for 150,000 to 190,000. they'll not want the involvement [inaudible]. may be i don't know if you listen to, my income does not exceed 15,000 a year. have you 1 where are 5,000 low income? it is not now it is no longer low income housing but affordable. i don't here the word gentification. that's what is happening in the city. somebody who has kids, grand kids and lived in the city for 30 years. i'm getting upset and tired. of how the board of supervisors and you guys so little respect in regard for the people who live in san francisco and i mean the poor people.

if there are no other members in the chambers. if you are, come forward. i'm lawrence, i'm comborn raised in san francisco. and i work with the homelessness. i [inaudible]. i go around the whole city and i asks 100 people in tents one question. it was, would you rather pay rent or sleep in a tent. 85% of the people rather pay rent. the thing is, they cannot afford rent. i call it [inaudible] in the tent it is. the reason why i daul that i did the survey with 100 people

and -- the question was raised. slope in a tent. the thing is they cannot afford what is on a fixed incriminal i came up with a solution mine is that we start renovate abandoned buildings convert them to sro's. because i go around the city i ask a lot of people this run the apartment buildings. studio apartments are 3 thousand dollars a month or more. and it is ridiculous. now. i figure with sro. we convert the buildings and -- take one third of the people's check. because they can have [inaudible] 2-300 dollars for a studio. i think it is number one, [inaudible] number 2, tents and

people off the streets. and number 3 is why i call it putting a dent in the tent. so i mean, i'm born raised here. why should i make 6 figures a year to live in my city? you know. it is like enough of everybody. i did a survey it is for every homeless person in san francisco. there are 4 vacant places for the people. don't make no senseful does not give them [inaudible] alost people don't want to live on the street. if i can help the people that don't, let's do this. for real for real. that's all i have. you have a good day and happy fourth of july to everybody.

[applause] following up flam was said was impactful. the rent being so high hurts every person who rents. we are all more than half of the city rents and made for how height reasons are the way to bring it down is cheaper to build and building more. there suspect like you can wish all the want that rent will magically go down. when you create policy this make its hard to build and unnecessary bureaucracy and expensive and inconvenient and difficult or you are saying everyone in the city should be poor.

that is not a justifiable policy. everyone should have to make money or get out. those who make enough are making less that is what it come down to which every day when rent come it is a lot of money for almost every residence devenlt it is a hard thing buttics ifable thing. it feels it feels unjustified. seems like making things easier and making everyone richer like a no brainer policy. that's all. thank you. >> thank you. go to our remote callers.

this is sue hester. looking at the calendars there are changes to planning code for the july and in [inaudible]. i'm asking there is a lot of things they'll say they're initialled in -- i'm assuming a lot of things are on the agenda for adoption. please if 2 weeks [inaudible]. across the board. for all revisions of the planning code. because there is so many of them coming through now. and a lot of them are connected to we [inaudible]. gotta convert more neighborhoods. that is something that people understand. and what is the legislation

proposes. after august vacation you have a lot of things -- pc a's on there. all the minimum have 2 weeks staff respects. planning commission say today. and i would ask you to give very good clarification that is the new legislation on the ones coming through in july have staff members put on them, kwhat legislation is so people can link legislation if it is from the board of supervisors. if it is coming from planning

staff. it should be an issue and under hearing before the adoption hearing. thank you it is very important you will have one now [inaudible]. that is not a simple legislation. . i will leave that to [inaudible]. agenda. thank you very much. vikki. this is [inaudible] and call nothing regarding item 13. okay. if you are calling speaking to item 13 have you to wait untila matter is called. >> i thought we were now. i apologize. this is general public comment

at this time. >> this is renee, i'm a former bayview resident and family members live in san francisco and work and worship in the bayview. i am concerned with redevelopment and taking down ceqa, we need reenforce it. we need to clone up our environment and air. our quart. and our soil. for the future generation. follow the climate action plan that you set up. 2040 and 2060. look into protecting the environment as well as the homeless population that have no barriers from the elements. we need to look at ground water and sea level rise and all have

emergency plans for the buildings that are old. but also renovate them for the homelessness and real use, repurpose androus not plan on building but heeling. plan on finding ways to heel the community and repair the damage done. this evening final last call for

general public comment for items not on today's agenda. >> general public comment is closed. we can move on item 13. the constraints reduction, housing production ordinance. these are planning code and zoning map amendments for consideration. throughout chair each personal receive 2 minutes for public comment.

good afternoon aaron starr legislative affairs. the item which we called contrain's reduction ordinance part of mayor's housing for all narcoticive encourage housing production in san francisco. meant charges in this ordinance are called for in the housing element with out reach and input. the housing element out lines how the steal meet housing goals in the next 8 years. the city bill 2s,000 a year with neumannidate required construct over 10,000 a year. san francisco has the longest approval time. it is subject to appeal and delays. to reduce the time to approve

the housing element identified several items removing process to construction. this seeks to implement many of those programs as well as other changes ashize basic codes. this one piece of the process. the rezoning will increase heights and densities will be coming to you this fall. il pause my presentation so that lisa with the major's office can speak to the ordinance and also supervisor engardio who is cosponsoring. thank you. good afternoon. i'm excited to be here on behalf of the mayor's office to peek to this piece of housing legislation. and am i -- want to thank aaron for his hard work. i want to thank you for review thanksgiving legislation well is a lot in this item and a lot to

digest. and that's by design. this is i key part of the mayor's housing for all plan. first package that delivers on the promise of our city's housing aspect. this commission recommend sick months ago part of the units the next 8 years scan fran housing element required you to take hundreds of actions. hpd the average that enforce the law stated support as a necessary step meeting our obligations. if we pail to full fit proms in the housing element. we miss out in state affordable

housing. the long time lines and uncertainty that make its difficult to construct new house and drive up cost in our city. this legislation all standardizes complex code requirements to make them easy to follow inform san francisco takes over 2 years and longer as you know, for a housing project over 5 units to make it through the planning process. the legislation would change that. we believe this legislation make many common sense reforms to e eliminate the hurdles that cause unnecessary delays. rousing time lines sick-9 months for code projects.

this legislation is not a panacea to the afford at crisis. it is a large and very necessary step in the right direction. thank you all for your time and i look forward to your support and our works we full fit goals of our how longs leadership. now to supervisor engardio. >> thank you. good afternoon. commissioners when i was here early 30 among i spoke about a housing concept domisity. 5 stories of housing above a cafe, senior center or childcare that all residents in the neighborhood can benefit from which brings [inaudible] to san francisco i don't propose turning our city to paris weep always be uniquely san francisco we don't have enough housing for teachers issue first responders

and families that is why this is ideal for west side neighborhoods. sit on transit corridors or any corner lot t. returns areas of the west side to the original intention. beautiful will 5 and 6 store apartment building art deco era built on westportal and irving steet a century goal this guess become to the 40 to soft housing needs. tell help the adult children and xr grandchildren stay in san francisco. and will give seniors more optionless. they can down size to elevator buildings and age safety without leaving their neighborhood or san francisco. it is in this spirit i cosponsored legislation with the mayor to make it easier to build housing like this housing we need for young families and seniors. i can report this many residence denials want this housing.

>> i received many messages who love the idea i will read tleechl denise said, i was born in san francisco and lived all my 71 years here in the outer sunset a refire evertired teacher i want to sell my large house, down size and live out days without leaving my neighborhood. lisaid, i'm in favor of converting existing one store commercial to paris like living space. i would love to down size to one. ron said i love your idea of comparing san francisco housing to paris i always thought the same i own my home and the home on each side of mine is vacant i would like to consider a sale to create a [inaudible] and one

neighbor has expressed interest. the mayor's legislation will help make housing easier to build. gets rid of processes that slow things down when they are comlinocaine. the housing we need. i heard people say the legislation bring high prices families for wealthy families. that is the combined salary of teach and first respond sxrts family who cannot live in san francisco. housing we need to focus on and build because many of our teachers and first responders live far away. i order people say the legislation is bad for the environment. all the new housing requires

cement and more green house gas. the lest thing for the requirement. you know we made a commitment in our housing element passed unanimously by the board of supervisors to address environmental concerned by building housing close to transportation. i as well ray home buoy want to support ability of the next generation to have a home. i remember what it was like to be run and seek opportunity to build a life this . is legislation technical i knowut debate technical asspekts of at this time legislation also has a heart. the technical part provides reforms to out dated regulations the heart of legislation keeps our loved 1 in san francisco by making easier to house them.

photocopy we build concepts we will have created our best san francisco. police support mayor's legislation. thank you. thank you. am my presentation is divide in the 4 topics the first the creation of the geography sud. second is process improve ams the third is building and zoning and the left is affordable housing. the ordinance proposed an sud. bound easier most low follow the housing element priority fee

boundary. any over lap with the neighborhood's map removed from the bound easier. also the sud bound easier include jeopardy an town and west of mission and outer mission neighborhood. the sud maintain notification and controls. could be used in the future to chance initiatives. i don't knows makes changes to the code to remove process. men of the processes require cu hearings before planning. basis approval on criteria and findings. ordinance remove cu requirements for height in rh and rm. large lot development in china town districts and sud's and let mergers in rto. remove neighborhood notice for expansion dps new construction.

seniors allow them on age in place. and where they may have existing upon communities. temperature removes hearing

requirements for state density projects required have i hearing with planning even though the commission discretion is limit in the denying requested waivers or concessions. we saw with the 18th street project. if the project is code comploying planning ability to reduce the density is limited by state law. the ordinance would amend section 317 allow housing as long not locate instead geography sud and all of the 5 criteria unit demo not occupied without history of evictions. no more than 2 units rent control removed. and the building proposed were not historic. one additional unit added and complies with relocation and first right of refusal provision. the next is bodiesing and zoning standards. upon ordinance standardizes the planning code standards to make it easy. ordinance standardizes rear yards. the low are density district is

30% year yard and a 25% rear yard. averaging conciliations and setback requirements. determined by averaging the adjacent neighbor front setback. the code allows a max required front setback of 15 feet. change this by facing the front set become on the shortest neighbor. reducing the mack front setback to 10 feet. the ordinance would change the minimum lot size to 20. this is consistent with sb9 and called for in the housing leadership. not intented for high dengsity development. would amend theet code through rh, rm1 and 2 districts developed on both facing

property lines and all zoning districts rear yard controls to wrap bodies and place the required rear yard the inside corner of the lochlt rationalize open space removing the open space exposure requirement and allow code compliant balcony to count to open space. for residential use xarnlds active use on the ground floor. to include laundry, lobby, mail room and bike room. makes group housing and homeless shelters permit in the all zoning district wall are called for in the housing leadership. one year ownership requirement facilitate single family homes to multiunit buildings. dwelling unit allow 2 employees not residence denials in the unit to being empployed and amends the definition of dwelling units consistent with

state law allowing worky housing with up to 6 units. >> planning code and luprovide process waivers and incentives for affordable housing but there are provisions that discourage the ordinance will remove am allowing all 100% affordable housing projects up to 120% to receive a fee waiver including state density projects. only housing projects up to 80% ami and funded by agency are eli didn't believe for the fee waiver and 100% density projects are not eligible. the ordinance allow up to 1 to be demo when using home sf this . is intended allow buildings with commercial on the grounds and one above. or single family home in nc district to bes eligible. the ordinance removes ceqa impacts for home sf.

i like to stesz this snot exempting projects from ceqa that would apply whether the project has impact would not be used to tomorrow. this orns was introduced tuesday but the following amendments. in line with the mohcd practices now prevailing wages paid for 100% of affordage that receives a fee waiver under 406 and specify that dense 8 hearing to allow nonresidential use. housing project that includes a hotel. the department supports the goals of the ordinance tell implement 7 adopted policy and implementation programs and stream linocaine housing production in san francisco.

>> will aid the city to build 82,000 unit in thes next 8 years. by removing process the ordinance will not save time and bring predictability to the planning process. the standard wragz and rationalization of the code to building standards help stream line review process can provide flexibility to meet code. of a planning code make its easy for people to participate in the planning process. over all the ordinance will reduce the housing permits to navigate throughout process and the planning recommends approval the ordinance to the board of supervisors. thank you that concludes my presentation and i'm rabble for questions. >> thank you. before we go to public comment i want to so if there issue questions for supervisor engardio who i he is here. thank you for being here i appreciate your presence today.

>> questions? >> thank you. >> very good. commissioners. as previously stated each member will have 2 minute for public ment. if you are here come forward. and if you are call nothing press star 3. >> good afternoon eric brooks with our city san francisco and san francisco ceqa defenders. i gotta say i think the sponsor of the legislation have their geography off by a few,000 files. in i wish it would. brings houston, texas to san

francisco and that isup acceptable. it is not if necessary we have 40,00040,000 possible leap 70,000 vacant unit in san francisco. if you go with the middle 55,000 you include the housing that is in the pipeline and include several,000 item office spaces to convert to housing. there is zero need to build new housing in san francisco what we need to do is take the housing that ask vacant and way too expensive for most people and force the people that own it to put it out at processes that people can afford. working class people can afford. this is also terrible for the environment. you know the -- sponsor talk about the climates crisis. anyone who knows the climate crisis as i do knows that in the next 10 years we are hitting

crisis tipping points beyond which we will not survive if we don't reduce e missions nouchl demolition huge parts of the city to build more stuff with lots of assessment the big of the user of koshon dioxide is the opposite that way to will soft climb crisis will make it worse. we are supportive of the actions that address availability of affordable housing throughout the city and look forward to participate negligent future our neighborhoods. the successful rehab of the structures. we oppose this legislation wrin

as written a proposed ordinance would change the process requires applicants to obtain c u authorization for demolition. the new revving ligsz exempt housing demolitions outside the jog fees, special use districts and although buildings determined eligible for listing in california and initial register of historic places are include buildings in the historic district are eligible are not included in your defying nigzs. removing qualifications for actions that causes az verse change and historic resource avoided. in the review of the impact of historic structure in sud's van ness special use and broadway special use the historic preservation and planning commission removed and should be

reinstated or otherwise addressed. thank you. >> good afternoon will commissioners i'm george wooding. i'm from the san francisco land use coalition. i want to talk about the legislation that is presented. i am against it. i don't feel tell be helpful for the city and create valuable density. and afford at everybody is

talking about. density does in the equal affordable. i hope people remember that. this is a wild goose chase trying to build 82,000 homes. we all know you cannot do it. i was quoted in the article -- and i know eugene lieu is a friends of mine. and talk about architect all the time. i think had he has done is a great thing. and it can work. gunot at the expense of getting rid of seekia like throwing the baby out with the bath water. you need things like ceqa.

you tell had is going on. as a board. there are things that are state wide like the cortez laws. which the state failed to use before 10 years. plan degree not know they existed. 2,000 in the city. thank you. good afternoon i'm sandra. i'm here representing faith and action in the richmond district. do we realliment to take steps become from what little progress has been made? in the creation of affordable

housing? steam lining processes removing constraints means e eliminating safe guards to ensure adequate input communities by residential development and assure affordable housing goals can be met. removing opportunity and green light to developers. on or abouts the door to push the code changes. the purpose development that includes a full chair of afford am hougz housing needs to remain our goal as a priority you adopt in the your own racial and social equity okay plan. thank you.

>> the state housing need's assessment number the gold standard for reverification the planning code is over inflated.

state audit gave a blistering report numbers inflated up to hundreds of building units. not only is command over stated and supply is under stated. first there are 40,000 unoccupied units in the city. second according to the city's latest housing report there is many as 72,000 units in the pipeline. and finally. plans are a not to repurpose office buildings in downtown san francisco providing more housing. it does not add up. not enough demand. too much supply. no reason to change the planning code now. don't approve this ordinance it is a gift to developers. whom housing is an asset now an accomplice to call home this it is a legislation project that should not be given a perimism

thank you. good afternoon i'm oppose to the legislation because it is harmful to the poirjt of san franciscans the tenants that make up 64% of the population of the city in 2017 i file aid d r against a rogue developer who was sued by the city and force in the a million dollars plus settlement for his crimes. his project in my neighborhood did not mention a word about the existence of a 93 year old tenant carl jensen. who rented the property for over 60 years.

carl die immediate that house because stress from the eviction the find i'm here to make is dr and cu's are not for privileged home erns and issued. majority of demolition in the city is not centered woornd sing family homes the 5 plus units that make up the majority of demolition when is it miss to the unit losses. due to the removal of udu's under rent control. how is anyone supposed to without project this is 3 them out on the street. i'm here to urge to you vote fwens this legislation that is a gift this keeps on give to

developers. thank you. how much is the minimum wage. i added up 19 thvenld i added it up to 81, 200 for somebody that works 40 hours a week 12 months a year in san francisco. that will mean one 45, 620 this is in the near 100 thousand dollars. how do you expect people to purchase and rent homes? they can't. i work as a teacher for the school district. how about the students.

we'll have schools the -- people that -- people are homes for the i know that this legislation i know senator wiener and governor newsom that we have to have housing were fundd and founded by the real estate not in my backyard.

>> more homeless and more homeless adulters affecting a 10 time senior people that are living now in their homes to be homelessness. in good afternoon. i want to echo the words of the previous speaker. the question should be -- reduction of constraint this is using constraint for who. that should be the primary question xr had this legislation sounds like constraints. that will not do anything for our affordable housing crisis. victims of development in the

city with 64% tenants are that. like carl jensen. michael and others who evictions was brought up to the commission. if not for niches when used the d r and cu process none of these would have come to light these were ones this were found out about. numbers don't lie these other numbers. unlike what planning claims the demolition and conversions for denseification are not -- single family homes. and they are basically tenant occupied homes that will leave tenants as the victims. i know that mr. star mentioned

lot division we need a contrain on this. if we are splitting a lot we have to see if there are tenants homes that are going to be demoed and taken away as part of this lot division. should this legislation pass how will the tenants find out when is in the works? wait until the land lord shows up and gives them the demolition application and permit. why thank you. >> i'm serena a local architect practice nothing an front for over 20 years. trary to everything you heard when i read this legislation i felt an overwhelming sense of relief because every day i do battle with thes planning code this is so complicated you need a phd to tndz i have i client in

bernal doing an expansion 2 years and not through approvals the every day stuff i see is single family home ordinance doing modest additions conform to the code and wait sick-9 months to have a 311 notice sent or appear before a commission. . upon after 5 years of going through confirms addition this change to the code does noted apply to developers it impacts single family home ordinance families, elder low people of all of my clients. i don't agree this changes the demolition will result in the demolition of an front we have

protections for historic property and doing a vertical addition with renovation trigers the demolition. there is 125,000 units in the city of san francisco. half of those built one additional unit in their home which mirequire an,dition we would have 50,000 housing units immediately. and not having to wait sick-9 months go through a 311 process make this so much easier. i hope to see additional legislation to provide financial incentives and support to home ordinance. where that is your time >> thank you. i support this legislation. . good upon afternoon i'm abbie a community planner in china

townful we were trouble period whey saw the planning department sum row of the major's legislation. the planning department has capacity to provide neighborhoods and assessment of impacts. in this summary there is lack of inspection of the socioeconomic impacts of the legislation on the equity. as defined these are yours with densities of populations in the city. and impact fees triblgs the

housing leadership actions. strong ordinary at requirements the desires incentivizing, and by the summary defeatedly such market rate will prowse new housing for everyone this is nothing. to city this housing served the needs of the people in the equity neighborhoods who need fordable housing. we believe that the sum row lacked discussion on the impact the stroll lining legislation modify on incentivize demolitions and nonresidential community serving retail strunlts and other buildings. butt security and mixed use districts are job space.

these communities are businesses are. thank you. i'm kathleen. i live in forest hill extension near west portal and i'm luck and he thankful to be a homeowner. this is my story. my nephew and his wife and 2 sons are renting an apartment in southern california. that lived and worked in san francisco when they were single. they would like to return and raise their boy in our amazing city. my husband and i don't have grand children we would love to have the family members near by to enjoy and share our lives. being an artist and a nurse they

don't have the income to rent or buy a home in san francisco. having our family live close is important you to and san francisco needs middle income people like my family. teachers, muni of drivers, nurse and medical workers of all know kind. service workys the work families should be able to live where they work they contribute to the diversity of the city.

>> i'm bob. i'm lucky today to be here as an upon representative of myself. a representative volunteer with minding my fellow friend in san francisco [inaudible] and i'm able to represent the united democratic club of over 400 members. >> this is easy way to tell you why this is important to end organizations and important to pass this legislation to not enabling more watered down and make sure we sends a strong significant until this stealup hold our commitment to build needed housing. a decade ago i was live nothing

santa clara. starting my senior year. and second year on a lease in a home am in a taco bell. come we were informed by our landlady there was black mold developing under i bedroom due to like in thes bedroom. that was troubles and started to call her and ask her when we can do and helpful in addressing this. and radio sounds for a month and evict us that was a terrible time and we were panicked. starting our senior year we did not have time to get a lawyer and do that stuff that i'm sure we have protections here. but the best protections i said this before is housing.

it is the best tenant protection. now everyoneness if you lose housing here it is a death sentence or you go to vacaville. pass this ordinance, make it easier to build housing. i'm audrey a resident of district 1 in housing production ordinance. san francisco among many is a tech hub for queer liberation. 2010 to 15 added 8.2 jobs for every new housing permit. a bomin high wage workers not the house to much. we have the obligation to build 10,000 homes a year for the next 8 years. we build 2, 500 today.

people of color are pushed out of the city. i say this as a tech and he transwoman. when i came out to my parents in 2019 hi no choice. to be myself to live i had to lose my family of financial support and home. i got lucky. this city emplaced me. it knead hard to protect themselves. we are vulnerable to homelessness. this legislation will build a city for everyone especially vulnerable and make sure parents housing review process the below market units like 255 irving will have incentives for

affordable house and provide different homes for different indm level and ensure rights to a people will not be infringed by people's concern to maintain the status quo. we must build a big are table. commissioners, row yes on housing production ordinance. >> good afternoon. i'm karen an architect in san francisco i lived here for over 30 years i'm a homeowner and a former co trier and here to support the ouzing production ordinance.

if you order on line you wait i day. down the street and machine is selling you buy it that supports healthy neighborings allowing senior house nothing every neighborhood. i owned my house long enough i'm a beneficiary of prop 13. thank you confucianism want to sell it so a young family can move it all i will do the same price trade in for a mall are

place and same prime minister supply and demand matter. thank you. thank you. >> president tanner, commissioners an honor to speak. you will hear a lot of opinions. i believe we live in a representative democracy. and today i'm here to show my support for the mayor's initiative. if you 39 her speech in front of this building before we came in spoke about us as a city getting out of our own way. i like to e lab rit and suggest this all of us especially those

in positions of power get out of here way. this is a really hard city to lead. i don't know nothing about nothing but that's what i hear. in part because of all of us educated people who are strong pregnancy and san francisco in a hiccup. i think we agree on that. whatever side of the aisle we are in. there is a hiccup. i continuing is time to let my mayor were lead. this is her initiative and it is ourion to give her the chance to succeed with it. i don't understand every bit this . it is her initiative and our best option. for a better and brighter future. support her initiative. thank you.

i live in the mission for 42 years. this ordinance promotes the idea that more is not going to. tell bring more units that are investments. it is ridiculous to call housing built for families making 150,000 to 1 mind a year to call that affordable. san francisco does in the need a policy to speedup construction of more unfordable housing. will you know there are 60,000 and 70,000 whatever the number is vacant housing units that's the reality. there is an absurdity here the more housing that is being built.

4 an investment the more want units it will be we witnessed. and this will mean and does mean the government housing means higher rent and means more homelessness. we have this circumstantial thel more high priced housing means more homelessness. that is the reality of the situation. i believe this while planning and i know the mir and represents did not stick arnold to hear people. nice words with inclusion. i think that is a corrupt process this exists here. and i of course that the stap staff here knows what is going on.

and i call on those who do know that to come forward in the [inaudible] the great whistle blower who died. come forward and blow the whistle. expose the corruption. >> that's your time. hello i'm angels can a local real estate agent and here to ask you to approve the ordinance. i work with first time buyers in sudden front it really difficult. there is in the a lot of homes for sale. we have record low inventory because of under supply and building. it is heard to help them finds where they want to live. where they want when

neighborhoods they like best. because there is such a low supply that we look anywhere this is for and a get frustrate today just not enough homes at all. >> i ask to you approve this ordinance. so we can have more housing in build so more can like live in the neighborhoods they want to live in and not what they want to settle for. thank you. of good afternoon i'm erika i live in d4. and -- i -- i'm from i group, deep forward. we are affiliated with the rep coalition and -- and the letters you receivedan likewising this

legislation. we are demanding a no vote on the mayor and the give aways to before profit developers. against the my become yard people. we don't need for profit developers in the city. we have 25,000 inspect high priced housing empty at the moment. we need to figure out i don't know the answer. every way to build affordable housing. middle income, low income. that's all we need. why are we spending one minute

on stream lining for developers. you have to 39 member like me and [inaudible] and -- in order to -- get the picture and we need conditional use we lose but sometimes we make mall changes. we need k u, ceqa. you don't have racial and social equity action plan you wrote. you are taking that away. thank you that's your time.

members of the commission i'm [inaudible] i'm here today peeking on behalf know front antidisplacement coalition. the organization includes 20 organizations across the city that serve and represent tenants many who are being displaced today and faith evictions of a variety of sorts. we are here to express concerns about the major's proposal as drafted and concerned without amendments this will hope the door to hundreds if not thousands of rent control units. we are concerned about the staff report. the tenant protections provide by this legislation. we think that while on one hand

we punishment the hart and spirit of the idea of increasing affordable housing we are there a false choice to choose building more affordable and protecting existing residents that's when we like to peek b. with respect to portions of the legislation and the staff report. the staff report climbs the proposal protect protections against displace am mrau 10 not beouts t. does not. tenant buy outs other leading cause of displacement and evictions in the city. more than reported by the no quality evictions.

amendments need to be corrected wrochl thank you this is why you were time. >> oh , and i have a letter indicating yoochl leave it right there. >> thank you. i'm brandon powell residence devon district 9. i have served on the northwest bernal heights review board for a dvenlgd i ask you machine withhold love for my children to afford to live in the city of san francisco should than i choose. put the design review board out of work. stream line san francisco's planning process so we get more housing in the city.

this seems like this is a work upon around to the will of the people we don't want more

affordable housing. where -- people who are minimum wage. cannot live in the city they can't afford housing if you want to put sick people in a studio apartment. may be. this will not help this in any way, shape or form. they are removing the pretense of having afford annual housing making 120% of the ami. low income people cannot afford than i are part of the cultural diversity of the neighborhood if we want nothing but.comers living here this would be grit and as mentioned men tenant protections will be removed we kent have this thank you and i encourage you to vote, no on this. joof good afternoon i'm mike chany a 9 year residents. thank you.

i'm in support of the contrain reduction. i'm here because i'm tired. i'm in my early 30s and. leaving it is heard to foimd a home to settle and have kids to be able to flex the living situation. can i stop you and ask you to slow down a bit i'm having a hard time making out what you are saying. >> start from the beginning. >> i'm here because i'm tire exclude it is buzz i'm in my 30s and many pierce think about leaving the city or left the city. as you get older you want housing security or a bedroom for a kid or 2 or parents. when your housing situation changes well is in the a lot you can do. not alost options.

and things are expensive and price and he there is not a lot of ploy for folks. and you know i think it is true for people hor ageing and might need an elevator. not alost options for people who want to age in place. and you know for my age group [inaudible] people the age group that left san francisco to most the past 3 years is between 30 and 34. if we want san francisco to be a place for families we need moring ones for people to live and raise kids. if we we'll not have young folk and families and have the generation if we condition. and fail. i thank you for passing the housing element in january. we made promises to the state saying we willrous constraints and change. i immroer you to pass this ordinance following through on promises if we don't we risk

legal liability from the state attorney general and losing millions in affordable housing and transportation funding and risk losing local control over our zoning and permitting under the builder [inaudible]ing. thank you very much. >> hi. i'm liz awe fourth generation san francisco and native in favor supervisor dorsey and engardio legislation. for my family member and class mates who can't ford to live where they work or glue up. i coach tennis and many who work with me cannot live in the city. my brother works for the stele and bear leave affording to live here i'm tired of friends and relatives my age, being priced out. i'm not at work now because i love the city temperature is my

home and any new housing is good. housing will open up other housing for those who need it more. we need to add to the housing supply to meet demand those who serve our city can afford to live here. solved problems we face if you care about teachers and service work and small businesses and those who newsmakers the city better it must be easier to build homes. and make its easier to build housing like senior housing, shelter and group housing so people like the golden gate park coaches football coaches and those who help maintain our city can afford to live where they work. we are implementing a housing element the board passed. those are actions we agreed to as a city. please approve this ordinance.

thank you. and currently >> supply and demand rule, there are hiccups. but supply and demand. 4. my great grand parents lived in the mission in the late 19th century when more housing was being built in san francisco. to accommodate families. i think if we passed this legislation and work hard and take out hiccups we will have more families coming -- living

in san francisco in housing raising families. thank you. >> i'm brian kwon a d 1 native. i am speak nothing spchlt this legislation because i believe that it will help the city create more opportunity and options for housing. and i feel that is important seeing the changes on the west side as very little housing has been built and price gone up and up. i had to help a middle school friend clean out her pirnt's place show had to move them out of the city where she lives because of work and the housing prices that don't allow her to live in san francisco anymore. it just hit me deeply how much

not building has caused can housing to gun so much. the left time we irrelevant saw any housing was because of the quake in 89. and if we are not building new housing we are left with housing stock on the west side approaching 50 and 60 year old but ready for the next sdaefrt not built for the environment and not attracting people to the west side of the city. rused by the lack of activity on the west side of the city. come in and provide new housing will help attract people become to the city and bring back the vibrancy we are starting it see not coming become after covid.

thank you. my children all making at least

450 thousand dollars all 3 of them cannot live in the city. and they would love to which my grandchildren. had i hope you will do pass this legislation so my great granddaughter who is 3 yearso will one day be able to live here. thank you very much. good afternoon jake price on behalf housing okay coalition i will not we peat the things you heard but like to thank the planning department in the addition to the sponsors of the legislation. the status quo is broken we continue is that's why we are here and what this body the planning department and the city

acknowledged when we passed the housing element. pass this legislation today. thank you. >> good afternoon. james i'm the san francisco organizing director for n b action you heard from our members telling you your stareies, family and the impact the housing crisis had to them. have you not heard from many member who is don't live here anymore they have been priced out they live somewherel they wanted the opportunity to call san francisco home they tried left. they never had the tune to begin with. parents moved and they can't come back. that's when we have the opportunity to correct with the housing element this is the first piece of legislation that will set the sting for this. we then and there we e rekted barriers that are impossible to build housing.

this is why we see little being built and know we need to do more we seat impacts every day on streets and the impacts on prenld and family and relatives on the decisions we all make we can make different decision i hope this starts today boy approving this. thank you. i might be last up. ani simon with spur peek nothing support of the legislation today. i know more than most that san francisco loves weekday afternoon. that is the role of being on this commission. e inthl it is about decks and shadows. and public comment today has especially been [inaudible] we then and there is a procedural vote. i want to take the mask off clear low we then and there is

in the from deliberation i want to thank you for your patience and grace. we don't have a choice. that decision was med in 2017 and 18 when state laws were passed decision was made again. adopted the housing lately knowingment risk of not comploying. and my part i wrote the state housing lus that strengthens the press and housing element process working for scott wean in sacramento and set up the scaffold nag made the decisions procedural. and not tort urd dlksz like many of the 1 this is go through this commission.

that will is your time >> thank you. >> hello i'm theresa pel lose fe. i'm here to support this legislation. i want to ask the question, why is san francisco special? i think there are many reasons that san francisco is spchl today i'm talking about why is

san francisco one of the most expensive cities in the u.s. t is it because people unique low are grand jury eddie and want to charge as much as they can or is it because people want to live here. and many people moving in the city because they rescue noise how beautiful it simple i continuing is the latter. i think the best way to solve that is build so that people can live here and not displace the people who are currently. build so our children and grand children can stay with us instead of forced out. and the people in the past that want to live here to come become. and make it a beautiful place. i urge you urge you to support this legislation. thank you. >> if there are no other members of public in the chambers wishing to speak, go to remote

callers. >> good afternoon. planning commission to oshg pose the mayor's legislation. encourage staff to spend [inaudible] plan this legislation fails to provide a plan for affordable housing the mayor's legislation and the major's budget don't provide new resources for permanent affordable housing despite requiring of the 82,000 units we need to boulevard 57% should be affordable to low and moderate

income. the mayor's affordable housing council to publish a report that is due until next year. to make it worse the mayor announced she introduced legislation to reduce below market requirement. rather than belling for nieced the mayor is focussing on developer give aways san francisco will have the same failures as the previous housing leadership. over built by almost double and [inaudible] under built for low income by half. 15% and the declining population. . of supply [inaudible] housing price are oust reach for most. when we look at this legislation the budget and major's principle torous affordable requirements

we can intercept it an attack on the community. electric of interest in affordable house and violation of the city's obligation to further housing. we need affordable housing first. mayor commit as much funding both communisting earmarked for affordable and new funding you start purchasing across the city. incentivize housing we can't afford. >> thank you. >> [inaudible]. >> the coalition urges planning to oppose legislation because it rilites the city obligation to further fair housing. the city's priors should be housing that is affordable. instead the mayor's legislation is simple low developer give,

ways. value and power to profit driven developers on inpresidented scale the mayor will at any time failed housing property with over ploy and trickle down theories. developers will [inaudible] and we cannot afford to commodifiy the units they build. dollar is always an effort to balance added value testing a portion of the added value for public benefit.

there are 50,000 units approved and more then and there 60 then and there units. the real statistic make more clear the major's constituency wants to take [inaudible] profit driven developers and hostile to people of color and low income communities who need affordable housing now. thank you. >> good afternoon i'm carroll harvey. i lived in san finish for 30 years i'm the executive respecter work at treasure island. do not support this ordinance. promotes building high priced housing not affordable. it is ridiculous this calls housing built for families making 150,000 to 190 thousand per year affordable.

we already have a 50% over supply housing for those income levels. this ordinance is bad for environmental and economy justice. it was gut environmental and commune review protections overnight established urban renewal style redevelop will zones. seth precedent this would allow corporate real estate giants more ooez easily unhealthy housing on to beingic radio active cites like those in bayview and on treasure island.

please vote down this corporate attack on san francisco's environmental, economic, cull roll and community integrity. thank you. >> hello i'm renee a d4 resident and member of [inaudible] save our neighborings. i support all the statements opposing this [inaudible] there

their is a drastic drop in the pomp ligz and options to convert the vacant units or the thousands of vacant office space to apartments [inaudible]. i don't need to repeat the other comments those opposing but we don't need to increase density in the city. we are in the west side e pit middle east density. not about affordability, which we need but it is about subsidizing the developers and allow them to fast track ceqa and processes that are voilths to safety am allow thanksgiving will send a message over [inaudible] already stressed [inaudible]. [inaudible] environment more create greater shadow overnight neighborhood and ruin the

[inaudible] of the neighborhoods i'm sorry we are not parrots we are unique san francisco. i oppose this and urge to you vote this downful thank you very much. >> hello. >> hi. i'm dina williams. and i am a resident of d7 pedestrian president of the council and bart and lived there since 19 sfik on the west side. i am all a realtor. and i'm aware of the need for more housing in the city. at all levels. i'm a morning. i have a son and widowed mothered of, did you tell son and love to see my son live near me in san francisco.

anywhere in san francisco. but this is in the the way to do it. decimating west of twin peeks single family established neighborhoods some over 100 years old to build more house suggest not the way to do it. i'm sorry. i'm in supporter of the mayor. and i'm a supporter of supervisor engardio. and i attended the chamber [inaudible] and listened to the mayor talking about bring housing downtown to all the empty office buildings. crediting so much trouble for xus getting in the new negatively every day. why do we build housing around union square and around -- convert existing buildings environmentally safer. to housing of all price of all levels. from formerly unhoused all the

way up. and create housing that way. we can do this. we don't need to mess up what is work nothing san francisco. to do this. i very much appreciate supervisor engardio and i'm aware of the plan. however, parents, supervisor engardio is not built on sand. and building 6 units every. thank you. this is your time good afternoon. i'm a senior research analyst u night local 2 hospitality workers. and thousands of tenants. we have energid for this legislation in the working with the sponsors to close a serious loophole in the c u process for approving holings that is

crucial it allows for some of bring up [inaudible] in san francisco and can prove this hotel will be good for san francisco. but -- i read this entire legislation. i want to echo and amp fight occurrence you heard and will hear from affordable housing advocates this legislation prosecute ports to create more affordable housing will dot opposite. you are being warned about the legislation potential destruction of existing controlled housing. lack of provisions creating housing and electric takening to the city's own numbers the city own number show a deficit 8, 298 moderate and low income and over product of 9, 684 for moderate income people. you are being warned it will not

do enough to dress this i rem want to echo and amplify the occurrence of people like me who read this come warning you about potential problem fist passed in the current form. thank you. it is shocking and embarrassing like the mind [inaudible] and

unaffordable housing crisis in 2014. regular residence can't afford the housing the developers are belling. they are empty. a lot of people are unhoused they can't forward developed housing. i'm disappointing for approving projects and legislation year after year. and the city is emptier and hallow with lack of cult ordinary care art, humanity every year temperature is about profit. we are in a city the standards of live and rent is

unaffordable. there are several houses empty. because it is not affordable. who is this housing for? planning department needs to implement the [inaudible] this is nonnegotiableable. i vote no to the legislation. >> good afternoon i'm stefani peek. with the land use coalition. i lived in san francisco for 60 years. i am opposed to this proposal because it allowed developers need more housing i hope you are as touched i am by the

compassionate person who is have spoke out against this ordinance i ask to you continue operating as a planning condition and don't let developers operate without restrictions and reviewsch and finally, we all know that the climate crisis is honest and don't need more. thank you. it is shameful the mayor stream lining proposal is designed to help market rate housing developers paying nielth ams and not build housing. her proposal fails to rescue noise the city's most pressing need is to provide 46,000

affordable housing units by 2031ful no new strategies truly affordable housing for seniors, disabled people request low encome and people of color are included. mayor's legislation does nothing to help our workers. and families. it works against racial and social equity. and violates the legal obligation to further fair housing. e eliminating notices to tenants or a public hearing puts hundreds if not thousands of existing rent controlled housing at risk of demolition and encourages -- yes.

you are on mute. destruction of precious rent controlled buildings and the per nan -- displacement of 10 knowas. staff report in section 317 of the last -- being in homes. they -- it it is fringe low offensive that they are trying to for us trying to help tenants novemberigate the planning process. the department verify. thank you. this is your time of >> good afternoon. this is dave alexander volunteer with family in san francisco.

i have 2 mall children go to public schools and a personal story about their school i'm tired of seeing upon friends leave. and -- good apartment here on the west side. we need to build on the west side, period. i'm sick of seeing the class get reduced to one per grade. most of the children have left. again i'm calling to punishment this ordinance. thank you. go ahead caller jovm i'm shauna. and i live in district 4.

i'm going to throw out my script many have said they are scared about ceqa. of course i'm going to say -- the whole constraints reduction housing reduction ordinance is in the to make our lives better or the woord affordable it is for the developer to put up condos to set next door to vacant office building and for 40,000. you -- are our commission. to there to represent us the taxpayers and voters of the city. not developers. who take their money back to nevada, florida or over seas. can anyone say the westerly debocle? thank you.

>> good afternoon i'm call nothing to ask to you please not move legislation forward. not until there are safe guard in place. at it stands there is no plan for affordable how doing this we need. as well as demolitions of 2 unit buildings i will speak about that. that is a huge risk and i told you in my letter to you that there have been cases before that you showed the various abuses and the impact on attentives directly example so i ask you today to first prioritize fordable housing. to again make sure there are safe guards the 10 annuals are not disaccomplice exclude this you actually during the preop

stage go to the rent board and counciling groups the tenants and -- neighbors with and notices. that actually can help you -- prove vacancy when that occurred. what happened and i support san francisco displacement coalition letter and the tenant's union and the recommendations that are part of the coalition. thank you. howard wong. i'm an architect. lifelong resident of north beach. and vipiral organizations.

i'm opposing the ordinance. it is a continuation of unbalanced planning we in the city experienced. that has lead to -- lack of affordable housing gentification. many other problems. the -- city had no problem purke forward housing when it is high end. or expensive. now we have highly inflitted condos unsold. office complexes theory standing much place empty. i think we need to have revert become to basic planning the planning professional bunkham politicians dot due diligence and plan for a city that

includes 100% affordable housing. diversity not pending the higher incomes we see now that was based on the past case. we need to oppose this one. community out reach and coordination to create good projects for diversity. thank you. i'm abram diaz for housing association of northern california and want to thank you for considering the policies. organization presents affordable housing we appreciate the

efforts with the code requirements and waivers and and has broad implications and needs in the city to meet our housing goals. thank you and appreciate the chance to comment today. we heard the presentations about the mayor's stream lining proposals but don't insult our intelligence this legislation is a gimmick to deregulate market rate housing that will aggravate residence den displacementings let us not repeat western addition dem lagz. our city needs more housing but not market rate we need how doing that accommodates regular working people who don't make

sick figures.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm steve i live in san francisco for 50 plus years. i have [inaudible]. i volunteer with the west side tenanty association a member of sf coalition. i urge you to not approve this stream lining of legislation. there are so many problems with this legislation frank low i'm not sure where to start. simple low tell lead to dem ligsz eviction. tenants, displacement and gentrification.

profit make diverse will not police themselves we will know what this means. knowing this this well, this is redevelop the 2.0. developers will act with toll impunity with profits and goals most important. existing tenabilities will be invisible even if a property in the to be occupied developers and land lords intend to redevelop property with no ability maximize profits. and hide the fact that [inaudible]. again, i urge the planning commission to oppose this flued stroll lining legislation buzz it violates obligations to further fair housing. in addition, i encourage planning staff to enact the people's plan. thank you.

good to be is catherine i'm a historian. i understand the need to adopt the way things are done to address the crisis of affordable housing. the legislation before this commission today is in the the answer. i support the views of speakers iric brooks and rep sf explained the vast number of existing vacant housing that sat empty and should be ewe likewiseed solve the crisis. why incentivize and rent controlled housing as this legislation does. the drastic changes to the planning code will not solve the affordable housing crisis. they will strip await planning processes in accomplice for a reason. they will disregard the work of the planning department over

decades and will silence citizen involve am. my comments usual low focus on historic resources but this is just about using common sense. who is suffering and why? who is displaced. who profits? report will of the people and democratic processes and oppose this legislation. thank you. >> can you hear me. why. s good afternoon. i'm [inaudible] and i'm with [inaudible] a mfbt [inaudible]. the planning department and planning to oppose the stream lining proposal. honest low this is a [inaudible] and will not provide affordable

housing. we call in time and time again, my family done nothing but support system and the city and we protect as much the community as we can and there is nothing affordable here for yous. this is not this -- proposal is not going to create affordable housing you can keep building all of this unaffordable housing tell not house the people that mead it. there are tons of units in the city and it is frustrating the commission is luxurying out for the well being of the community. come up with a solution with the community of the community knows when they need. that i have expert ease. you hear people say where they work and when they work with. can you work with us. we want affordable housing to work and live and drive here.

so our children can grow up here. [inaudible] senior and resident of there was i claim residence [inaudible] legislation on the

contrary there are many like mow who are appalled by legislation. how is it serving interested if removed neighborhood notice for exception and now construction. a claim taking down house and building bigger is better but proven it is environmentally beneficial to renovate existing housing then and there build now buildings. limits requirements for open space. this going to result in projects not provide the experience of nature for families with children. statement the legislation passports ceqa is not true. stream lining is steam rolling public input is curtailed deproifg the public to give environmental problems of the

project. the purpose of ceqa. online statement director of sir era club california stated a 21 report by rose foundation stated ceqa is not a barrier to development. the director said legislators not use corporate developers reform ceqa to askwaj your occurrence. i agree with the land use coalition and ask to you passport ceqa and residence denials. find a way to build fordable housing and don't approve this elimination thank you.

i have been priced out of the city and when i look to get become in i never have issues finding house thering is abundance you go on craig's list you will see thouz ans to rent but they are all unaffordable for me. in on dollia are too expensive. i find ridiculous i'm not an expert. building 10,000 a year does not seem realistic and more of a reason toasm up the built crowd to you more deregulation in the housing market i don't thank you is rolistic. and reality is many of the units we built are vacant or unaffordable or developers have not built ground.

so police don't passport this ordinance. please stop buy nothing fat their tifs making easy for private developers to build more electric house thanksgiving will solve our housing crisis. thank you. hemo~ i'm charles. i'm a san francisco resident and reasoned exert calling in support of the legislation we are in a housing affordability crisis the way to alleviate that the is more housing that is not in debate despite what people are claiming here.

we love san francisco for beauty why are we not making easier. we love the [inaudible] being a haven for those in our in addition and planet. why would we continue our failure to live up to the values? do we want to continue this. i don't. anyone with seeing our current system office over people is working we need to change in this legislation steps. please, support temperature thank you. want to echo everything about -- i'm joshua a san francisco voter in the mission. thank you for sponsoring this legislation. i got from my perspective the

legislation will [inaudible] you heard earlier today. men of us know homelessness in the u.s. is [inaudible] housing processes are patriot and supply [inaudible]. the same inversely with fees. and you know -- market rate housing -- does keepiumys for competing with grandmas it is a good thing. all what says it sill crucial steps in the right direction and thank you for voting means a lot for me and grit for the city. thank you. good afternoon i'm johnson a redents of districts 2. and a volunteer with northern

neighbors and urge you to support this ordinance it is critical we actually stick to our commitments from the housing process. and -- put the measure in accomplice that are needed so we can start to alleviate the affordability crisis and change san francisco from a huge suburb to a world class city like paris which is the best accompliceos earth. and so i urge you to support this legislation. -- we need to tackle our housing cries and climate crisis. thank you. primary cosponsor of this legislation. and strong opposition.

the propoedz ordinance alined with the anywheretive from tech and al ice regarding strictel down andan teague regulation. trickle down conservative and antigovernment and antiregulation. except, of course, from corporate welfare the tax breaks. stated government get off people's backs. biden state third degree trickle down does not work and never will. for those who were here when reagan was govern of california what were the social policies with his'd strigz? there is the statement you seen one you seen them all this was consistent with anticeqa ordinance. reagan closed the state's upon

ment institutions throwing them on the street to be homeles even though they were not available. and when would be the social implications of this ordinance? would it be more homelessness. more bis displacement or gentification, housing market speculation. thank you? i'm urging you to oppose the ordinance i oppose the waivers of environmental review and as far as housing you irrelevant do mode to address the thousands of vacant housing units. i want top reminds you with the

enq and ceqa stand for. you want to call yourself environmentists you can't do this if you oppose environment equality. vote, no. you heard family stories today. my great grandfather got off the boat 174 years ago. i have it on authority that someone told him housing built out to vanys and the cost be affordable. years later a conman said they would build housing to twin peeks. promise was made and it was a son. and the same said when the carpet of housing was built from

the golden gate to daly city. the flip mr. foreman is used today. notion that built baby build lower housing costs is the mother of all urban myths, please, vote, no. thank you. every point in time survey of homeless and 70 percent

[inaudible] used to rent here. so what does this say? does not say well is a shortage of housing here it says the housing is too expensive. that's the crux of the issue. people expert in housing policy who are not connective with the builders say that san francisco cannot build its way out of the housing cries. reasons have to be lowered. there is nothing else this will do this. to say that -- that -- this is going to help people 150 to 190 thousand dollars is rude crist this is not upper middle class.

i upon think that is happening [inaudible] had they are talking about the policy that you the planning commission had for years. your plan is to -- decaptate themful kosovo. no. i'm evelyn and i'm calling to urge to you please, not put this proposal forward with out amendments. as said 64% of san franciscans are renters and there are 60,000 vac an units empty office buildings. abundant housing and we can't let this not be contemplayed

even in this legislation. this incentivizes demolition. workys need to be protected even those have been displaced and commute for hours. i want my muni drivers and emergency workers, teachers to be awake and living in and in the san francisco that is fordable with protected housing. the proposals e lim nigz section 311 notice to occupants of the property proposed to be demmose the failure of the staff report to consider tenants and buildings reflect on going insensitivity to real life needs and vulnerability of tenants,

please don't forguest it. thank you. i'm jamie wong [inaudible] i'm here to read a letter from all 7 board of directors [inaudible] the penning legislation. we are concerned with i portion of the ordinance that e eliminates neighborhood notice of new kruck or expansion projects. 25 years ago the forest hill associating work with the neighborhood organizations builders and upon planning department developing procedure for neighborhood notification and comment for new construction went neighborhoods. this procedure was done in the planning code. and as far as we are aware this procedure worked well allowing

neighbors and associations to discuss the project with the owner and planners prior to design commregz resulting in better process for the nabs, city and owner. the advocate contents the process is tauzing unnecessary delays p. upon the current proposal takes a sledge hymner to the problem this should be addressed. deproifing neighbors of notice strip the rights they expect in the process it could be more stroll lined. the credible aspect of the luis create notice that allows neighbors to discuss the experience and make improvements prior to review by planning.

thank youa is your time. good afternoon will commissioners i'm robert, i'm a volunteer san francisco u and b. and i machine who avocated for housing left year at this hearing included, i think that i

look forward to a time when -- it is kinds of no longer an obstacle to good housing in san francisco. i think that after this legislation passes we will look back on the hearing and think. wow. who are we thinking? the comments t.ed >> you know fear is a driver for a lot of decisions. and fear is a signal that tells us not that something was right or wrong but something needs to change and people are afrid of what will happen if they state same the status quo. the decision to pass this legislation is already made for you, commissioners. you made this decision and the state of california made this

decision. you have an all right before you from the california d. housing and community development. asking to you afrouf this ordinance. san francisco must pass to implement housing leadership. we decided as a city we are going to implement the housing element to follow the state. we can renege on that promise and we will lose all control. if -- we go down what route. >> thank you. i'm in the mitts of walkingum a hill. the [inaudible] is -- building house nothing san francisco is

climate action. [inaudible] when we don't build housing in san francisco that housing does not just get built or disappear it gets built in the cents roll valley. tomorrow be over 100. in san francisco today the high is 65. tomorrow it will be 70 and san francisco choses to per wade people to not build house not only san francisco [inaudible] of that person's [inaudible]. we have natural continue nothing san francisco. on another note i like what supervisor engardio said about

how the legislation is a lot of technical details and has a heart. i support heart i have to take [inaudible]. which is the inclusion of telegaff hill. has to include [inaudible]. broadway and east columbus [inaudible]. consider changes but i support elimination thank you.

>> hi i'm priya zuker.

[inaudible] planning coalition. our communities come to hearing often time this is [inaudible] our communities [inaudible]. and often we wonder if we are truly [inaudible] because the legislation after legislation [inaudible]. [choppy [. encourage you to oppose this [inaudible]. [inaudible]. our community worked to put together solutions that will [inaudible]. the city [inaudible] people plan. legislation proposed does not [inaudible] with the rust policies over the last 8 years. homelessness, displacement of people color temperature is a conditionation of redevelopment demolish makes the color from the 50s to 9's we need to

prioritize affordable housing funding inside of [inaudible]. the policies that [inaudible]. the market to continue to build up the housing that is if i canable. daved w urgs. posed to the stream lining legislation that only works to upon [inaudible] harm communities across san francisco. the legislation proposes to remove planning commission hearings for state density bonus project this is is a problem and

strips, way a layer of accountability and public oversight for low next community and of color. and people of color when it dmos development. developers have to do bear min numb notification and out reach to community and cbo's about projects the burden is on the community. and now it is being proposed the bonus projects don't have to hold a hearing as a planning commission. with the volume of projects in soma many density bonus makes information to the frubt. help us understands what is going on. there needs to be a public process. the goal is to remove the public from the process and build electric housing the intent is

simple will people of color being low income and working class are standing in the way. private developers, educated plans and the private for profit market know wham is best the people who live and work in san francisco had not have a say how the lands is used. this vision is no different they the ways of displacement and gentrification before temperature justin herman said, this slnd too valuable to permit poor people to park in it saturday redevelopment said valuable land must be stopped if south of market is supposed to be a functioning part of the city's environment. we ask you to oppose this, thank you. >> this is jim. i'm the former president of a

neighborhood group and [inaudible] environmental groups. i was here when the things in that planning code were put together. it does not come easy they were all struggled i think everybody today more affordable and moderately prized housing the way to do it is not to gut the planning department. in sometimes on the right side and fought hard. height limits. density limits. setback and shadows for buildings. adjacent historic preservation. 80 feet wide if you believe it. and one last thing about -- transit oriented development plan the transportation

professional and advocate for a long time. that is a bunch baloney that putting houses near the will affect in a positive way. tell not this is not enoughment

of this simple supply and demand if you build more housing. value of existing housing go down and will be more affordable. the way toward are affordable housing is increase the supply. san san francisco a global city the center of tech and new center for ai there is huge upon demands to live in the city we can't fit more people without more housing.

[inaudible] we hope the approval

this legislation will inspire cities to [inaudible] everies to grow smart. thank you. i passport this [inaudible] removes some of the [inaudible].

[inaudible]. slow down building and expansions a minor up zoning. and rear yard requirements. it not a major up zoning we need but it is good. and i like the [inaudible] demolition exemption sensible demolition protections should be focused protecting 10 acts no. [inaudible]. priority equity geography. these are basic good governors. why should our neighborhoods be subject. i support affirmative fair housing to me means we should stop throughout the neighborhoods from housing development.

greater barrier. that does not money we should tell member who owns a home, sorry because discrimination we'll [inaudible] 50 thousand dollars for dpees delays for your renovation. most intense but common sense -- permits reform should apply citywide will help homeowners and attentives. endorse this ordinance and expand it citywide. thank you. >> i'm adam buck i'm a physician and i live in d10. i support this legislation. every day i work in the hospital i take care of patients who are

homeless. and they all have stores theory different but all similar. what i tell people is that their medical problems is better off ficould prescribe them a home rather than medication. because without a home nothing matters. i had a patient who was heart failing because she was using meth and i kept her in the hospital for extra week waiting for a shelter bed to open up. she was staying at a 47's all using meth and reallimented stay sober he was dieing from a heart failure. after a week i was forced discharge her. i kept her an extra week. she said, i guess i will go become to the only accomplice i have shelter and use.

and continue my decent into death etch it really messed me up this is why i do why i'm calling in. every additional house this we build is one few are fashth like that. that's i didn't passport this legislation, thank you. >> this is adam in d6. and obviously i support the legislation optimize home building but what i'm concern body is how do we ensure that what passed is enforce exclude not subject to special treatment like we just saw this week. the board of supervisors over rhode the hired experts in planning regarding ceqa and building safety. and this high spiff than i did not know when than i were doing.

they did their job wrong and the board of supervisors said we know better and put something become on hold. or in d6. we have a special use district zoned for housing. it and housing it prohibits office uses. and -- one of the largest companies in the country. billions under management because their office was illegally convert topped a garage illegal low converted to a vc office. instead of enforcing that. planning put it off and now the vc office has a meeting with supervisor supervisor peskin later this among to give an exception to the lu. tholths the concernful how the law this is we pass are no good if we don't enforce them for

all. if a 5 milling homeowner is a ceqa exemption his views are blocked and stops the project or a billion dollars funds gets an exemption in the zoning luhay put an office where there should be housing what is the points what are we doing? we need to have fair laws for all. thank you. hello familiar i live notoriety manual. i support this up zoning the climate issue. denser housing less e missions from transportation and the built environment. mauler more dense homes if you care about climate change and your children and grand children, pass this legislation without amendments.

thank you. this ordinance weeps away rights we have to participate in the planning process. and canning about the proposal stripping down excess dr and demolition. i have been involved with public notification and participates to catch errors over looked by planning staff. and see our use of public papg. i like top independent to comment this is hearing is kwhch

we call [inaudible] out loud. our input is theatre. public participation is theatre the proposal is swat away the public input so we don't have to be bothered this is the wrong approach will thank you very much. >> okay. last call for public comment. >> if you are in the chambers come forward or remote press star 3 or use the raised hahn i conon web ex. go to our late requests. remote callers. hi i'm michael. nulty. as this ordinance is written is not add quit for the current issues for san francisco.

the climate issues. it nooet needs to changes in the ordinance for it to work for san francisco. i'm live in san francisco and there are things this san francisco for many years trying to make san francisco habitable for everyone. and it just seems to be too many seems that could do better and i hope that the commission can tweak this if it is passed. thank you. good afternoon this is mitchal with affordable housing alliance we have been working for new affordable housing for 4 democracied. and we seen a number of proposals in and go over the dwleers try to address the

housing crisis in san francisco. and they always promise said don't worry no attentives will be evicted that's what i want to address here this proposal is no different than the others. but pols will accomplish that ask the developers has anyone been evicted will anyone? this is not going to work. less you require notice and a fact finding is wishful thinking. pass the fox were there chickens in that hen house. that's how effective this will be, thank you very much. is this is maureen pet with affordable housing for seniors i'm here to recommend a condition situation to allow

time for creation of a 2 stage impelement anticipation planful the housing element and the afford [inaudible] this bill reverses this. it is not housing for all. enact an affordable housing implementation pact as a first stage. this is the stream lining, zoning and cost cutting benefits. the city instructed to work on relocation and size affordable a lot am and secure adequate funding for the new housing. and land bank.

this is accompanied by the community participation and cent protection improvement says a collaboration with renovations. since we have a surplus red to rent vacant high priced apartments tell hurt nothing to wait made toward building the affordable unit require the boulevard then, you can credit a stage 2 ordinance opening up incentives zoning exemptions for other developers as needed. please. continue the constraints proposal am thank you. is that concludes public comment this ordinance is before you. >> thank you to all those who came in who call in the.

we have been here for 3 hours and 9 minutes. so as the commission we take a 5 minute break. be quick so we welcome back to san francisco planning hearing for thursday, june 29, 2023. item 13. the contrain reduction ordinance. we closed public comment. and so -- this merit is before you. >> great, thank you. want to thank everyone who came out or called in. and wrote us letters we got that. thank you all for being involved and engaged. il make a few comment and call on commissioner imperial. a few notes to make sure i'm on the ceremony page with the

legislation includes fisay something wrong correct me. affordable inclusionary housing required in the housing proposal or state density law if taken advantage. >>s y. >> for those whop heard a lot of commends no affordable include today is included already in our community we are inclusionary housing unlike anyone in the united states there will be include dependsoth size and the scale of development a certain number of units. tell be part of it. yet other thing i heard a bit around the ceqa thrown out. my understanding the change from environmental review is this the project does not need to be could require mitigations under ceqa and eligible for home sf but through the seek with review process? >> yes, correct. now the eligibility requirement

for home sf say its can't have ceqa impacts creates a situation we review before we tomorrow if eligible but can't process it because we don't know if it is eligible. we are required to let people know if the application is commolest in a certain number of days. the project needs to go through ceqa review if alter third degree cannot convey significance. >> great. i wanted make sure that was clear for torn understand inclusionary house suggest not changed through this legislation. there is operate legislation this week changing that. ceqa is a part of this. were there other parts that touched ceqa? no. i don't believe.

>> that's the only place >> thank you. mr. starr. jot other thing i want to touch on a bit and these are matters to be discussed by the commission and others is rehard the vacant units there are in san francisco. when i was looking what the numbers are. billing andus census does good data and research. 30,000 of those were on the market to be sold or rented or had been sold butt person had not moved in yet. it important to look at the numbers. does not mean we may have thousands of vacant units but minoted be as big as folks think. we don't have good granular data that goes below a few categories. i think for a lot of us it

yields ideas people buying house and they're management. that does happen it may not be the vast majority of case. we are waiting to see what happens with the legislation. to have a vac acts home tax. we can get more and understand how folks are using homes merchandise not addressed but for my parity being when i'm doing the all of the above personful we under built for decades and not kept the population growth. now we are playing catch up and so we need affordable and market rate housing and senior housing and adu's and giant towers and single family homes and everything. i think this legislation builds on our housing element we thank you for being involved and put the piece in place the last thing before i'm excite body a lot of things i know it turns i

page that is current t differentful looking at seeing black and white and print. the density projects would not come you to this is our purvow to have a hearing indios de mayagüez or may not be able to make many decisions on. the noticing is hard. i don't like the ychd demo cute little houses but love the idea what can serve one family to 10

or more families. being reaccompliced with architecture of the time may not be as charming. but have its own charm and store and he part of san francisco. i will say one thing that gives me trouble not about the legislation but about real life and how things help in the city how do we protect tenants. our city has the most protenant laws in kidnap city in the united states for sure. i think what happened the lutz come in accomplice over many years have different agencies that support them. or may be might be enacted not through city or county agency but using the court system as the means to have i tenant acert their right. and i irrelevant adopt to see whether here is whether you think having a notice requirement should be in

there to gift flag i'm concerned about tenant protections knowing manage is happening before it get its building permit stage if we keep the noticing as their is we have notifications. you will not know what is happening next door. talk staff can share how this works and folks get a notification for property fist you are interested. we still have that i wonder does that work for organizations i way for them is it sufficient or too much work or if we keep the legislation as is, or change it i would love to see the body and the director work with the mayor's office to have information hearing here. and work on manage like mou like with around our fees. hammering out when a project come to the counter when it gets committed. when are we doing employs when

silent reason board doing. how are we using resources available to understand what is happening or has happened at the property if the city is funding nonprofits or funding nonprofits to help tenants should we not get back that information in a form so we use it to determine if someone is eligible for the permit they are applying for that is what not about this legislation. that is the level implementation that we need to get to to ensure that our tenant protection lauers being imped correct low. i will pause to have 2 questions. if somebody could explain the block book notification process to aveil themselves if they wanted and director hill uicous regarding the balance noticing or ways to know if we are protecting tenants. >> i'm happy to talk about the

process. one process i can talk about similar to this we created with neil technologies [inaudible] [speak very fast]. and any individual or neighborhood group can request a parcel level upon to be notified of any scope of work subject to the planning purvow. prevents a project from being autoally approved over counter and we press pause. do a 10 day notification to the person who asked it or if that person find with the scope of work the sponsor can bring a letter and documenting that to proceed. if let's us have a 10 day pause the person can get notifyd and they are able to file a dr if they have concerns. why anything prevent this from happening for the projects >>. no. jot other system i wanted share

is we have a technology system refer to building eye. and a way this folks sign up for automated alerts about projects submitted. if someone wantings to identify earlier thatave project has been filed on you know any -- there are variables. for, let of criteria you filter through. a digital not thafkz triggered when applications are at stages throughout the family this is one more option. >> what we are upon changing

around 317 and demo is in limited s. that you would not need to go through the cu process you are outside of the priority geography sud. not a history irk building. was not occupied or a history of eviction and adding additional. where you heard currently case we had a demo of an existing building and did not able to uncover fact there were tenants in the building.

adding that provision and noticing for those is fine. you want to talk about how real apply sb30 and the requirements. >> senate bill 3 bill start in the 2020 and updated in 2022 with sb8 what it snas tenant

protections you replace units that are going to demo so there is no net loss and creates protected units. protected units can fall under 4 categories any units that subject to elis in the left 10 years. rented by low income in 5 years. deed restricted fordable unit and subject to rent control. mainly the ones we look at often with the demos are once subject to rent control rented by low income households when we require going to planning commission is to receive affidavits the last 5 years verifying income and determining restriction. there is a different replace am requirement for rental projects versus ownership projects. there might be a deed restriction.

if ownership. if rent controlled unit lost. in i rental project if you are removing a reason control unit can be replaced with one upon if above moderate income level. there are different replacement procedures but manage that with everything we look at. >> as far as when the building is red for occupancy is it up to the landlord's honesty to know right to return is visible there is i accomplice to return or anyism agency or poor of our process or the city that looks into this portion? that is trick and he i condition of approval and recorded against the property. we are working with the rent board trying to figure out the best time to gift board the motions so they will have this on record. that is something i think is on going but it is recorded against the property in conditions of approval. it sounds hearing this from all

of you i'm less concerned about noticing we very long means and more about the function of all of the things together and huwe keep encouraging our agencies to builted work you do in the rent board and extend to others to make sure -- new statellow we are figuring out how to impcomplement we have to figure out on our own. thank you very much. those are my first comments and now i will call on commissioner imperial. >> thank you. i'd like to comment i never been to paris. i would like to. and importance had paris is like. i have been to foek tokyo and eni didn't third degree in terms of transportation i hope san francisco gets in that way. anyway, one i have a question about since we have the conversation on the demolition.

clarifying questions about the process of the demolition. or in the ordinance. in this ordinance and versus the staff analysis. i believe that under the letter that the ordinance does not irrelevant reflect what the staff analysis mentioned in 317 and the rent board. in terms of this section. attentive buy out is protected under this section. it is a reference on the no false eviction and does in the reference the elis act. in the staff analysis it is reserved. we may want to clarify that and that is my question.

first. if you being pointous. >> i have the same question and look lieu in the staff write out no fault evictions and no history of buy outs butt word buy out is not part of the legislation. and i the question is is this part of the no fault umbrella? how is this capture instead law. >> the tenant buy out is not a carve out. could you tell me why. >> on the summary. it is on the second page. number 2. under process. it is like 2a units to be demo are not tenant occupied and history evictions under code 6 those 17 a.

what does the ordinance say when it come to. was not intebldzed to leks cloud attentive buy outs the code section references is only for

now fault e viksz. move in eviction and looks like there is a separate roefrns elis act eviction administrate you have code exhibit referenced it 37. 9813 not referencing the ordinance. so, i think -- commissionerism roll you are asking whether this legislation includes protections or -- treats different low if an

elis. >> elis act or buy out. >> the specific omission of a13ing is intentional but it does include reference to sb330 ms. o'connor colted us earlier does have an obligation related elis. it does incorporate that by reference bull not a direct through sb. referenced here in this ordinance >> a code section you quoted. >> thank you for that clarification. can i ask a follow up. buy outs are not included? it is no fault evictions the reference to sb330 provisions there. no existing tenant but buy out system part of the legislation? i don't know the answer to that.

i'm not buy outs were not was not in10ingal i don't know. but my understanding this was not the intent of the legislation. if you want the to recommend that buy outs or not included. you can make that. we can double check. >> yea. i think you know yes. if we reference with racial and social equity and he we have in terms of the housing element. buy out system a form of displacement. i would recommend that to the commission to include buy outs as well. one question. one also this is i think i brought out this before. and the previous hearings about implementation of sb330. especially i know we still have the rental registry.

which is still in the beginning stage. right? and thank you. in terms of lithe out what are your protections. but we keep having this we don't have mechanism yet in terms of replace am of deeper affordability when it come to the income. what are the tools that areef the planning have or -- what does the planning have in terms of verifying income for previous tenants. >> kate planning staff am relion affidavits by tenants the left 5 years request that from the property owner. when we look at the low income we look and compare to the san francisco ami chart and figure out what that level. then once we figure out that ami level we restrict the unit to the closest level in the continuous of approval.

if there was a low income household making 50%, mi derestrict 50% for that unit and call out this u nit number in the and nsr and conscience of approval it is clearly stip litted if it has to be deed restricted and that would involve the mir avenue office of housing to put it in the portfolio the mayor community development runs subject to monitoring >> what if the and projects or the land lord does not have that information. >> if the land lord does not have that information we rely on the chaz a comprehensive housing strategy that is put out by the state. and so what the state says the jurisdiction. san francisco has so many low inin households andeen extremely low income. and currently now i motorbike off we are seventy-four and 26. when you look at the unit this

is need to be replaced 74% of those have to be affordable and 26 percent more deeply affordable in a deeper level. it is really to the owner's benefit to be able to have that information and to be able to track down the tenants and mitt the affidavits restricting them is a deep affordability restriction. >> chaz. >> a comprehensive foordzable strategy. good to know. >> not heard of that. how about the i have another question. in terms of the right of returnful am there has been alost conversations within the tenant groups in arrive retufrnl may be you can correct me the rent board does not monitor. am i wrong?

no, that's my knowledge. i don't want to peek for the rent board but not to my knowledge when we will do if there is a right to return we have not hell many. i think may be 2 where that continue imposed. it ask a condition on the motion we send it but they don't have an enforce am arm checking. than i are relyoth tenant's informed. i think that is a question of who will forcing body on that. and i think there has been conversations whether rent board or the planning. this it is manage that. am if we are talking about again for me i think i brought up before that we are the body in terms of trooig trying to impelement sb330 and should be planning department in terms of the right of refusal. or right of return. and how to track that. won't don't that.

to track that. which is >> one thing i might offer because it is a condition of approval tell be subject to our enforce:it is a violation if we receive a complaint from a neighbor or tenant we do have that abltd to enforce on that continue. may not be something the rent board is doing this. but there is the arm and check and budget. >> thank you. we could be more proacture in our enforce am of the conscience than on approval. you know and heard in the past our enforce. group makes response to complaints. internal low we have the ability if you mean want to direct us to elevate the proactive enforcement cases tenants are notified when they are on conditions of approval. as a replacement and rit to

return. i don't think there is reason we can't modify how we prioritize enforcement and elevate those. and deprioritize the complaint based enforcement case we have. >> and thank you. director. i think we need to have also more in conversation or planning in terms of that and how much telltation for our department to do that. yes. and another question that i want to have is i'm focusing more on the process. is on the cua's. because when i read this legislation i thought it would be just this equity group sud and exception there is an exception for prior equity group

sud seems like of course, the demolition applies for priority. my and i wish -- you know that the -- the department or the staff put more time in terms of theful more analysis on how it would affect citywide. because in i way it is going to affect the prior equity group in terms of the cu on large lot developments you know it is mentioned here about china town and another neighborhood commercial districts. so -- do we have some analysis on when it come to cua and how impact the priority equity group

sud? >> that's not in the case report this is a policy this was called out in the housing element that was done during that process. the out roach and analysis on housing element. getting rid of cu for learning lot is specific and as well as lot mergers but doing this in one district and not the mission or others. there are some things preserved the housing element tells us to get rid of them. the height and00 autolarge lot development are 2 thing catharsis citywide. you want to exceed you need a cu they are in -- not in priority equity tend not to have our

districts. but you are right it is most low for large lot cu apply city wight. those notoriety housing element eri? it i think those -- in terms of process in itself. i have the analysis in terms of building standards -- and i'm not going to lie it makes me worry because in terms of the requirements on -- in the -- rear yard. and i know that at this point

there are state laws. in terms of the state law adu on this and seems like this is trying to compliment the stay laws as well. the group housing for me i don't find it would be permitted single family and 4 plex it is creative. bum i'm i i i think i would also be if this is a citywide and again i'm trying to think television in a way how it would affect the group but does seem like it applies to the west side

area. >> sthoez are my question and comments. and -- i will -- comment later. >> thank you. commissionerism roll. others with comments and questions motions? >> commissioner diamond. thank you. company general comments and then specifics. i feel like what this legislation does is impelement when we agreed to in the housing element the way zoning works you adopt policies and you implement it through ordinances and policy and -- i don't think we should relitigate items we agreed on and for the most parity think the ordinance is implementing

when we decided on left summer. i -- take to heart a comment that was delivered today about you know can't we provide more housing downtown and if we do don't we do we need to go so fars we are going? and i think the department spent time exploring convert to housing. i believe the department is trying heard to figure out when tell take for property owners to convert for many upon reasons that is an important step get people downtown living 24/7 be grit for retail. but i don't think we should count on that to the exclusion of increase the density on the west side of the city. i'm taken by natalie calhow

often's comments if we want to add more house nothing residential do this being clear what the rules are to provide consistency. and -- and we can allow project experience or homeowners to process quicker. i prosecute poedz modification. on the questions -- um -- i believe it was submit du bows triangle in written comments how

are we supposed to respond to the proposed design standards about rear yard set becomes shrink when we don't know what the heights will be. as you may recall in the eir for the housing element 3 things were proposed one of which the first of which increased the heightos residential side streets. how to do we think about the design changes when we are not sure what the heights am be.

>> i think we had discussion about rear yard requirements the code does not make sense it is all over as far as what you are required to do. and i think the changes are rollizing that. in the r districts. which tends not to be where we are going to focused on you know significant changes to the zoning. through the rezoning effort. i think each in the housing element phoning uses we think we will get the most units in rezoning our commercial corridors remove density controls legislation moving forward to do this in selective height increases on this. so i guess i'm less childrened i think it most low applied to r districts where we rezoneed allow for 4 units

>> do i think that is to meantime direction staff is head in the with the rezoning coming, is this most of the height increases on the west side on the commercial corridors. >> those what was in the housing element. >> yes. >> what are rules, organizations

and stoornsd that go in to making surety service are visible? kate, planning staff that is a great question i will give you an answer but we can get become to you the department of homelessness and spicht housing is taking the lead on shelter mrksz. we don't see has many as we would like to which i add that there hen state luallow for them

to be handled. relies on a navigation center has strict requirement in terms of not only services provided but different dimensions i can collect this and transmit it. you thank you will be helpful. i think we are permitting shelters on every lot over the city and i think it would be useful to know what are the standard in place. just as an informational item nothing to do how we change that in the ordinance. that is part of when we adopted in the housing element. last is a concern for me. and has to do with the design standard am that deals with front set backs moving from 15 feet to 10 feet. so -- i'm a believe this we can

increase the density of housing on the west side. try to preserve when is special about the west side. for those of us who live on the west side the feature is the revving larity of the street wall. some streets are set become at 10 feet and many are set become 15 feet or more there is a street wall. i don't mind at all the provision this says move from averaging to be able to have the front setback snatch shortest set become on each side i am concerned about when i can see happening where -- virtually every or the vast majority of the houses on the street are setback 15 feet or more and a new project is proposed and we end up with a series of building this is jet out and change the

regularity of the street wall. you proposed an exception in this scenario. urjtsdz i etch don't have this ready. the way at the moment says the mack required setback in cases in the section 132 shall be -- crossing out 15 and putting in 10. 10 feet from the property line along the street or alley. and this would be the addition. if except in the case where more then and there 75% of the properties on the subject blocks have a setback of 15 feet or greater and both parcels adjacent to the subject property a front setback of 15 or greater

the mack front setback 15 feet. if we were starting from scratch i have no problem with the 10 not set become or a less are set become we can have the regularity. someone commented we have neighborhoods that are know hundred years old in many cases with regular street wall and i don't think we need to do damage to that and the density we are seek. i would propose that as a

modification to the ordinance in front of us and hope the others would agree with that. those are my comments. i can support this. commissioner koppel i'm accepting of those amendments. just a couple broad strokes here. thanks to honorable mayor breed and supervisor engardio for bringing this legislation. it is projects like stevenson and wish wash street last week i think that -- begged the need for this time legislation because they have certain supervisors doing what is best for their neighborhoods and not getting the housing we need for the city. we will have to make changes. >> thank you. commissioner braun. i want to say thank you to everyone who submitted letter

and provide comment and a huge turnow big are than we expected. and i appreciate the details analysis submitted part of the comment this is game me food for thought. i think a lot of the questions and concerns i had coming in the hearing addressed. the ceqa issues i'm happy to hear that the through reference the evictions are already being addressed in terms of which projects are exempt. and on the set backs i'm satisfied with those. i that's i don't live on the west side i'm not familiar with the street wall issue i appreciate your thoughtfulness on that. i would say gust big picture,

you know this is -- really a big step in the process of working toward a long term solution to helping to improve afford at of housing in our city. it is not a tool for -- there are other tools that be applied as president tanner mentions. as stated you know i think the reason i don't have detailed comments because this does electronic the implementation of the housing leadership adopted boy this body and the board of supervisors. i'm glad to take this next step in that process. that said, the housing element had a bunch other implementation actions included in it that's

where i want to rescue noise and appreciate the coalitions run down and the, tamp am. identified the other asspekts not addressed with this legislation but will be through processes and i think it i appreciate that ajs and you continue is manage we are working toward but this body will monitor this process and over see that as well. those are my comments and appreciate the work that has gone into this. american more. >> thank you to everybody and mir breed. supervisor engardio and aaron starr having spent every waking hour in the left few months getting this on the table today. while i believe that constraints reduction is when we committed to in approving and supporting the housing element we spent

significant cannot time on shaping. i am unfortunately low disappointed today that a major aspect of when we tried to really support in the housing element is indeed the creation of housing and affordable housing for lower income people this peeves legislation in front of us today does in the fully address this aspect, it referred to as housing and i had hoped this we would have more specificity in this peeves legislation to push us forward.

from sacramento written boy a person that was deeply involved in housing leaderships not only in our city but across the state. and remyselfed us strongly support this legislation. while i felt intimidated to be honest, taking to myself there are good reminders in the letter as he stress the housing element is indeed poseed focus on verbatim? this legislation does not do this. had i found the arguments brought afford by the tenant's

union. the -- kwo aligz of the san francisco antidisplace am and the rep -- weighing heavy low on me i very strong low commit in the my own comments the creation of the housing element. that being my priority. that said. they are a couple of other things which resonated with me as questions. i brought questions up to mr. starr there is an answer i will restate them. just for the record. as everybody has pointed out i think the largest issue is the discrepancy in numbers. numbers upon how much vacant unit dos we really have. not vacant units of newer build. it is vacant units standing

around vacant for more then and there 20 or 30 years. i live in a neighborhood that is 5-6 story neighborhood where across the street left and right in i circle they are all vacant. i bruthis up and supervisor chu and city attorney was the supervisor where i live. he was correspond but felt there was nothing he could do and other people are tried. thez are huge numbers in if 1978 there were 32,000. baseod census at the time. guess today is 60 or more. that is on top of units that are fresh low built and have not sold. i want to point out this is the resource this in proper management of vac analysis and he when is needed a resource we

have not addressed. the other question you ask every thursday is we have significant amounts of approved projects. in human thousands of units people around long enough know the projects have not kick started there is always a reason it is the economy. combu this is the reality and i don't believe that extreme measures that are propose in the this legislation will help us to over come what has always been the issue or the hindrance of housing. i'm not going to get in depth of what that is you hahn that is, money. that said i wanted to revert from not series talk to a few questions and comments regarding

the legislation in front of us. i asked mr. starr about what base mapping are we using for do we need the creation of priority equity to special use districts. it is apparently an agreement about what is being used. at this moment rely on the am maps and the housing element they were created by the d. public health.

the question is learninger. we have guide lines or recommendations for -- min miegz or configuring lot size. residential reduction in open space and reduction in lot size. i would photography seat entire lives guidelines considered more embetted in rezoning and when we do when we understand rezoning and what height and other impacts it have on the type of guide lines. snb called it out piecemeal and i think we want to avoid that, that is