okay. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, february 1st, 2024. when we reach the item, you are interested in speaking to. uh, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 30s remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when you're allotted time is reached,

i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record. uh, i'll remind those folks that who may have come in late that if you cannot find a seat, you won't be able to stay in the chambers. folks in the back, in the corner. if you cannot find a seat, sir. if you cannot find a seat, you will not be able to remain in the chambers. you will need to go down to the north. light court, where there is an overflow room for you to be able to view and hear these proceedings. there does appear to be one seat up here in the front. you cannot save seats, georgia. not like it's sort of, you know, first come, first serve here. okay. you can't have your best friend sitting next to you if people are wanting to come in. okay but i'm sorry for those persons who cannot find a seat. you will need to go down to the north

light court to the. thank you. okay finally, i'll ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. and at this time, i will take roll commission. president diamond. commission. vice president moore. commissioner braun here. commissioner. imperial. here. commissioner coppell here. and commissioner ruiz here. thank you. commissioners first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance at the time of issuance, there were no items proposed for continuance. however, this morning we received a late request from the project sponsor to continue item 17 for case number 2020. hyphen 007806 cour for the property at 1314 page street. a conditional use authorization and their request is to continue to february 29th, 2020 for um at this time, we should open up public comment on the continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance. good

afternoon, commissioners justin zucker from ruben, jason rose here. on behalf of the applicant, we're requesting a short continuance to explore options to grow the ground floor unit and we'd like to work with staff in between. now and then. it's our understanding they have some guidance from the commission so that when we do come back, we're not wasting folks time and we have a viable option that could work. thank you. last call for public comment on the continuance calendar. seeing no additional requests to speak. public comment is closed and the continuance calendar is now before you. commissioners uh, i'll just say that i'm supportive of this request for a continuance. the plan that was presented to us did not receive staff approval, and i believe it could warrant some additional time between the project sponsor and staff to come up with something that's more likely to work. uh, commissioner moore, i see you have your hand up. nice

quick move to continue to the 29th of february second. thank you. commissioners, on that motion to continue to. page street to february 29th. commissioner braun i, commissioner ruiz i. commissioner. imperial i. commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner. president. diamond i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and will place us under your consent calendar for all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff. so request in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing item. one case number 2023. hyphen 002737q8 2299 market street. conditional use. authorized an item two case number 2023 hyphen 002741 seaway

at 2606 ocean avenue. conditional use authorization item three, case number 2023 hyphen 002524q84 80 columbus avenue. conditional use. authorized in item four, case number 2023 hyphen 002743 coa 2675 san bruno avenue. conditional use authorization item five, case number 2023 hyphen 002832 coa at 801. clement street. conditional use authorization and item six, case number 2023 hyphen 007347 coa at 500 through 504 castro street. conditional use authorization members of the public. this is your opportunity to request that any of these items on the consent calendar be removed and heard under the regular calendar today or at a future date. you need to come forward if you'd like to remove this from the consent calendar. seeing none. commissioners public comment is closed and your consent calendar

is now before you. commissioner imperial, move to approve all items. second. thank you commissioners, on that motion to approve items on consent, commissioner braun i commissioner ruiz, i. commissioner imperial i. commissioner koppell i. commissioner moore i and commission president diamond i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 placing us under commission matters for the land acknowledgment. commissioner imperial is going to read the acknowledgment today. thank you. the commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone , where the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula, as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush alone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibility as security. keepers 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 under 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. thank you sir. i'm going to need to ask that you find a seat. i think there's a seat in the back there somewhere. thank you. uh, commissioners, that will place us on item eight. consideration of adoption draft minutes for the december 7th, 2023 hearing. and january 18th, 2024 hearing. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on they're minutes. again, you need to come forward seeing none public comment on the minutes is closed and they are now before you commissioners . commissioner braun moved to approve the minutes. second. thank you commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes, commissioner braun i commissioner ruiz, i commissioner, imperial

commissioner. couple i commissioner moore i commissioner. president diamond i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 placing us on item nine commission comments and questions. commissioner ruiz. thank you. yeah. i wanted to address something that i've had many concerns with community members about, and it's regarding the recent state budget cuts to affordable housing in january. i understand the governor delivered his statewide, statewide budget, which included more than $1.2 billion in cuts to affordable housing programs and. i think this is incredibly significant and cannot be ignored, especially amidst all of our conversations around the housing element and being in compliance. um and our recent arena allocation in our affordable housing mandates increase by 285, going from nearly 17,000

affordable housing units to now almost 47,000. and i know we fallen short in our previous affordable housing goals, and i don't think we most definitely will not reach them if we don't have support coming from the state. so i would like to suggest that the planning commission introduce a resolution urging the governor and state legislature, state legislators to reject the proposed state budget cuts to affordable housing and support us with the resources that we're going to need to fulfill these mandates. commissioner imperial, um, yeah, i thank you, commissioner ruiz, for bringing that up. um, i think it's i will be supportive for the commission to write a resolution. um and of course, in terms. and that's something i would ask president diamond if that's something we

could agendized, um, in the in whatever date possible for us to create a resolution and be voted on it. so i am generally supportive of this idea. we absolutely need the funding in order to meet the mandate. but i want to do it in a manner that's likely to be most effective. um and therefore i turn to you, director hylis, to see if there's a way we can do it that is collaborative with whatever other efforts are being undertaken by the city. uh, to, to, um, intercede with the state to ensure that we receive affordable funding, housing. sure. absolutely. we're happy to work with you all to get something on calendar. i think the timing works well because the affordable housing leadership committee, which we established that was kind of called for during the housing element, is wrapping up its work. so we expect to get their recommendations as soon in the,

you know, later this month. and we can calendar that that in their, you know, their primary charge was to look at funding and how to how to meet our obligations. and obviously, one of the biggest hurdles to that is funding at local, state and national level. so you will see recommendations. so i think we can marry those two and have that hearing which we were scheduling for later this month in february. and combine it with with the request that you have commissioner ruiz to take take an action or endorse the resolution related to that hearing. if related to that hearing, if we want to. but i think that works. the timing works well. so commissioner ruiz, does that make sense to you to, um, maybe i could ask you to work with director hylis. um, on the drafting of the resolution. um, and also working out the appropriate timing, because it does seem like having this information presented to us would be an important first step before adopting the resolution.

then i think that sounds right to me. that's true. commissioner braun, you saw my name. oh, i'm sorry, commissioner moore. uh, i would actually appreciate, uh, if we would have a agendized just to vet the issue. i mean, i would think it would be informative to commissioner ruiz to also hear the other commissioners thoughts. thoughts, pro or con or in between, in addition to having the public comment in whatever form is appropriate as we deliberate, i believe that we are also looking for public comment. so the budget cuts from sacramento are coming. really like a thunderstorm with the extent or the numbers being so significantly high that they almost invalidate of what we are doing here. we're trying to push from both ends without moving anything. and for that reason, i think i would appreciate having a forum to hear each other clearly because we're going to

be penalized one way or the other. but if the state who has in the past not helped in any significant way, i would appreciate having that out here and have each of us independent, uh, voice our questions and our concerns. i yeah, i think i'm i'm fine with that. like you all control the agenda, but i'm happy to support that effort and make sure that agendized. but i think having the context of the report, which actually was done to look at funding options, i think is just good to have that. but but having the resolution separately to agree with you as a stepping stone, in the end, we need to work together and i think all of us are in support of your effort. but i think for us to take an independent look at it would help. is that would that, uh, what you have been thinking of? so if i'm understanding correctly, agendize a resolution before the agenda is a discussion. agenda is a discussion. yeah. so that we have common ground on the points that you are trying to elevate that sounds fine to me,

commissioner braun. i'm i'm definitely supportive of the idea of authoring a resolution that would oppose any cuts to affordable housing. um, support or funding from the state. um, but also, i agree with with president diamond's perspective that we should make sure we're going to do this in a really effective way and with the knowledge that we need to craft the wording properly. i look forward to having the deeper conversation about this. um, if we do have a discussion about the issue prior to the formal, you know, action on a on a resolution, uh, at the very least, i would appreciate more context coming forward for that. i don't want to create a huge burden for staff to prepare a whole lot of information, necessarily. but still, if there are budget cuts, uh, at the state level for affordable housing funding, i'd like to at least have the context of what programs are being cut out and what kinds of dollar amounts are being considered. uh, and whatever information is possible

to bring forward to help us with our our discussion would be helpful in these recommendations. come with extensive background documents and research that we've done and where we've been. i don't think we lose any time like we do. i think the timing works. we're we're ready. you know, in the next couple of weeks to come to you with that report and have that discussion on, uh, you know, can take on the resolution as well. you're welcome to do it prior. if you want. i just think having that document, which you know, has been been we've been working with the affordable housing community, most cd has been very much involved in it shows options would be helpful, but ultimately your choice. so my strong preference is to actually have that document, um, an agenda dies. our discussion after we've had a chance to review that document, i feel like i'll have way more information in order to express my views. i think we'd all benefit by having the background

document. and if it's just, you know, i think it's three weeks. three weeks, i suggest that we have that document presented to us and we agendize our discussion and potential resolution for the week afterwards. um, or even that week if the same day, if you want, because we'll have received it in the staff report. right. so we'll have had a chance to review it ahead of time. i have a question. president diamond, in terms of, um, what you just mentioned. so in um, so on the day of the this affordable housing council going to report on us and that is also the day, um, that we can discuss the language of the resolution. of course, there's a lot of and perhaps that day will not be the day for us to vote on the resolution. that's what you're saying. so it will have to be agendized for the next week, perhaps to vote on the resolution. well, it really that's a matter of discussion, i think, between director hylis and commissioner ruiz. if you think you can have the data available to you sufficiently in

advance that you could come up with the draft resolution, um, and circulate it in the same staff package we get the friday before the hearing, which would be the same time we'd be getting the report from the committee. i think we could consider them together if we feel like based upon the report, that additional modification are necessary, we can consider them at the hearing or continue it. but i'd be fine scheduling them both for the same day. if but really, that's director hills and commissioner ruiz. do you feel like you have time between now and then to draft the resolution? i yeah, i think now between the end of february, we can draft the resolution on agendize. both items together discuss and vote that hearing. i think it would fit nicely. commissioners on february 22nd, you already have the expanding housing choice information presentation coming forward. we could make it an a and b item where this item could be a potential action item. okay. do we need to actually vote on no, i didn't think so.

okay all right. there's nothing further commissioners. uh, we can move on to item ten for remote public comment. um, so you requested that this matter be agendized again after you voted on the matter? um, as previously stated, uh, the board of supervisors has suspended their remote public comment. um, following that, the mayor has, um, issued a directive for all commissions and boards to follow suit for consistency. fauci to um, encourage folks to come down to city hall. and as you can see, we've got a packed house today. um, that even requires an overflow room. uh to encourage people to come to civic center. the only commission or body that i'm aware of that has continued remote public comment as a matter of, uh, practice, is the board of appeals as the historic preservation commission in um, voted recently unanimously to

suspend remote public comment. and going a step further than what you had instructed us. uh, and even sort of advisory technical expert staff would need to be in city hall to make their presentations for potential questions. if they if the commissioners had any. um, so with that, maybe before you deliberate, we open up public comment, but unfortunately before we do that, for those persons who cannot find a seat, unfortunately, i'm going to ask that after asked ask you to go to the north like court on the ground floor to view these proceedings, there appear to be maybe a couple of seats in the back. um if you'd like, you can occupy these seats reserved for staff for the time being, but otherwise you'll need to make your way to the north light court until the item that you are interested is called. thank you. i appreciate that. so

again, folks, standing in front of the doorway, uh, you either find a seat or have to go down to the north light court. there are a couple of seats reserved for staff that you can occupy now. go ahead. for now. you can go ahead and occupy them. again folks, standing in the doorway, we can't have you standing in the doorway. it's a fire hazard. and if you can't find a seat, we'll need you to go down to the north. light court. they have set up a monitor and some chairs where you can listen to these proceedings. can you explain to them? they can come back. we can't continue until those of you who are standing have been made. but if it's not clear, you will be able to come back in to submit your public comment. but if you cannot find a seat, we'll

need to ask you to leave and go down to the north light court. we have reached our maximum capacity, so i'm not sure what the folks standing at the doorway don't still understand, but we cannot proceed until you go down to the north light court , where the people can call in. well, that's up to him. i don't know, you can ask him about it or her. ma'am, you cannot stand up against the wall. no you cannot stand if you cannot find a seat, we'll need to ask that. you go downstairs to the north light court. this is really okay . i will take comment for a remote public comment. right. hi, george. two. oh, good. okay. two minutes is fine. you know, just just parenthetically, i think those dbe code advisory

committee are taking remote public comment. just, just other information. but i think today illustrates why remote comment is important isn't because this is a very important issue. you've got tons of people. we still have covid around and rsv and flu and i think that it would have been really a great idea to continue this at least through april. are you going to be jammed in here with people? and there are people who can't come, who want to talk about this issue. this is a really important issue. and you want to talk about what you just talked about with the affordable housing. so i really hope you'll consider it because you want to spread this out to everybody in the city coming here. i mean, i debated whether to come today, frankly, you know, i mean, i wish more people were wearing a mask. maybe. maybe you can't make people wear a mask anymore. but you know, it's like, this is like being on an airplane for nine hours. and the only time i

was on an airplane for nine hours and didn't get anything a cold was in august 2019 when an i wore a mask. so i think that's something to consider for the welfare of everybody. but fundamentally, i really hope that this commission will consider going back to remote comment. it worked great for two years. you had broad participation and i think given what's on the agenda today and what's going to be on the agenda for the next couple of months, you need broad participation throughout the city. thank you for the time. okay. last call for remote public comment. uh, president dimond and the rest of the commission, this plan is a developer's wet dream. if any of you. ma'am, ma'am, we're taking public comment on remote public comment. oh excuse me, you can

hold on to that wet dream a little longer. okay last call for remote public comment. seeing none, we'll go to our a reasonable accommodation requester. i if you don't listen to public comment that's when they call. it's ridiculous. this is sue hester. uh, i want to correct the record. there are a bunch of committees and commissions that still have remote public comment, include the successor to the redevelop agency oshii. the entirety of bic and dbe, and all of their subcommittees and everything i get large jen psaki all the agendas say how to connect and commit comment. port commission does remote comment and ironically, the county transportation authority, which

is the same thing as a board of supervisors, is not the metropolitan. the county transportation authority, which has control of money. so a lot of other agencies do up a comment remotely. georgia made a really good point that hazardous to come to city hall for a lot of people. and the planning commission should have a public comment until april or till a few season is over, at least. and they had a really good discussion of this at the board of appeals. um i am requesting that you basically do remote public comment and put on the agenda how to access it. it's not not a big thing anymore. and you should do this just to have on your calendar has a lot of

important hearings on it. and people are not allowed to speak because they are not allowed to come. they're disabled from coming. so please approve. remote public comment at least until april. thank you very much . okay commissioners, with that public comment is closed. uh, but as demonstrated for anyone with a disability, uh, we will afford reasonable accommodations when we cannot afford reasonable accommodation for persons who are traveling, for persons who. got covid or the flu. but for those disabled or with any other disability, uh, they just simply need to make that request to me. so now, commissioners, it's back before you. thank you. um i feel like we had a fulsome discussion , um, on this item. and for me,

nothing has changed in the interim that, uh, the compromise that we arrived at, um, which is consistent with the effort that was started by the board to end remote public comment and which the mayor asked all of our commission to follow is, i think , the right one, that having people return to city hall is an important part of, um, re-energizing our city, and that we should be setting an example. so for me, nothing has changed. uh, commissioner koppel, i see you have your hand up. yeah, i'm thinking, like you're thinking president diamond. um, i do want to honor the mayor's directive. um and we just heard from, um, uh, a very reasonable requested public commenter who easily was able to call in under the conditions we're working under now. and she had complete access to call in just as anyone else would. so i think changing that would be redundant. um, and just adding more work. um, as though even though i think things are working properly as they are now

and then, i just wanted to maybe at least ask jonas, just quickly, to just touch on the topic and if he, you you seem to have an ease with people that request calling in, they simply can call in right? absolutely. um, to date, since we've suspended remote public comment, um, miss hester is the only person who's requested that reasonable accommodation and she's been afforded it every week for every hearing. and as demonstrated, she was able to call in and submit her testimony. thank you. and then also, if we were to change things, i think i'd feel a little better if we had a full commission, too. so if things want to be voted on, i think it'd be a little more appropriate to wait until we have seven full commission. commissioner braun. yes. um i think throughout this conversation, when you say, you know, nothing is sort of changed, i'm still in favor of enabling remote public comment. i was, you know, a little more concerned and, uh, thinking that

we might be the sole commission that still does, uh, that the civil commission that would allow remote public comment. but, you know, hearing that the board of appeals is still allowing remote public comment. and i guess i should refer to as open remote public comment because i do want to respect the fact that we do allow folks with disabilities to still call in with the request ahead of time. um, but, you know, i, i still see this as being something that really enabling more participants to call in. um, i think it's something that we learn to do during the pandemic. it's a helpful thing that we learn to do during the pandemic, and that we can enable a lot more access from across the city. and i also take comfort from the fact that if we find that it's not working, if we find there's a problem, just as we're discussing this today, it's something that we can also still change in the future. commissioner moore, vice president moore. i've been on

the fence on this. i clearly hear a large number of, uh, a large number of participants wanting to keep it as it is. uh, however, talking with secretary ionin, uh, i feel that the interpretation of requests for reasonable accommodation can be interpreted not just coming with a doctor's prescription that you are indeed, uh, in impaired or disabled or what is the proper word is here. but i think it will be his judgment to properly traffic effect reasonable accommodation requests. and, uh, perhaps you could pick that up one more time of how it is done. many people may not have heard it in the first time, and we spoke about it. i like to share you with you. my impressions of last week. last week we had a reasonably important, uh, item on our agenda. it was stolen street. if i'm not sure if you're familiar with the project, there was a large number of people from the community, including other people who were very much

interested in the subject matter in this room. and after so many years of being strained to listen to public comment via this microphone, which is harder than it is than you think it is, uh, i was delighted to see the dynamics of seeing people with their expressions and with their particular ways of speaking right in front of us, and it created a very light and wonderful and powered atmosphere here. and for that reason, after three years having done this with quite a bit of strain, sitting here trying to concentrate to properly hear what's being said, i am at this moment going to support it particularly, i believe it's in the trusted hand of our commission secretary to handle it properly and give a proper room for accommodation. so i appreciate that. commissioner moore. um, yes, indeed. um, at the time that you suspended remote public comment, i, i feel i was given clear direction from former president tanner at that

time to use my discretion quite liberally. and certainly no doctor's note or any kind of proof of disability would be requested. um, by me or my office to provide that. and as has been since i've been secretary, the disability and language accommodation, uh, request email and my direct phone number is on the first page of the agenda. i'm not seeing anyone else wanting to. indeed, if there's no further comments or questions or motions being made, we can move on. commissioners, thank you for that discussion on, um, that will place us now under department matters for item 11 directors announcements. yeah no, no additional announcements. item 12 review of past events at

the board of supervisors and the board of appeals. the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday, so good afternoon, commissioners aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs. this week, the land use committee considered the planning commission sponsored code corrections ordinance. as you probably recall, the code corrections ordinance is intended to correct errors in the code that usually come about from previous ordinances. this ordinance was continued from last week so that some minor clerical amendments could be drafted to form this week. those amendments were accepted and the committee by the committee and then the item was forwarded to the full board with a positive recommendation. next, the committee considered the mayor's ordinance to add form based density to nc zoning districts outside the priority equity geographies. sud. this commission considered this item on october 26th of last year and voted to recommend approval with modifications. those modifications included exempting north beach and cdd from the rezoning effort. because most of it fell outside the priority equity geographies, susie and rezoning all of polk street in

cdd because most of it fell outside the priority equity geographies. sud. there were also other technical amendments. the mayor did incorporate all of the commission's recommended modifications in addition to adding form based density to the excelsior outer mission street and cdd. this was a compromise with supervisor safai, who had also introduced a similar ordinance which you considered at the same time as the mayor's. during the hearing, supervisor preston asked questions about whether a feasibility report had been done to decide if additional inclusionary rates were required. staff responded that the tac had recently completed a comprehensive review of the city's inclusionary rates , and found that no housing project is feasible under our current or under the previous inclusionary program, and in response, the board had reduced those rates citywide. this analysis includes both form based and lot based density controls. that answer did not seem to satisfy the supervisor, who appeared to want a separate study specifically for this rezoning effort. he also took

issue with the level of public outreach. supervisor peskin indicated he would have additional amendments that staff inferred would in some way prohibit the use of state density bonus projects with form based density, and our nc districts, however, the amendments were not yet signed to form. there were about a dozen speakers during public comment, most seemed to be in favor, although there were a significant number of people opposing the rezoning. once public comment had completed, the committee continued the item one week, then at the full board this week, the westwood park entrance gates and pillars passed its second read. that's a landmark designation, and there was a tentative appeal for a parcel map at 1365 to 1371 york street. um, that was continued to october 5th. and that's all i have for you today. thank you. seeing no questions for mr. starr, the board of appeals did meet yesterday and heard one case of interest to the planning commission for the property at

415 grafton. um an appeal of an alteration permit to construct a vertical addition to an existing one story over basement, single family dwelling. the adjacent neighbor to the west had previously filed a discretionary review with with light and air impacts. um, from the addition privacy impact uh from the property line windows concern. and at the march 30th, 2023 hearing, the planning commission heard testimony from both parties and voted 6 to 0 to not take doctor and approve the project as proposed. uh, the board of appeals generally felt the same, and the proposed addition, um, is modest in size, and the appellant's own 11 foot wide side setback is more than sufficient to provide separation between the two neighboring buildings. um and with that, the board voted unanimously to deny the appeal and uphold the discretionary review. uh, additionally, the board elected jose lopez as the president and

alex lemberg as their vice president. with that, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the. in the meeting, uh, when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit. general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. thank you very much. um, i think if my knowledge of process is right, we should have been asked to give public comment on number nine commission comments and questions, which so either we should have and we weren't. but anyway, i'm going to put it under remote public comment since we weren't. and i just want to say that the idea of a letter to sacramento is awesome. and we hope you will proceed. i get asked people in back of me

to wave their hands if they think it's a good idea to ask the state for money for affordable housing, for those who are paying attention. um, but anyway, it's a great idea and i urge you to not bureaucratize if that's the word it too much, don't let the perfect be the enemy of getting it done. it's a great idea, and i hope you will proceed as quickly as possible to do this. thank you. hello. i'm coming late to the game about this because i don't feel like it's really widely known about the zoning height increases. i'm absolutely outraged at the broad sweeps of height increases you have proposed for all over san francisco. are you speaking to expanding the housing choice information presentation? the height zoning limit increases? can i not comment on that right now? huh? yeah, right. that's on the next item. ma'am. we haven't called that yet. when is that

happening? it'll be right after this. this is general public comment for items that are not on the agenda. last call for general public comment. okay. seeing none. general public comment is closed. and we can move on to the regular calendar for item 13. case number 2021, hyphen 005878 cw p for expanding housing choice housing element zoning program. this is an informational presentation. no, ma'am. you cannot. we will hear from staff their presentation, and then we'll take public comment. okay. just on those couple of seats

that were reserved for staff. i mean, do we. yeah. i'm sorry. um, i thought we'd be lenient and let staff stand, but if we could just vacate the reserved seating for staff in the front row, uh, the planning director would certainly appreciate that. and unfortunately, if you cannot find a seat, you will need to go down to the north light court. when we call public comment, we'll certainly allow affords you time to come back into the room. oh yeah, we know, we know. we got it. thank you. all right. thank you again. those folks standing in the back. if you can't find a seat, you'll have to go to the north light court and then just come back up when we call for public comment, you'll be able to hear and view the proceedings. they've set up a monitor where you can do so. ma'am sitting on the floor doesn't count. i'm sorry, i can't make an exception for you. and then have other people leave

. i'm sorry. well, you will be able to hear and view the proceedings in the north light court. ma'am, i can't i can't make an exception. there's a seat right over there. ma'am, can you please sit down? ma'am, there's a seat right over there. you can have over here. okay. are we ready? go ahead. yeah all right. good afternoon, commissioners. lisa chen with department staff. i'm joined by many of our team members who have been working on the housing element, rezoning effort, expanding housing choice. we're excited to be here today to provide an informational update

on the rezoning, including the final proposed zoning map that we've submitted to the commission and to the mayor's office for consideration. we'll also be providing an overview of the forthcoming legislative amendments. as a reminder, this work is rooted in our city's housing needs and is one of the central implementation actions of the housing element, which was adopted unanimously by this commission, the board of supervisors and the mayor, and certified by the state exactly one year ago today. i know that you are all intimately familiar with the housing element, but in recent weeks we've been getting many emails and meeting with community members who say they're hearing about this for the first time. and so this background is worth repeating. in san francisco, the cost to own a home has doubled over the past decade and has tripled over the last 20 years, such that a household would need an income of almost $300,000 $300,000 a year to buy a home. so we and other cities are working towards a mandate to build housing to

meet our needs with the goal of making housing more affordable across california, local jurisdictions have been directed to change our zoning to make room for 2.5 million housing units, including 1 million affordable units in san francisco. our share is 82,000 units, including roughly 46,000 affordable units. after accounting for our pipeline and expected development, this leaves a gap of roughly 36,000 homes that we are planning for our. the state also requires us to fundamentally reconsider where we build housing to create more inclusive and equitable neighborhoods. we have, and we will continue to plan for housing citywide, and we expect to see tens of thousands of housing units built in the southern and eastern neighborhoods closer to downtown . however, under federal and state laws on affirmatively furthering fair housing, san francisco needs to do more, and we need to create the same opportunities to add homes in the housing opportunity areas pictured in blue. these areas represent over half of our

residential land, but only 10% of new housing and affordable housing has been built here in the last two decades. these are areas designated by the state as having higher incomes, higher performing public schools, and lower environmental pollution, adding new homes here and especially homes for low and middle income residents, will be transformational for the families and households who will benefit from living in these neighborhoods. history buffs will note. that the map of housing opportunity areas bears a resemblance to the historic redlining map dating to the 1930s. this map was used to systematically deny investments in the neighbors that neighborhood that were labeled hazardous, shown in red, which also happened to be where many people of color and low income people lived and continued to live to this day. additional discriminatory lending practices also excluded people of color from obtaining mortgages. in the more desirable areas. in green and blue, san francisco still bears the scars from this painful chapter in our past.

with that context in mind, we have been planning for a minimum of 36,000 housing units throughout the housing opportunity areas, primarily on commercial streets, major transit routes, and other large sites. most of this housing will be mid-rise or roughly 6 to 8 stories, with some areas and streets with higher heights. it's worth noting that the city is continuing to plan for additional housing off the main streets, as well. this commission and policymakers have adopted numerous policies to enable accessory dwelling units. fourplexes and six plexes and other so-called missing middle housing types throughout residential areas, acknowledged that we need to do more to build housing in every corner of our city. there are various consequences if we are unable to adopt the rezoning or fail to comply with other key provisions of the housing element, we may become ineligible for hundreds of millions of dollars in state grants for transportation, affordable housing and other critical infrastructure. we could be exposed to fines and lawsuits, which is happening in

other cities. finally if our housing element is ultimately decertified, then we would be subject to builders remedy, meaning that we would be forced to approve any proposed housing that meets basic safety safety standards, no matter their proposed height or scale. the mayor's housing for all executive directive instructed the department to have a final zoning proposal by january 2024, so we have spent the last year hosting a range of outreach events and hearing from thousands of community members as described in past hearings. we had to be strategic given the broad geography of the rezoning. and so we've supplemented our larger events like open houses and surveys with more targeted and intimate outreach efforts like focus groups and interviews specifically aimed at reaching populations experiencing the greatest degree of housing insecurity. who often face barriers to participating in our planning processes. this includes renters, families, low and middle income residents, people of color, non-english speakers, seniors, and others.

our events have been publicized in the mayor's and supervisor's newsletters on social media, in the newspaper, on muni bus ads, and on our email list, including our department's list of neighborhood organizations. here's a snapshot of some of the community groups we've partnered with to expand our reach. these organizations collaborated with us to host focus groups and other events, and also helped publicize our open houses and surveys and help make them more inclusive, for example, by partnering on translation for non-english speakers and by providing childcare for families . the map you see here. our final zoning proposal is the culmination of not only the past year of community outreach, but also the multiyear housing element process. before that, and other planning efforts before that. even before that, at the local and regional level that have considered how to expand housing opportunities throughout our city, such as the department's housing affordability strategy. this

animation will show the progression of the proposal starting from the original housing element eir scenario in april 2022. the two additional eir examples in november 2022. the two initial zoning concept maps from june 2023. the draft zoning map. in november 2020 2023, and the final zoning proposal you see today. although the granular details of the map have changed and shifted in response to feedback, the overall approach has remained remarkably consistent. we have attempted to spread growth equitably throughout the neighborhoods in the housing opportunity areas, with a focus on the key commercial and transportation corridors, which generally have larger sites that are more likely to be developed into housing and also tend to have better access to amenities like transit, retail and services. a crucial footnote on

this map is that the height shown here are meant to be final heights, inclusive of any bonus programs, such as the state density bonus. in other words, we are working backwards from these heights and will set the base heights lower with the expectation that projects may use state programs to get to these heights. we're also creating an optional local program as an alternative to state programs, which i'll be describing later. in your case packet, we have listed all the specific changes in the final version of the map based on community feedback and additional analysis. some highlights include the addition of neighborhood commercial districts that are included in the mayor and supervisor cafe legislation on density decontrol, which is being heard at land use committee. we've also added additional heights in various locations such such as balboa street and franklin street, and notably, we've also brought heights down in several locations specifically to sculpt heights off of the main commercial and transportation streets. this includes areas around jefferson park, russian hill, and upper market street. taken as a whole, the feedback

we've heard over the past year has been markedly polarized, and we've heard from many people who embrace the notion of adding height and density in these neighborhoods and who push us to do even more and add even higher heights. and we've heard from just as many people who worry that we are irreversibly damaging the central nature of some of our treasured neighborhood, as we're taking all the feedback we receive seriously, we work diligently to find a balance between these disparate views and are advancing a proposal that we think can build upon and enhance the wonderful qualities of these neighborhoods, while ensuring that we build the homes that we need for future and current generations. we know from our area plans and other efforts that we can have vibrant neighborhoods with a mix of housing types and heights. here are some of the areas that we've rezoned over the past two decades to encourage this diverse city of housing. of course, this is not a new idea. as you can see here, many of the same neighborhoods that are

proposed for rezoning once allowed a more diversity of heights and building types, including buildings that were designed to serve different needs and income levels. today we want to show some visualizations that we've been developing with our consultant, aecom, that provide an idea of what these neighborhoods could look like as new homes are added . we know from other area plans that even after we amend our zoning change, will happen incrementally and some sites may not be developed for quite some time. if ever. we will see a mix of old and new buildings at different scales, which is part of what makes cities like san francisco so dynamic. this image shows noriega street at 25th avenue. we recently updated this image to reflect the final proposal, which we modified from 65 to 85ft. here is geary boulevard at 44th avenue, showing a mix of 85 foot and 140 foot buildings. we have a few views of lombard street to show you, showing conditions both

before and after. our first view is looking north on divisadero street at broadway, showing buildings 140ft tall at the intersection with lombard. so here's the before, and here's the after. here is a closer view . i'm. i'm going to wait until people are quiet. if we could refrain from outbursts, we would certainly appreciate that here is a closer view at divisadero and filbert, showing the same 140 foot buildings but closer from a couple blocks away. so before and after. who. we know with these changes that it will be inevitable that buildings that are currently surrounded by lower height buildings will have

taller buildings next to them. we have, in the past hearings shown our objective design standards, which we think are designed to kind of minimize and limit some of those impacts. um here is finally the last few from lombard street showing conditions before and after here in in the longer tum future when we have many new buildings built . and you can see the mix of 85 foot and 140 foot buildings. the last few that we have is from francis echo park, showing how new homes can be integrated while protecting our public vistas. even as we're adding new height and density on these streets, we've been mindful of the topography. so here's the before. the after. i'm going to toggle that back because you actually can't even really see very well. so here's before after. and then here are the new buildings labeled um, as i was

saying, we have been very mindful of the topography, open spaces and defining features of the city and we do not believe that the housing we are proposing will substantially diminish the experience or the sense of place in these neighborhoods. we're working on producing other visualizations like these from other streets and public spaces, which we'll be sharing in the coming weeks. the final topic we want to discuss briefly is the structure and goals of the forthcoming legislation. our team is actively working on drafting the amendments and will be working with the mayor's office and city attorneys to refine the legislation for introduction early this year. this omnibus legislation will include changes to our planning code, height map, zoning map and general plan . we'll be creating a new zoning district and making amendments to some existing districts. we'll also be creating a local zoning program as a flexible and fully opt in alternative to the state density bonus and other state programs. here, we've outlined some of the rationale behind this approach. although the state density bonus has been an extremely powerful tool to enable housing production and

affordable housing production, as well, it is also come with some unintended consequences due to the waivers and concessions that allow projects to sidestep many of our planning code standards. there are several advantages to creating an optional local program. first, we'll get a more predictable urban form, including more certainty around building height, since that is the most common waiver sought through state programs. we'll also be getting more assurance on other outcomes by making sure that projects adhere to our code standards around topics like formula, retail, active ground uses, parking, and others. finally the local program gives us the opportunity to create more diversity of affordable housing by allowing projects to choose among all of the inclusionary housing methods, including on site, off site land , education and a new rent controlled option that we're creating through the local program. currently, projects using the state density bonus and other state programs must provide all or most of their affordable housing on site. here is a simplified flow chart illustrating how we think the zoning structure will work. we'll be creating baseline

zoning amendments and from there, projects will have different pathways to choose from in order to get the heights on our map. they can choose from state programs, including the state density bonus, or they can choose our local program in either scenario, there will be multiple options for project review, which could include ministerial or streamlined approval. here are more specifics on what will be included in the base zoning at a baseline, all rezone properties will have density decontrol minimum densities, and a cap on maximum unit sizes. we'll be amending our heights using a two tiered structure. this includes a local program height, which is identical to what is on the final map, and a lower base height that can be layered with state programs. for example, the sections of geary that are shown at 85ft would have a local program height of 85ft and a base height of 55ft, with a lower number applying to projects that use the state density bonus or other programs as the baseline. zoning will also include the objective design standards that we've discussed at prior hearings, and

it will maintain and expand our rules on tenant protections and demolitions, which will include hearing requirements and rules to preserve residential flats. similarly, we're planning for rules to protect existing small businesses and incentivize community serving uses and other rules to protect historic resources. for projects that opt in to the local program, they will need to abide by all objective planning code standards, including height and bulk, in order to incentivize projects to use the program. we are providing a menu of local waivers. this is a predetermined list of topics that is informed by the most common waivers and concessions currently sought by state density bonus projects, such as rear yard configuration, exposure, and usable open space, among others. the other carrot in our program that i've already mentioned is the flexibility in meeting our inclusionary housing requirements projects will be able to choose any compliance method under section 415 on site, off site fee and land dedication and rates will be equivalent to citywide requirements, which means 15%

affordable units. if you're building on site, or 20% if you're paying the fee. we're also creating an option for small project projects 24 and under 24 units, and under to provide a 100% rent controlled building in lieu of providing affordable units. i want to recognize that even though our inclusionary housing program is commendable and goes farther than many other cities, it is not enough to meet our affordable housing goals and the numbers of low, low income and middle income units that we need at a future hearing, you'll be hearing about the affordable housing leadership council and what the city is doing to identify and secure additional resources to bring us closer to meeting our goals. as mentioned, we are planning for many projects to take advantage of ministerial and streamlined approval processes. projects that seek ministerial review can use a number of state programs if they meet all applicable criteria and projects that choose the local program will also have the added option of using the new. a new housing sustainability district.

projects that are ineligible for ministerial programs may still receive streamlined review, which could include administrative review within 30 to 60 days of project acceptance , and streamline environmental review through our general plan evaluation process. so that being said, there are projects that will continue to require hearings, such as those that propose to demolish rent controlled housing here are our next steps as we work towards adoption. then we have another informational hearing on the rezoning scheduled for february 22nd and on february 29th is when you'll be hearing about the recommendations of the affordable housing leadership council. we'll be scheduling additional informational hearings as needed. prior to adoption. as many as we need to get through all of the many topics in this in this legislation, we also have an informational hearing scheduled at the historic preservation commission for february 21st. i know we have covered a lot of information today, so i just want to end by recentering our

discussion on the people we are working to expand housing choices for here are some of the quotes that we've heard during our outreach. really reflecting the types of people who are impacted by our shortage of affordable housing, essential workers, families, young people, seniors, and many others. no matter what people's opinions are on the rezoning, something that we've heard almost universally through our outreach , is that people recognize that we have an affordable housing crisis and that something needs to change. we know that rezoning is not a panacea, and that we can and need to do more, but it is a critical first step. with that, we want to thank the commission, the mayor's office and the supervisors who have provided feedback. our city agency partners who have supported this work, and the many people who have shared their opinions with us. we look forward to working with you throughout the adoption process to make this proposal as strong as it can be. thank you very much. thank you. if that concludes staff presentation, then we should open up public comment. members of the public,

this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. we'll ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. it. to the chair. you'll each get two minutes to minutes. is 35 seconds. and for those persons who are in the north like court, i would give it a few more minutes. since we are still far full here in these chambers, i'll ask that folks who submit their testimony be, uh, if you would be so kind as to vacate the room to allow more people to enter. ready? yep. thanks uh, from an article in the december 2023 wall street journal quote, housing experts caution that the impact of zoning changes on affordability remains to be determined, and the challenge is balancing the need for increased supply while ensuring that doesn't actually result in

escalating home costs that displace low income residents. there are only four commercial sites that do not have existing housing along church street. from 30th to 21st street, which is noaa valley, plus two noncommercial sites, saint paul's church and the teresa maher pre-k school. these two amenities are what make noe valley a well resourced neighborhood all along church there is sound existing housing, primarily two or more units. there are many pairs of flats which codifying the flat policy will preserve, hopefully, and that is an important and necessary part of the rezoning. while this can be called a transit rich street, the j is the only one car line in the city. even though the route was extended past 30th street to balboa park over 30 years ago, over 20,000 units are required for low income households. this is the critical number. how will the city build 20,000 units for low income households, and how

will the city protect existing housing from speculation and low income owners from development pressures that may cause them to cash out, as discussed in the staff's october 2021 analysis of sb nine, the rezoning is not required to be completed until 2026. the city should take this time to make sure that the rezoning is being implemented, not with a meat cleaver, but with a butter knife to better protect and preserve the existing sound housing stock in the city, not only in the priority equity geographies, but throughout the city. the public also needs to read the consultants financial feasibility study on the rezoning. and that's it. and here's my 150 words for the minutes and two articles which question the rena numbers. if you only need 2 million nationwide, why do we need 3.5 million in the state of. thank you, miss. come on up. i want to

start by saying we have people coming in from all over the world buying properties. can you provide us with your name first, please? my name is irene dietz. we have people coming in from all over the world buying properties in the state of california. a great many of those are homes and they're sitting vacant. we have a 33% vacancy rate in san francisco, downtown, down. that can all be made into low cost housing or whatever type of schools for housing, for teachers or whatever is necessary. sometimes the quality of life in a neighborhood or a city goes down due to unforeseen events. natural disasters are, in the case of san francisco, crime and a pandemic that led to homeless bias. more crime opened drug use, which is allowed to get out of control. then there are times

when the city government itself destroys the quality of life of a city or a neighborhood. this is what you are doing now with this increased density. final planning map. you have accepted an enormous response ability to carefully and professionally fulfill your task, which you have completed with little regard for an enormous part of what makes san francisco san francisco, the character of its neighborhoods is you have to feel very badly about your stewardship, stewardship, and if you don't, you should. i know you can do better. folks, if we could refrain from clapping and cheering and hooting and hollering, we'd certainly appreciate it. okay? i mean, i don't want to have the sheriff come up here and escort people out of the room. please. i'm jose brown, i live on vallejo street within the two blocks of

on either side of vallejo street. i'm on one side that is residential to the most part and does have high buildings, which is fine. they've been there. they were there before me. i get it transformational. that was the firm. your mouthpiece used? you betcha. and as for lawsuits, when you don't even follow your own mandates in the plan, that's a good way to get sued. if any of you actually studied the plan, you'd know it's own mandate. specifically, call for height increase. quote along transit routes, commercial streets, and other major sites and quote, less existing housing which can minimize displacement. but this is not, as the plan asserts. and i quote, comprised of 6 to 8 story mid-rise rise buildings, nor will the new building stand standard be because again, i quote take a

light touch and reduce reduce risk for project sponsors. most egregiously where it says it is quote, not required. extra affordable housing. in order to get the heights in our program. it does yet again a disservice to san francisco, let alone we who live in the neighborhoods in question. additionally the plans totals. more than 30% of the state's demand for 36,000 housing units. here we are being asked to increase from current to 14 to 24 stories in our neighborhood. i ask you, have you ever walked the blocks in question in they are narrow. no way will they support the traffic that this plan bears. my

own street. forget it. that is your time. alan mcdonald, green street in cow hollow i noticed that the planner showed quite a bit of visual ization and interestingly enough, she shows noriega street, she shows van ness, she shows lombard street, she never showed green street or vallejo street and what, eight and ten story high buildings would do to transform those streets. i think this planning has been driven mostly by trying to get the numbers of possible units up to the certain number, that she shows quite a bit of fervor about it, but without any regard to the impact that that monolithic apartment building block after block would have on those residential neighborhoods. uh, it's way more than transit corridors that this plan is opening up the door to. and i believe in some ways it's

reminisce of what we did in urban renewal days in the 1960s where with the fervor and the blinders on, we barrel down and we ended up doing things that destroying the fillmore and driving the african american families that lived there out of san francisco. because we were trying to achieve certain goals and have absolutely no regard for the impact that the methodology that we were employing had on those areas. thank you . go ahead. sorry good afternoon commissioners. my name is catherine petran. i'm an architectural historian and preservation planner practicing in san francisco since 2000. i'm on the board of san francisco heritage san francisco

neighborhood theater foundation, but the views i represent today are my own. like most san franciscans, i. i support the construction of affordable housing, strategic pick up zoning can be beneficial, but the current proposal is not strategic. it's not thoughtful. it's unreasonable in the extreme, and it creates an undue burden, especially on designated historic resources. jonas, i'm using the overhead sf. guv, can we go to the overhead, please? oh as an example, the haas-lilienthal house built in 1886, remains one of san francisco's best examples of victorian architecture open to the public. it's regularly visited by people from all over the world, and many of our school kids. it's a city landmark, number 69 and was designated a national treasure in 2012. like many historic buildings across the city, it will be up zoned in this case

for 140ft or 14 stories as the previous iteration of the up zoning plan. i mean, last week's iteration, uh, this building was up zoned for 24 stories, and miss chen mentioned that changes have been made based on feedback , but from going from 24 to 14 stories on a site like this is not what we want to see. and we don't want to see it at any historic site. i'm also a resident of lakeside, a cohesive neighborhood of 590 predominantly single family homes where 43% of all residences will be up zoned from 28ft to 85 or 65ft. this house is one of 109 currently resident houses along junipero serra boulevard that will be up zoned to six stories. another 147 will be rezoned to eight stories. these examples demonstrate the need for a revised alternate up zoning plan that exempts

historic resources. we're letting you know it's not right as it is. thank you. go ahead. sir good afternoon, commissioners. thanks for the opportunity to comment. my name is rob lundbeck and i've resided in lakeside for over 20 years, and i'm going to be commenting on the up zoning proposals, impact on lakeside. i'm sure you will hear from others that it threatens the esthetic, the esthetics of the neighborhood, the historical nature of the neighborhood, and it will overtax neighborhood infrastructure. but i wish to add that upzoning lakeside could literally, instantly render virtually every house on or near an affected parcel a de facto tear down. just the potential for multi-unit development could increase land values above historical property values. highest and best use could be for multi-unit development or

even one large multi-unit building among existing homes will destroy much of the appeal of that block for both existing and potential new residents of that block. lakeside is nearly entirely residential and so differs from existing mixed use corridors where a single building is unlikely to dramatically affect neighborhood character and appeal. all so even without any new permitting or construction, upzoning in and of itself would be a sword of damocles over every homeowner's head at any time. a neighborhood destroying project could be launched. this matters because upzoning would severely diminish incentives to maintain or improve existing homes. why should a homeowner improve or update when the expenditure is potentially entirely wasted? as it would be for a tear down? upzoning is a formula for deteriorating housing stock and deteriorate neighborhood quality of life in lakeside and the planning department has not made

the case. to my knowledge, that upzoning in lakeside is essential to developing a plan that meets state requirements. so i'm urging the planning commission to reject the upzoning as it applies to residential areas in lakeside. it would destroy an intact and historic neighborhood for, at best, a very uncertain benefit. thank you. my name is calvin mulch. i'm a housing and land use member of the board of the haight ashbury neighborhood council. the council's board has opposed the proposal, continues to propose oppose the proposal. all um and we do so for basically three reasons. the first, in a quick down and dirty survey, uh, conduct by mr. down and dirty myself. um, uh, every food service, every grocery store on haight street would be

subject to demolition and high density development with no at all commitment to replace those neighborhood serving retail grocery stores every hardware store, uh, most of the neighborhood serving retail uses would be displaced. why would they be displaced? they're in single floor build on lots that do not have housing above that is the. absolute ground zero. so of business displacement. so number one, the impacts, the economic impacts on the haight ashbury would be severe. second, the assumption that a neighborhood consists only of housing is absurd. it exists also to provide jobs and opportunities in retail business

opportunities for residents that is totally ignored by this. and finally, the long and involved argument for affordable housing when applied to this proposal, nowhere meets the requirement points of the rena for this new density. we're not requiring 60% of the units to be affordable, which is the requirement of rena , why are we doing you sir? that is your time. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners ozzie brown with no neighborhood council and san francisco land use coalition jacking up the maximum building heights will result in losing sunlight for nearby residents, fueling tenant displacement and driving out current merchants and businesses in these mixed use and

commercial corridors. planning keeps justifying this by saying that these are only in commercial corridors, while our commercial corridors are not just commerce, they include residential homes. this is not like the suburbs where the shops are in some malls and the homes are these picket fence, single family homes, all over, sprinkled in in the suburbs, allowing a 3 to 4 story apartment building to go up to eight and 14 would panoramic views. on the top is too sweet of a deal for developers to pass up, so. so as, uh, miss swedish pointed out, you walk on church street. great majority of these buildings on church streets are basically three four story apartments. so where are the tenants going to go when their building is bought and is being converted to eight, 14, 30 story buildings as um and as your own

planning rep mentioned, we have no idea if this is going to actually produce any affordable housing. secondly we keep hearing about this two tiered system where maximum height stayed the same for projects using the state density bonus while going up for projects using um, the local program. the city of san francisco has no power in controlling the state density bonus. we have no idea if we could actually enforce this. um, and the department knows well, plus, their proposal for getting rid of density limits and allowing to have no limit on the number of units that a developer can put out in a in the envelope will play into this. and there's no way the city of san francisco could actually stop this. so thank you. that is your time. good afternoon commissioners. my name is brooke sampson. it's been a while since i've been up here.

nice to see you again, vice president. moore, director. hylis i wanted to remark that i oppose wholeheartedly any up zoning in any neighborhood of san francisco. there are other methods, and i consider today the start of a conversation, not the end point. and i would welcome participation from not only the planning department, commission and our supervisor. thank you. good afternoon, jason forster. just want to start with a thank you to you and your staff for the work you're doing on addressing affordable housing. it's a noble cause and it's not lost on me. the challenges that this represents, and that's in front of us. but two brief comments. the first, i believe history will show that the solicitation of public input and the outreach that the outreach that has occurred has

not been as equitable as you think. and i would encourage the commission to widen its aperture of the views that it seeks. second, i think the solutions and approaches that have been proposed and don't actually rise to the level that affordable housing needs. and so i'm actually fearful that the proposals might actually set this noble cause backwards. so i , i know progress is important, but i would encourage us to have the courage to go back to the drawing board on this one. thanks. good afternoon. uh, commissioner president diamond and members of the planning commission. i'm courtney kroger. um, i live in the roughly 24 block neighborhood known as lower russian hill aquatic park. uh, fisherman's wharf. we're proposed to move from 40ft to 65ft and potentially must much higher with the state density bonus. i the intent not to go

higher. doesn't cut the mustard for me. um, we're a very dense neighborhood of mostly multi-use buildings ranging from 40 plus units per building. all the way down to two. and we have single family homes as well. the density, diversity of housing types, styles and ages gives our neighborhood both cohesiveness and character. the 40 foot height limit, which was hard won following the fontana towers debacle, is what maintains that character. we have numerous examples of new construction and rehabilitation, with additions that respect the existing height limits and preserve our community character can and should our neighborhood have more housing? yes, absolutely. and is this the way to do it? no a height increase of this magnitude will lead to demolition higher rent, reduced access to the water front, and an enormous loss of community character. the neighborhood and many neighborhoods across the city where similar broad brushed up zoning has been applied,

deserve a more detailed, thoughtful, fine grained approach to targeting growth and ensuring truly affordable housing. i'd like to add that the mockup you saw of francisco park was taken from above the park. the green space that you saw in that mockup is the top of the park. um, i live near it. i've walked all over francisco park to try and determine what these new height limits would do, and i would wager that most views from francisco park will be blocked. we will not have 1 or 265 story buildings in that neighborhood. we will have all 65 or higher. so thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. jake price, on behalf of the housing action coalition, to borrow an architectural firm, i think i'm going to break up the massing

here on the public comments. yes. um, i have i think this has been a great start. um, but we have two primary, uh, buckets that we're looking at improving. this. the first is around transit, rapid transit, adjacent ness. i believe anything within a 5 to 10 minute walk of a line like the five r, the 38 are, um, and muni rail should be at least 65ft. um, you know, i live on hayes street. it it's served by the 21. um, and while i see director hylis and occasionally my supervisor on that line, it is not the line that i use primarily, i use the five r, so when i look at the richmond and i see that balboa is getting upzoned because of the 31 a-line, that is not regularly used, as opposed to anza, which is much closer to the 38 r, i think we should be considering not just being on a transit corridor, but being adjacent to high quality transit. the second component is, i think that there's large opportunity sites

that we're currently selling short right now. um one that jumps to mind is the city center. um, why are we dividing it into four parcels? why are we capping it out at 300ft in one of in the highest parcel? and that goes for other places like the ocean beach, safeway, various shopping centers throughout the city. um, and the kaiser campus, just to name a few. we will be following up with a few other sites that we would like this commission and the department to consider. um, so all in all, great work, great start, and let's make sure we do this right. good afternoon, commissioners i'm lori brooke. i'm president of the cow hollow association. and i'm also a founder of neighborhoods united sf. and we founded neighborhood united sf. um about november when we realized that very, very few people in san francisco were even aware of what is going on.

and so we knew that we needed to pull together neighborhood associations to let their membership know. and now we're two and a half months into this, and i would say we have over 50 different neighborhood associations that are engaged with us in trying to get the word out. um, a couple things i wanted to say is that in general, the association and the business groups oppose what we feel are the unwarranted height increases and the proposed upzoning plans, which also have lacked proper community notification. i know you have tried to do outreach, but it it wasn't enough. and so we're taking it upon ourselves to do the same. um, it threatens the affordability and it prioritizes future development over current residents needs, specifically, the upzoning plans do not guarantee affordable housing for essential workers, the elderly, families and the younger generation. this approach relies on a false supply and demand premise, incentivizing luxury condo development that exacerbates the affordability crisis. the example on on lombard street, in particular, are 14 stories. you know,

they're going to see from the farallons to mount diablo. that top unit is probably going to be several million dollars and everything below it. and there's going to be probably 1000 to $2000 a month. homeowner fees. i don't find that affordable. i don't think anything in that building is going to be affordable. um, there is the city's plan that i can derive from that type of approach is to use certain neighborhoods as a piggy bank to take the impact fees from those neighborhoods, to build affordable housing elsewhere. now, that might work in certain scenarios, but you think what you leave behind and you don't even leave a neighborhood with the affordable housing. you take the impact fees and potentially possibly build the stuff elsewhere. i think we require a much more nuanced nuance plan per neighborhood. what works with the topography within that existing community? thank you for your time. i have a handout. if i could give this to you for distribution. thank you. good

afternoon folks. uh, i'm stan hayes, i'm the president of the telegraph hill dwellers. and on behalf of phds, more than 500 members, we ask you to pause. pause pause and rework this upzoning proposal. we joined with more than 50 neighborhood organizations with thousands of members throughout the city to strongly oppose this proposal. our members are concerned that large swaths of the city are being up zoned, with many people, maybe most not even aware of it. our members don't understand why building heights need to increase so much. why so much? upzoning is even necessary given the many thousands of additional units to be produced by the recent four and six plex legislation and units that have already been approved in the pipeline, our members are concerned about how this upzoning is going to change our

city. the san francisco we all love, fundamentally damaged decades of careful and thoughtful planning, swept aside the public's democratic right to notice and comment, stripped away existing affordable housing and historic properties at risk, and the vital role, the vital role of this commission diluted or lost, especially our members are concerned that the effect of the state density program is vastly understated. do we have this figure? please? can we go to the overhead sf gov. okay planning assumes a state density bonus would add just 25ft more in height in most places, and in our neighborhood, as you can see by this figure and a historic district, we already have two drastic different state density bonus outcomes a 24 story

building at 955 sansome 183ft over its 84 foot height limit and a 17 story building at 1008 sansome 139ft over its 65 foot height limit. both increases are far greater than planning's assumed 25ft. please take another look. be sure you act. thank you. hi. thank you for allowing us to speak here today. my name is kate bloomberg. i am a 23 year old, a 23 year rent, not year old, rent controlled. uh apartment. i've been there for 23 years. if i tried to move today, boy, i can tell you housing would not be affordable for me. um, so it's really critical that we build housing, not just affordable housing for

people that i wouldn't actually be able to get affordable housing. uh, and luxury housing. but everything in the middle. and i think that this plan will allow us to do that. but i live in potrero hill. uh, if you i would invite everybody to the dogpatch neighborhood where we've raised heights, where there's lots of new buildings, it's lively, it's vibrant, it's wonderful. we could use some work on the streets and better, safer pedestrian and bike access. but it's bringing back life to the city. and i think when i look at the sunset, at and, you know, judah and taraval, those businesses are dying. they're just. dying away because there are no people there. i can walk to seven grocery stores. it's wonderful. if you live out in the in the

avenues, you can't walk anywhere because there aren't enough people there to support it. i really i like this plan. i think it's great. um, and, and i think that that we do need to add more housing, not just affordable. obviously lots more affordable, but everything in the middle as well. thank you. good afternoon. and uh, thank you for hearing us all. uh, my name is mary rose hayes. i've lived in san francisco since the early 60s, and in my current home on octavia street near vallejo. for 50. i do want to just take issue with dogpatch for a minute, and being described as a wonderful, vibrant place, which it certainly is. i know i love going there. i know people who live there and have opened

restaurants. however, it was previously an industrial area and it can only improve. and so it certainly has has improved by the new influx of people. but speaking as as a resident of the cow hollow pacific heights sort of border and also having a long memory and being one of the oldest people in the room, i've seriously remember the 1960s and that the urban planning of and basically disintegrated vision of the fillmore and the western addition union, uh, neighborhoods by what was basically what the, uh, a sort of answering another another version of what we're planning or hearing today. the homes and the historic buildings were torn down. larger buildings were razed. people could no longer afford the tenants, and the

owners were originally giving some compensation. however, when everything was rebuilt, higher and more elaborate, they could no longer afford, especially african americans. they could no longer afford to keep their homes or buy another one, and so fled to oakland. and that is, i'm sure. is, um, could happen again. the somebody mentioned unintended consequences and i feel this is a very definitely could happen here. you never know. and beware what you wish for. thank you ma'am. that is your time. thank you. my name is george siri. i live on gough street near broadway and i have a little different take on this. uh, in my lifetime , um, world population has

tripled. california is quadruple old. this leads to unsustainable resource and energy consumption, leading directly to climate change. there's literally nothing good about population growth, only growing problems. san francisco is not a large city, but it's the most densely populated large city in the country. after new york. like new york, we have an affordability problem. um, we hear the need to increase housing supply as the affordability solution, but it's a supply and demand problem. and we don't have enough supply. but it really points out that the demand is too high for the supply. and where did the demand come from? um, primarily like clockwork from our old prop m business space growth allowance developers grew office space downtown to accommodate mostly new tech job growth, resulting, of course, in attendant population growth. then came the pandemic, and the expansion turned into a dramatic office

exodus. it really highlighted that these particular jobs never needed to be downtown or in the city. the current technical capabilities make remote work possible. it can save dollars for business if you need to work somewhere else, pick up your laptop and go. hybrid work is the new thing. so with vacancy rates at 35, the work landscape has changed. the consequences will be felt for years. what does it mean for san francisco? the housing mandate really needs to be adjusted downward for san francisco. then add a component for office space to housing conversion space is available in new york city. there's a sense that from 10 to 15% of that available space can be repurposed to housing and then eliminate the buffer. we don't need it. if you build it, they will come. population growth is not good anywhere, especially for our crowded city. yes, we need a homeless solution and address affordability. we thank not at the expense of the destruction of the livability

and destruction of our neighborhood character through massive. sir, that is your time. thank you. hello, commissioner. are you ready, jonas? hello, commissioners. happy to be back in room 400. thank you for having me. uh, i just thank you. i just want to mention that it's kind of ironic that this, uh, need to have all this huge amounts of new housing happens in california when we're bleeding. population as is san francisco. it seems sort of strange. and my question legally is, does the state really have the legal authority to, uh, dictate the kind of zoning we have? i mean, i wonder how this would stand to consider challenge. uh, the other thing is, as pointed out, san francisco is the second densest city in the united states. 82,000 new units required, which , to my knowledge, is around the

same as they're requiring from san jose, which is a city of 177,000mi!s and a population of 150,000 more. i have another solution. we own a lot of land in san mateo county, alameda county, and contra costa county, and some of this has been developed for housing in the past. near my former home. when i was a boy of pleasanton and so this should be explored. and i don't know if we'd get credit from the state for our property. that is our housing built on property we own in other counties, but maybe that is the solution. rather than cramming more people into san francisco and especially i want to ask what is happening with parkmerced? why is it not being developed? we approved it like almost ten years ago. nothing's happening. maybe they know there's no market for it. and then i think we have to be very careful. uh, lakeside village is where i live. you've zoned for something which is a 20 foot wide strip to put 85 foot, uh, buildings there. that doesn't make any sense. it's not going

to work. so thank you very much. good afternoon. my name is reg steer. i'm the president of the saint francis homeowner association. um and i'm here to speak on behalf of the 561 lot owners in that association. forgive me. i have some allergy, uh, affecting my voice at the moment. uh i have a lot of valid points have been made, and i'm not going to repeat them. um, i was heartened to hear miss chen talk about preserving the neighborhoods, but i think one factor that has been overlooked is this we are coming out of a five year disaster here. and what can we learn? well, downtown is in a disastrous state, but the neighborhoods are thriving. why are they thriving? they're thriving because they

are of a human scale. they. are accessible. they're convenient, and most of them have a great deal of charm. unfortunately the graphic that was posted shows the destruction of that combination of factors. so i think there has to be a lot more thought given to and specific, uh, boundaries and standards and guidelines to address these issues. there also needs to be much more input from affected people. i've received innumerable complaints that they haven't had a chance to speak or provide their input. i've had a number of friends and my brother who was out here to speak at a medical meeting, asked me, what's unique about san francisco now, this plan is

rushing to an answer that says nothing. so we need to be very careful to avoid that. i thank you for your time. good afternoon. i'm jean bearish, richmond district resident and secretary of the board of planning association for the richmond planning association for the richmond has joined neighborhoods united for sf's opposition to expanding neighborhood choice. this plan must not be approved and any community benefits excuse me, any community benefits are far outweighed by the disadvantages of this plan, and i urge you to tell the planning staff to scrap this plan, or at least go back to the drawing boards and work with community members to revise it. as someone recently said when asked if this legislation was necessary, the answer was

absolutely not enough. there's no need for this legislation. first, there isn't even agreement as to what the city's housing needs actually are. many have questioned the state's rina numbers, including a state audit committee, and between the units that are currently in the pipeline, the ones that will be built thanks to the new legislation passed in the fall and repurposing existing buildings. the sitting housing needs will be faced, will be met several times over. this legislation does little to meet the city's real housing need for affordable, not market, rate housing by dramatically raising height limits threatens the viability of our small businesses. san francisco is unique. and this plan portends the ruination of much of its neighborhoods. this march toward the continue manhattanization of the city must stop this legislation is primarily a get rich scheme for bankers and wall street investors who seize see housing development as another cash cow to fill their coffers

and line their pockets. enough, please consider the impacts of this plan and hit the pause button before it's too late. say no to expanding housing choice. thank you. good afternoon. um, i'm anne mckenzie, and i think i've sent most of you copies of this, but i have a lot of questions. one is, where will the money come from to pay for 82,000 new housing units? both the city of san francisco and the state of california currently have serious financial deficits in the current cost to build a two bedroom apartment is $750,000. multiply by that number and you'll find you'll need more than $6 billion in the next eight years to complete this. none of this housing will serve low income residents where will the money come from to replace or fix the pre 1906 underground

utility west of venice, either damaged by the new construction, overwhelmed by the increased load from the new dense user population or failure due to old age. how will adjacent owners be compensated for the predictable resulting damage to their properties? the plan demands that the tens of thousands of current taxpaying residents pay property, and business owners will be displaced within the next eight years. what is your plan for these people? where will they go? the plan requires destruction of iconic union and chestnut streets, removing much of the community assets during construction, grocery and drug stores, medical and dental offices for humans and canines, beauty and bookstores. the many eating and drinking sites, plus dismissing all the employees. these businesses are not going to hang around for eight years. what's the plan to compensate these owners, renters, employees, displaced and relocated? how are these resources faces replaced for the remaining community? how are the

current owners whose property is a permanent asset going to be compensated when forced to sell? what happens if they refuse to sell? why would anybody come to san francisco to experience an eight year construction zone? then the resulting rows of bland monoliths? what will be the effect on tourism earnings for san francisco, and how will the real estate industry survive through this? due to expenses, corporations leaving san francisco, along with employees at great speed that is your time. who will occupy these 82,000 living units. hi, my name is mark kelleher. i live on, um, vallejo between gough and franklin. uh, i live in a beautiful home with my wife. it was designed by henry gutterson, the principal architect of saint francis woods and i have an article from the 1920s, the building digest that talks about this home. it talks about how

airy and light filled it is with light coming in on all four sides. since the time that article has been written, an eight story apartment building was erected on broadway right behind us, literally touching the property line. we have a four story building on franklin. we get almost no natural light. now. i think this is going to be very destructive to the city. if this goes through, and i would urge you, don't do this. thank you. hi my name is gaylene rothrock. i live on vallejo street in district two. i'm very supportive of finding solutions for affordable housing, but this upzoning plan is lacking reasonable impact analysis and has very poor community outreach. we're told the majority of our zoning is for mid-rise buildings, yet there is a large swath of 14 and 24 story limits for residential streets east of octavia, where the

current heights are primarily just three stories. as visualizations shown help us understand the impact. yet those presented in the recording that i watched and today of the planning commission meetings show broad streets with median strips and buildings no greater than eight stories. there's no visual izations showing the impact of 14 and 24 story buildings, replacing three story victorians on residential streets, residential streets where kids go on the sidewalk with their chalk drawing, hopscotch and sunny faces. there's been consternation of existing homes near clement possibly having to look at a 55 foot blank wall. what does the planning commission say, then, of a 240 foot wall where is the impact analysis report of residential streets with 24 story skyscraper is casting a long shadow over buildings that

are just one eighth their height . the november planning commission presentation also included a list of groups who had received direct outreach and were invited to small focus group meetings. i mapped the locations of those groups in the list. it. there's little correlation between the people included in the outreach and the residents of the areas. most impacted by these changes. the data would suggest the outreach is incomplete and seemingly biased. large last week, i received a letter in the mail notifying of an application by the german consulate to install a generator. we didn't receive anything like this. that is your time. good afternoon commissioners. my name is joshua croft and i'm a homeowner. and in the soma neighborhood and a proud yimby member. i'm here today to voice my strong support for the expanded housing

rezoning program. if implement, this program would begin to reverse the inequities. created through exclusionary zoning policies. opening up the city's high opportunity west side neighborhoods to those who have been systematically discriminated against and priced out of our city. while this map is a good start, while what we've seen here today is a good start, we need to do more to make housing affordable and expand access to good transit jobs and other vital resources such as grocery stores, parks, education and health care facilities. that means, in addition, in addition to focusing growth along commercial and transit corridors within housing opportunity areas, we should also increase density for areas within a ten minute walk of all major transit stops served by muni light rail, brt and high frequency bus routes. by increasing heights to at least 65ft, or about six stories. these are what i

consider gentle densities, and there are good examples of where these buildings comfortably coexist with lower density buildings. policies should be developed within the priority equity geographies, so that we do not further fuel displaced and gentrification in those areas. in our housing element, we've committed to furthering fair housing and to building 82,000 homes. this won't happen by focusing growth in our eastern neighborhoods alone, as is the status quo. let's live up to our shared commitments to advance equity, improve affordability, and make room for our neighbors. i want to live in a city where more have the same opportunity. i've had to put down roots and build wealth. i urge you to push for an expanded version of the plan before us today. thank you for your time. good afternoon commissioners. my name is sandra dratler and i am

here today speaking on behalf of faith in action at saint james episcopal church in the richmond district and in solidarity with the san francisco land use coalition. yes, i do want housing in my backyard, especially truly affordable housing. but we are opposed to the wholesale upzoning of housing and commercial properties. as part of the housing element. our intent as a city should be to strengthen existing neighborhoods and incorporate these new residents into communities. the. the richmond is a large land area with numerous distinct neighborhoods, distinct neighborhoods. efforts need to be made to assure that housing is distributed throughout the community, and not just concentrated in areas that make most sense to the developers and their interests. that's what we need is a thoughtfully determined best location plan for new housing, not just taking

a marking pen and drawing along bus routes, as a lakeside resident said. so eloquently in a chronicle article about how they'd been blindsided, we've been here before. this is just another step in the streamlining process that lacks transparency at the individual project level. the proposed upzoning is a blunt instrument that, as a part of the richmond district community, we at saint james celebrate the new affordable housing going up at sixth and geary and look to a project at the alexandria theater site. these make sense. close housed businesses with the big foot print and a corner location along a commercial corridor are your best efforts. would be to take the time to be deliberate and encourage housing. that makes sense for the developers and the community , rather than setting the stage for the next iteration of

richmond specials. thank you. good afternoon commissioners, i'm ann bertrand and i live on vallejo in district two. i'm also a native san franciscan, and i have chosen to raise my family here. so every person in this room wants more affordable housing in san francisco. so the question is, how do we get it responsibly without destroying the feel and the character of our city's neighborhoods? until the planning department can definitively confirm in writing for the public, if the state density bonus can be applied on top of the proposed upzoning heights, it is premature. for to publish maps marked final that show these revised heights. a 45 foot current height limit is being changed to 140ft, could actually end up at 200ft, 210ft.

who knows, as the public does not. and while we understand this is not the intention of the plan, what matters is what is legally possible. do you not think developers will go as high as possible on lombard to maximize luxury views, while they fee out of their affordable housing units? the residents of san francisco deserve to know what is coming and have the facts, not a series of maybes. please determine conclusively what the final height limits will be, including homes, sf state density bonus and any other city or state mandates. then provide an accurate and comprehensive visuals that get disseminated to every resident. thank you. hello. hi, my name is eddie murphy. i was born and grew up in west portal, and i'm here to endorse this rezoning program. um, uh, while the map

is a good start, i think we should. i encourage you to expand into neighborhoods that were not included. um, so safe. good. affordable housing is critical for san francisco. and i'd like to give more people the opportunity to grow up in san francisco. thank you. good afternoon. my name is john bautista. i'm a resident in cow hollow. we were never notified by the city. we learned from our neighbors about a survey that was made available at the end of the year. the survey was skewed to solicit responses in favor of housing development at all costs, and did not address the issue of building heights, although i completely agree that more affordable housing is very important priority for the city, the proposed plan does not take into account the unique characteristics of each neighborhood. the marina and cow hollow are extremely unique, like they have iconic structures

and features that help define our city as one of the most beautiful and livable cities in the world. presidio new tunnels, top park the palace of fine arts, lion steps, the architecture of the marina overhead, please. um, i had the opportunity with others to provide feedback to rich hylis and the planning department last week. unfortunately, the final quote plan that was submitted and i thought there was some nodding in the room to remove the 14 story towers, continued to have the 14 story towers at the corners of divisadero and lombard, as well as fillmore and lombard. next to three story buildings completely out of place. these will forever change the character of marina and cow hollow no longer will the palace of fine arts be able to be enjoyed by residents and visitors, as the current rolling hills of san francisco that form the backdrop will be replaced by residential towers that are a

stone's throw away. we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the fontana towers of the past. these should be reduced to the heights of adjoining buildings. furthermore, lombard street is not a major corridor. if you look at the bus stop at the corner of divisadero and lombard , many people don't take the bus at and there's most streets that are to the south of lombard are residential, and i would encourage people to revisit the heights on lombard street as well. thank you. good afternoon. thank you for hearing us. my name is jan diamond and i'm from district two. you're going to hear from many people today that anyone who opposes this final draft of the upzoning plan is indifferent to the need for more affordable housing in san francisco. this is not true. we all want more housing, but we want it done in a way that better retains the historic character of our city. we do not want this plan as written.

raising height limits in low scale residential neighborhoods will not reduce moderately priced housing for people like educators. firefighters and our valued police. and it will certainly not produce the low income housing that we all so need. you worked hard and a lot of hours on this plan. thank you. but with respect that you need to go back to the drawing board. and this time, please better publicize your public engagement. i'm on the board of our neighborhood association, and we've been focused on this issue for a while, but not one of my neighbors received any information on this final draft or of this this meeting today. thank you. hello. my name is barbara heffernan and i live in district two. a lot of my comments have already been covered, so i'm going to keep this really short. this is not about affordable housing. this is about enabling developers to

come in and to build high end, high rise condominiums in high resource neighborhoods. and the tragedy of this is with the inclusion rate of 15 to 20, affordable housing that can be fee off. so in fact, what you will end up with are these high rises, and there will be no or very limited affordable housing in them. so here are my recommendations. means go back to the drawing board and start over. talk to us include us. we had no idea that this was going on. i reached out to neighbors and friends and said, get involved. you have to come. you have to be here. go out and walk the neighborhood that you are talking about. up zoning and imagine what it's going to look like with 14 to 30 story towers on venice, geary, lombard, chestnut street and union

fillmore. at this point, with the state density bonus, they can probably go from eight stories up to 15. mean we walk the neighborhoods. do not approve this plan. i have a letter from cow hollow resident. she's out of town and she asked me to read it. so i'm going to spend a minute or two to do that. you have 30s. okay, this is clear. mills, who lives in district two, she said, dear supervisors, dear planners, too many negative changes are proposed for the skyline of this tourist dependent city. high rises in north beach on lombard in many places that would make san francisco look like a cookie cutter of miami or new york, and would change our city forever for the worse. san francisco has already upzone to our ones, to our fours, and some great projects in the pipeline. this is a second. i understand that,

ma'am, but you're you're a single person, so you have two minutes. you can submit that, though. for the record, i will. thank you. just leave it right there. i'll pick it up. good afternoon. thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. my name is carolyn marin, and i am a resident of district two near the proposed cow hollow project. i believe that in order to meet our city's housing and specific affordable housing needs, the city's. needs to be incredibly thoughtful in selecting appropriate locations with appropriate buildings with appropriate heights in each location. the. proposed cow hollow lombardi up zoning and housing proposal is simply outrageous and is very obviously not in keeping with the character of the historic character of the neighborhood. i'm one of those who is learning about this plan at the very last minute, and i'm here because i

really care about san francisco, where i've lived since 1989. one of the greatest attributes of our city is its charming neighborhoods, and each with their own historical character. while i do support more housing and specifically more affordable housing, i urge the committee to go back to the drawing board. get the answers to the many outstanding questions mentioned today, and more thoughtfully select sites, buildings and heights. in keeping with the historical character of our neighborhoods throughout the city. the current proposal is not acceptable. thank you. good afternoon, president diamond and the commissioners. my name is gilbert williams. i'm with boulder housing action team here in district 11. i'm also a native san franciscan. been in

district 11 most of my life. i'm also a proud member of the race and equity. in all planning coalition. these rezonings threaten to displace small businesses and tenants in especially from historically marginalized communities. these rezonings have been arbitrarily rushed to completion years ahead of the state's deadline of january three, 2026, and are not the result of any meaningful community engagement. by encouraging developers to demolish and rebuild all these areas through rezoning, the planning department is setting up a redevelopment 2.0. we are repeating the same destructive policies of urban renewal, destroying our communities, many of which have significant populations of bipoc and low income families and workers in

these rezonings are two years ahead of schedule. meanwhile, there has been no effort by planning to create a plan to get to the 57% affordable housing that is mandated by the state and several priority actions in the housing element that are focused on equity that have been ignored for. rep rejects all rejects both the process and that created this plan, and the plan itself. if this rezoning plan will destroy the critical elements of our communities from existing residents to small businesses, this isn't planning. it's simply a plan to redevelop our communities through market deregulation. thank you sir. that is your time. thank you.

uh, good afternoon, president, commissioners bruce keen, district two, also with the russian hill improvement association. um as we've heard, everybody is in favor of adding housing just in the in the right way. and this is an incredibly complex and important issue for all of us. um, there's obviously difficulty for people to understand the local zoning requirements when combined with state policies. uh, many of them recently changed and yet to be fully understood. um, and this requires time for adequate review. i think a number of people ourselves included, were not fully aware of what was going on. don't feel that. it's been, uh, broadly disseminated, haven't read about it in the press. and many of the people in our community feel the same way. many of you have spent some time educating themselves, have just gotten further confused. and we have one area in our our community that doesn't seem to be a commercial district. um or

a transit line. but the proposal is to remove the density controls, not to change the height limit, but change the density control. all um, combined with the state density bonus, people don't know how to interpret that. we're still trying to get answers. and we saw this final map for the first time last week. um as somebody who's already mentioned, francisco park would stand to lose all of its views, uh, through this proposal, it was one of the most misleading graphics i've seen. um, not only would the park itself lose views of aquatic park, but of alcatraz , the bay, the marin headlands and everything else that makes that park special. i urge you to spend more time on this to provide some protections for parks, for schools, for historic sites, and not to use the broad brush that has been used in such a dramatic way. thank you.

hello, commissioners. david wu with soma pilipinas. since the pandemic, there has been a recognition of the huge contributions and significance to neighborhoods across the city of small businesses and neighborhood commercial corridors with the previous sustained impacts of gentrification from the second tech boom, small businesses were already hugely struggling to stay afloat in the city. with the pandemic, many more small businesses were forced to close. at the same time, the pandemic highlighted the wealth inequality in the city, with those already struggling with precarious work, low wages and high rent facing even worse situations. the city and the planning department must continue its pledge to support our neighborhoods, small businesses and renters as we come out of the pandemic and recover the upzoning plan being proposed effectively does the exact opposite of that. it targets commercial corridors for

upzoning, promising further displacement and hardship of small businesses at a time when affordable housing is what is desperately needed. the plan up zones without providing any additional benefit, such as increased affordable housing. we have seen this play out in the south of market, where small businesses and renters cannot afford to stay in the speculative and upwards rent pressure is exacerbated by policies of intensive private residential and commercial development that attracts wealthier and wealthier residents and workers. what is being proposed will continue to mimic this development pattern across the rest of the city, and result in further displacement of the residents and small businesses that make up our neighborhoods in soma and across the city. we need to prioritize tenants and small businesses and stopping, not promoting displacement. thank

hi my name is don massumi and i'm a lifelong resident of san francisco. i'm also a member of richmond district rising, a member organization of the race and equity in all planning coalition. and like many residents of san francisco, i've had to move several times because of rent. increases and changes in ownership, and my family and community have also had a long experience with displacement dating from the world war two. us concentration camps, loss of their home due to the alien land act, and the destruction of our historic community from redevelop in the western addition. from all that i have heard of this plan, i see a little difference between the role of the redevelopment agency of the 60s and 70s and the planning department of today. there's a great deal of language that has been devoted to equity and inclusion in and community input. but platitudes about

intention are in contradiction to the proposed concrete actions and their consequences to vulnerable and working class communities. it's clear to the few of us who can look past the obfuscation that rezonings are all about market deregulation and profit driven incentives, as that are tantamount to ethnic and class cleansing and the language that is being used is nothing but propaganda meant to deceive. everyone here seems to agree on the need for affordable housing, but the real question is affordable housing. for whom? we reject this process and we reject this plan. good afternoon, president diamond and commissioners joseph smook with the west side

community coalition and the race and equity in all planning coalition, these rezonings do threaten to displace small businesses and tenants, especially from historically marginalized communities. these rezonings have been arbitrarily rushed, as you've heard before, to completion two years ahead of the state's deadline. and as the staff report describes after the planning commission considers this plan, the plan then goes to the mayor's office for several months for them to make changes. divorced from community input. there is also in the staff report mention of a 100% rent controlled option for new construction. the planning is proposing, but unfortunately this isn't an affordable housing option. i just want to be clear that when rent controlled housing is built or when tenancies turn over, developers can charge as much as they want. this is basically effectively market rate housing and unfortunately, the city's rent

control housing program is extremely important for community stability. but our local rent stabilization program does not provide died or is not an affordable housing program. and certainly not a long terme affordable housing program. therefore, i'm with both of those major points to be considered for projects. both the process that created the plan and the plan itself. the rezoning plan will destroy the critical elements of our communities from existing residents to small businesses. this isn't planning. it's simply a plan to redevelop our communities through market deregulation. it provides nothing. our communities need it, only panders to for profit market driven interests. it's a complete the opposite of a plan that was supposed to be centered around racial and social equity silences. historically marginalized communities, and provides no truly affordable housing. thank you. hello,

planning commission, my name is anna christina rana. i'm a member of the race and equity in all planning coalition and a san francisco resident. and i'm born and raised in the bay area as well. um, our coalition is deeply concerned about this upzoning proposal. um, it's particularly for the impacts, um, severe negative impacts for historically marginalized communities across the city. um, we reject this up zoning proposal as it is setting the stage for redevelopment 2.0. um as folks have mentioned, these rezonings threaten to displace small businesses and tenants, particularly those historically marginalized community. his um and also seeks to silence our communities. therefore our rep rejects both the process that created this plan, as well as

the plan itself. um, we reject this attempt to put developer profits ahead of our communities , and we are calling on you all to put affordable housing first, as this is what our communities truly need. um, to live in san francisco. thank you. uh, hey, planning i'm barack, thank you for that informative presentation and for listening to us for hours. i'm glad the team is familiar with our history of redlining, and thanks for explaining how sdhb interacts with the new zoning program. i've had the pleasure of living in sf for seven years, recently bought a condo near church and market and my lots being up zoned to 65ft. many of my friends can't imagine staying in the city once they have kids and need to pay for childcare and education, especially because they want their kids to learn algebra. i would love if we legalized even more homes in my neighborhood to welcome even more neighbors to church and market and the rest of the mission near dolores and guerrero and the rest of the city, especially given the current economic environment. i

worry even this pretty significant upzoning won't lead to 10,000 housing starts in 2024. this should be our measure of success. thanks for this very significant first step to addressing our housing shortage. but we shouldn't rest until we see 80,000 new homes and 150,000 new neighbors in this beautiful city. i have heard from a lot of neighborhood defenders today. people that are upset that their neighborhood might change, concern that americans might have children, scared that immigrants might want to start businesses or innovate here. some even worry that greedy developers would build at their own expense apartments that would sit empty, losing them money. to you guys, i say thank you so much for your neighborhood engagement. i hope we can all agree, at least on zoning the entire city to at least missing middle scale with courtyard apartments and fourplexes everywhere. not the current single family duplex zoning we have in 70% of our area, or i hope that we can all agree if we don't pass this, the evil state of california will impose the spooky builders remedy on us, which will allow developers to do whatever they

want to anyone concerned about this program don't you wish your kids and grandkids could afford to live here, or that you wouldn't have to pay their rent? please consider a welcoming more people into this beautiful city. that's the progressive thing to do. i yield my time before the next person speaks. um, if there's anyone left in the north , like caught at the overflow room, please make your way to the chambers in room 400 to submit your testimony. thank you. my name is jill bitner. i live in aquatic park. thank you for finally letting me speak. third time's the charm. i did want to. before i read what i said, i asked, uh, mayor breed three weeks ago at north beach community meeting if she knew anything about the planning, zoning up, height. uh limit changes. and she knew nothing about it and would not comment. i'm outraged at the broad sweeps of height increases you have proposed all over san francisco. you're shortsighted. proposed height limit increases have massive ramifications for our city. our height limits are

essential to the character and charm of san francisco, but i want to specifically address my neighborhood of aquatic park and fisherman's wharf, and how doubling the height limits for those areas to 65ft would be devastating to those iconic hill swept neighborhoods, and the priceless beauty of our waterfront, the iconic hills of our waterfront rise dramatically from the bay waters and seemingly all the way to the clouds. that's what songs, poems and movies are written about, from the water views of those neighborhoods. kids have been photographed a million times over hundreds of thousands of tourists marvel at them from cruise ships every year. videos of them complement nearly every sport broadcast, sports broadcast. i'm disgusted to think so many years ago, views of our majestic hills were nearly completely obliterated by sky rises, like the horrendous fontana buildings. from land sweeping views of the bay would be horribly obstructed or completely blocked by doubling the height limits in those neighborhoods. views of the golden gate bridge from the cable car on hyde street would no longer take visitors breath away, because buildings would stand in the way, and the long fight to establish francisco

park will have been all for naught. because it's very best asset. views of the bay would no longer exist. the height limits established in our neighborhoods have made san francisco arguably one of the most beautiful cities in the world. please do not let your shortsighted attempt to meet the state's ill conceived and unattainable mandate for more housing. destroy the very thing that makes san francisco iconic. please reconsider your appalling massive height limit increases. san francisco is not for sale. mr. secretary. could i have the, uh. sure. s.f. gov can we go to the overhead, please. thank you. that's better. thank you. um my name is bridget maley. i'm here from district two. supervisor stephanie's district. uh, and i'm going to

share with you today some shocking images of the zoning west of venice and north, uh, or below broadway. this neighborhood has a significant collection of low scale victorian era housing and landmarks. and we cannot understand how two and three blocks from venice, it makes any sense to upzone these parcels. here are a series of images that i will show you that will demonstrate this sort of thoughtlessness that went into this plan. this is the 2400 block of gough. this is almost an intact group of victorian era houses, upzoned to 14 stories. this is the 1800 block, three blocks from venice on vallejo up zoned to eight stories. the 1700 block of vallejo, two blocks from venice, up, zoned to eight

stories. the 25 and 2600 blocks of octavia, three blocks from venice up zoned to eight and 14 stories. two of our neighborhood landmarks, the octagon house, up zoned to six stories and the burr mansion up zoned to 30 to 8 stories. please remove the up zoning creep from major transit corridors. examples. why are the blocks that i showed you up zoned three blocks from venice? do not ruin our pedestrian friendly and pedestrian scaled neighborhood commercial districts with massive buildings out of scale, with the existing urban fabric. all of our great neighborhood commercial districts are up zoned or union, chestnut, fillmore, polk, balboa , ocean, west portal, taraval, etc. et cetera. et cetera. that is your time. thank you. again,

those folks in the north like court. i would make your way up to room 400 to submit your testimony on this item. thank you. commissioners for the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. my name is tyler stoll, ad3 resident and architect living and working in san francisco. i'm speaking today on behalf of aia san francisco's public policy and advocacy committee to inform you that we are conducting workshops this month with design industry experts to test the draft standards. the objective design standards and develop recommendations best based on our findings. we appreciate that the planning department's collaboration with us on these standards that will shape our neighborhoods and look forward to returning here in a few weeks with an architect vetted set of standards. taking my aia hat off and just speaking as a resident who desperately hopes to stay in san francisco, long terme and raise my family here, i offer my

full support of the plan in front of you. but i encourage you to look at the department's final map as a starting point to be added to, not subtracted from . we need even more broad based upzoning in areas near transit, major grocery stores, school campuses, etc. details like the design standards are critical to get right. if this effort is going to be successful, but so is a robust zoning map that allows many types of homes to be built. the economics of today might favor. large mid-rise buildings on busy corridors, but what we can't we can't predict the future. we should encourage more gentle density citywide, including more appropriate transitions. a block off the zone corridors instead. of the abrupt transition shown in these maps. more density decontrol and height increases as shown on earlier maps is a good place to start. thank you. hi, hi, i'm stephen dodson, uh, san francisco native. um, which

also, unfortunately. makes me, having been a resident here for almost 50 years. um, i grew up in coal valley, sea cliff, and forest hill. uh, a lot of single family homes in those neighborhoods. a couple of the blocks i grew up on are being, um, up zoned for additional height. and i want to say a wholeheartedly support court support that i want more families to be able to live in the neighborhoods that i grew up in. uh, today, my family and i, my wife and two kids, we live in noe valley in a single family home. um, and unfortunately, we are not in the up zone area. we walk to school every day. we on the 24 line. we're on the 48 line. we're walking distance. uh, just less than five minutes to the j church and its neighborhoods. it's blocks like mine. that should be up zoned for additional height. um, my mother came here from vietnam in 1975 as a refugee, and along with her, eventually came over a dozen family members that settled in the richmond. and today, i'm speaking on behalf of

them over. they went to presidio, went to alamo, they went to wash. uh, eventually they were priced out of san francisco because of nimbyism and because of, uh, zoning laws. and i went through the san francisco public school systems in the 80s and 90s and almost every one of my friends have been priced out of san francisco today. i'm here for them as well. so i urge the commission to adopt this plan. um, san francisco is a wonderful city. we should let more people live here. thank you. thank you. my name is david brockman. i'm a volunteer lead with sf. um, i live in hayes valley. i've been in san francisco for over a decade. uh, right now, i'm facing the choice about whether i can afford to have a child or stay in san francisco. and the reason i can't do both is largely because this commission in the past has not endorsed plans like these to upzone san francisco. we need more housing in this city. so that people like me can afford to stay here and raise a family.

unfortunately, as well, this plan does not do nearly enough to make that a reality. the housing element is very clear. the rezoning needs to reasonably account for the probability that rezone sites are actually developed, because the vast majority we know will not be. the current plan does not also do what the housing element requires, and use an analytical model to figure out how much housing would actually be built from the plan. but the city does have such a model. we got it through a public records request. it was used in the housing element. it's called the blue sky model, and it takes only about an hour to run the current plan through that model, and you learn that it would actually only produce somewhere between 10 and 15,000 units. so you are far short of what you have promised to the state and what the state requires. this plan needs to be about 2 or 3 times the size in order to meet the state's requirements. that includes, and there's a lot of easy ways to do that. you've heard ideas. potrero hill, dogpatch, balboa, clarke park, glen park, the corridor between valencia and guerrero, and dolores. there's a lot of places that are not in the priority equity geographies that are not proposed to be up zoned, and we could easily do and then actually meet our goals under 711. i know a lot of members of

this body believe that there's no way we could ever build 82,000 units, so why try? but in fact, all we have to do is look to seattle, which pre-pandemic built well over 10,000 units a year. and even in 2022 built 9000 units. we could easily get there and we could easily avoid the builder's remedy, which would mean no zoning. but you just all need to legalize housing and make this plan much more ambitious. thank you. hi. um, i'm saleem, i love san francisco. i wish more people could live here. um, and in particular, i wish more of my friends could live here. so i first started following housing policy after graduating from college and just talking to my friends and realizing most of my friends were deciding between living with their parents or leaving the area. um, and it's still true to this day, many years out of college, that a lot of my best friends are living with their parents. still, because it's so hard to afford renting in this area. um, so i got involved in following housing policy. i went to some

meetings back in 2021 on this exact plan, and it's very similar to the one that is here today. um, the outreach by sf planning has been unprecedented, and i can't imagine a more extensive community outreach process over years. i like i said, i attended the first meeting in 2021. it's now 2024. um some people are upset about the outreach. i i think mainly there are two groups, or at least two reasons why that might be overlapping. one is that one group of people would oppose any plan that hcd would accept. unfortunately it's very difficult for planning to hear those comments because there's not much you can do. the other group of people are the people who are okay with housing, just not in their backyard. uh, sf planning put a bold rezoning proposal on the table that rezones the west side. that undoes decades of trajectory of housing policy in san francisco on the grounds that it leads to a more equitable outcome, that

more working class children can grow up in neighborhoods with greater opportunity to find in terms of the education scores of that census tract or the economic social networks they grew up in. it is precisely because the plan is bold that you are getting this pushback, and it is a marker of success for af, that you are hearing pushback from someone from cow hollow or other neighborhoods that are disproportionately affluent and instead of receding from a bold vision, you should double down on it. this is a great starting point for a plan that actually closes our 36,000 shortfall. thank you sir. hello commissioners. uh, my name is bob esfandiari. i am a resident of ocean beach wear. my hat is i'm a resident of the richmond district. in general of this fine city. and of course, uh, i am a member of san francisco yimby, a current leader of a democratic club that has supported all of the proposals

to streamline housing and rezone our city to undo it, as some of the other commenters have said, decades of racist zoning that were explicitly putting the codes in the 20s, 30s, and then later on to if we couldn't literally say no people of color here, we just said no homes that people of color can afford live here. but i want to tell a personal story because personal stories tend to resonate more. and you've already heard all the data and charts. um, i have a younger brother. i actually have two younger brothers. um, one currently lives with me because he couldn't find anywhere else to live, and that was fine. and i've told you all before, in previous commission hearings how my father's my landlord. because if i tried to find anywhere else that i could own or not own rent it and pay for on my own of my own will, i'd have to go live in the far, far east bay and, you know, sonoma county or beyond. um, because, uh, we don't make it affordable to build housing here because we've deliberately been not building housing here at the amounts that we need to just keep up with our own birth

rates and population growth, never mind immigration growth. for the last couple of years, my younger brother now lives with a friend of his in the tenderloin in a small one bedroom room. but they don't have a dining room because my brother lives in the dining room and he put up a rod to separate the rooms, right, to get some privacy. this is what happens when we don't build housing. and i'll leave you with this with my 20s. uh, five decades ago, one of the people who was here tonight speaking was speaking five decades ago again about the proposed housing at playland, at the beach where i live today. and, uh, that article, quote, says that they were testifying to stop the project to build housing. their argument was that we needed to save that area for open space. what their testimony led to was basically eliminating the low income and senior housing. we need to build this, and we need to make it happen faster. hi, my name is charlie natoli. i live in mission bay. um, first of all, i wanted to thank you so much for all your thoughtful,

thoughtful work and outreach, including giving me the chance to speak today. um, i actually took time off of work to do this, which is a little bit hard to do. um, so thank you so much for that. um, so first of all, i want to mention that i think the added density is a really great start. um, we could probably do even more, especially, um, adding height and focusing near, um, areas that are near transit or other areas like dogpatch or potrero near me, um, that were not part of the plan. um, but i want to mention there's a couple other things that i really like about this. um, first of all, is equity. this bill specifically focuses growth on high opportunity areas that have been so effective at blocking housing for so long. um, it maintains, you know, extra review for areas that have borne the brunt of gentrification. i thought looking at the historical map of redlining was a really helpful piece of context here. um, the second is climate change. uh, we know suburban sprawl is a climate disaster. and so one thing i'm really excited about is the fact that this plan encourages more dense and transit oriented housing, um, in places where we can lower our

emissions quite a bit by doing that, we can prevent a lot of sprawl that is currently happening. uh, the last thing for me is opportunity. um, so my husband and i, we hope to we're just entering our 30s and hope to raise a family here. um, but we really struggle in thinking about that. how can we afford a family sized home when the average home is, like, 1.3 $1.4 million? um, and who will teach our children when you know, more and more teachers and daycare workers and all these people are being priced out of san francisco? um, so with that, i wanted to thank you for your work and offer my whole hearted support for this plan. hello. my name is monica morse. i've lived in san francisco for over 25 years. i have raised my children here. one is still in college, the other one, though, pays her own rent. yes, her own rent in noe valley and with a roommate while working at ucsf. and what i think is basically minimum wage job. i'm a resident of ingleside terraces, my

neighborhood's where i walk. yes, i walk and shop and eat at small and local businesses are west portal, ocean avenue, lakeside, saint francis woods, balboa terraces. i'm here to urge the planning commission to not approve the up zoning plan and go back to the drawing board. the plan, as we've heard, is overly simplistic and is not considered preservation of the character of san francisco's history and family residences, as others have spoken eloquently about the impact on small businesses and how it doesn't actually make a dent on affordable housing. i want to focus on the community and families that we all hope we all want. you to raise here, and how upzoning is actually going to destroy historic residential neighborhoods, particularly on the west side in district seven, where families are indeed raised a tall building on ocean avenue was just highlighted as a success by staff member chen, but that picture doesn't illustrate that. there's no community there. ocean avenue is a wall of garages, lobbies, empty retail. it's not where families live and raise their

children. this will happen if the plan is adopted. i urge you to do four things one. re analyze the impact on historical neighborhoods and historic buildings. number two, have a vision for san francisco. historically, don't spread it like peanut butter. take a principled approach to preserving neighborhoods and build units where we already have high rises. and if somebody already mentioned we have approval in parkside, parkmerced and stonestown and yes, to the former speakers that is in my backyard, let's execute that plan and then go after existing inventory, repurpose empty commercial real estate. that is that. spurr has identified capture a abandoned and blighted homes that exist in every neighborhood and increase the penalties on empty buildings and homes. please do not destroy san francisco, san francisco. high commissioners. my name is david kim. i'm a ten year plus resident of san francisco, currently in nob hill, and i'm

also a volunteer board member of san francisco yimby. i'm also a son of immigrants, one of whom is elderly with dementia. they can't afford a home. they are not san franciscans. in fact, they are forced to live in a far flung suburb out in the desert, cold in a cul de sac where they slowly lose their ability to drive and face increasing isolation and loneliness. i dream of the day that they can afford to move closer to their son and enjoy the community and walkability of san francisco, which is why it's increasingly upsetting to see a lot of our elected leaders try to defy and tiptoe around, uh, what i think is a is a very sensible statewide measure for all municipalities to carry the

responsible city of, uh, building more for housing. uh, the zoning changes proposed. i won't go into detail. i think my colleagues have summarized it very well. i feel like we could just be a little bit more brave. um, however, the zoning changes are necessary. additional housing is necessary. most importantly, though, for us to stop paying lip service to the idea of inclusion and actually put our money where our mouth is . uh, otherwise, we'll cut san francisco off to the likes of people like my parents and, uh, allow our promises of inclusion to fall flat. so, uh, we not only have a legal responsibility , it's also moral. i plead, sir, that is your time. take this responsibility seriously. thank

you. good afternoon, commissioners jane nottoli, san francisco organizing director for yimby action, here to speak in support of today's plan, a lot of members and a lot of other people have told you about how we can do more. so i'm not going to belabor that point. i think this is a good starting point, but i think we can, as someone who lives in the richmond in a small apartment building that is a part of the character of our neighborhood, we built them before we can do it again. one of my favorite streets in san francisco is pacific, just west of van ness. it's got all these beautiful, beautiful six and eight story buildings mixed in with single family homes. we already know what the character of san francisco could look like with more density. it exists all around us. what we need to do is we need to give ourselves the ability to do that. not only do we need to do that, we already told the state we're going to do

that. this plan can and should do more to account for the 36,000 homes that are not already accounted for. and that's also a pretty rosy projection, assuming a lot of what is in our pipeline, which many people have asked about, comes through today, we would love to see some of those things , but unfortunately, some of what is in our pipeline has been sitting there a long time, and i'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the opportunity to move into some of those places, some of them have been decades in the work, some of them may not go forward at all, so we need to create more opportunity for more homes on places like geary, where i walk all the time, and there could certainly be more people. it lacks the vibrancy of some of the other commercial areas. i hope you'll consider this seriously. i appreciate the process. i know we're not done and i will be up here again to talk about this, and i appreciate all of your work on it. have a great day. kent makani, a proud member of

yimby. um, it's an honor to speak in front of you. i'll get right to the point. first of all, planning did a fabulous job reaching out. miss chen, who presented to you guys today, showed up in my world like three times as the head of the planning department showed up in my community multiple times. um, with props. so good job. and i think this is fabulous. and i'm so, so excited to be part of and witness this change. and i get it, i get it. everyone changes. really, really scary. especially change of something so beloved as san francisco. but but we're in a crisis. san francisco is dying. you just have to walk down the street and see it. and we need people. we need vibrancy. we need affordable homes at all levels. and i recently overheard mayor london breed, who is a big part of this with the planning department creating more homes. i overheard her say she didn't just want to catch up with our housing goals,

but to be a housing leader in the nation and whatever we do here in san francisco is eventually the whole nation follows. remember not so long ago when us gays were getting married right here on the steps and everyone thought it was crazy, especially people who were already married. like all the homeowners maybe, who are against this plan. and now gay marriage is no big deal. it's nothing. it's no big deal. so what if what if brothers and sisters and everything in between? what if housing is the new gay marriage? what if we get out of london breed's way? get out of the planning department's way and allow this city to lead again and rise from the ashes and build homes for the people. love you. all good work. thank you. bye. folks. i'm going to ask that you refrain from hissing over people's commentary. you may not agree with what they're saying, but let's be a little bit respectful of everyone's time. hi. i'm, uh,

my name is mike spain. i live in the dogpatch, and i want to bring up the fact that there's that it, uh, there's a six square block area just a little bit south of where i live. and it's all pdr. it was done back when the eastern neighborhood plan was adopted. now, this six block, this 36 block area is bounded by 23rd street. it's this creek, uh, pennsylvania and illinois. and it's all one story buildings, um, housing mostly now it's mostly, um, um, drug places where they grow marijuana and lots and some art galleries are going in. and i don't think, uh, pdr was originally kind of, uh, thinking about that would that would be the use for this area. i it needs to be rezoned for high rise. um you could build ten, 15, 20 story, maybe even 30 story buildings in this area because it's in the only

thing in back of it is potrero hill, and the only thing built on potrero hill is at the top of the hill. so it's not like you're blocking anybody's views there. it is also serviced by good transportation. you have the t line, which was actually designed to service that area, and the residential, uh, buildings that would be built there. you have the train line going into the south bay. you have the 48. the 22 is not very far away. and the new dogpatch number 5 or 50, it goes along 22nd street. so it has plenty of transportation. it is ideally suited for what i am suggesting. it needs to be rezoned. um, many of these people here are don't want high rises in their neighborhood. well you can bring them to my neighborhood. i don't mind them. in fact, there are buildings in my neighborhood that could not be built today, and there are only five stories high. so i'm offering a suggestion about how to solve this problem, which seems to be on everyone's mind. um, i can't

guarantee um is my time finish. or do i have a little bit more time? pardon me? that is your time, sir. okay. thank you sir. greetings planning commissioners. i am amanda scott and i am the daughter of a combined 40 year planning commission and president of both the contra costa and napa valley planning commissions. i want to thank you for taking the time to hear public comment concerning up zoning in the need for more affordable housing. moreover i want you to see the face of a young professional that will be displayed based after over a decade at my current apartment. if the up zoning as scheduled in its present form, specifically on lombard, lombard and fillmore street is approved, the group funding the fillmore street project has already attempted to displace me by purchasing my building for demolition to create 15 multi-million dollar condos on lombard and fillmore

street, with zero affordable units on site. by doing so, they would remove all of our affordable housing units adjacent to the lombard and fillmore project site and in doing so, displace four young professionals, one disabled adult that have lived for a combined 57 years on the site. i implore you to please protect our current affordable housing units and residents that live in them like me. lastly i want to state that i was originally made aware of this project when i was asked to physically come and speak to this commission. um, as a favor for the group planning to upzone um, at the lombard and fillmore site. not not through public outreach. thank you. uh, hello. planning commission. my name is brian kwan. i'm a

richmond district native. i wanted to thank you for taking the time to host this, um, outreach. uh, i also want to thank you for kind of all the outreach that you've been doing around this zoning, uh, process. it seems like we've got a lot of people that have heard about it. there's been a lot of diverse opinions today, and i want to speak in favor of the current rezoning plan. in fact, i actually think we should be doing more. uh, the richmond district has been able to build senior housing because of some of the up zoning. the project out on 32nd and geary, the new one that's going up on sixth in geary, and the one that used to be where the cornett theater was , um, this this to me is an opportunity to really be become the inclusionary vision of san francisco. just like when chinatown was allowed to have their residents finally buy

property outside of chinatown in places like the richmond district and the sunset. this is another chance to increase these opportunities for more immigrants, for new residents and the 82,000 units is just a floor. it's not a ceiling. so so i think we should see where we can continue to increase some of these height limits, not just on the main corridors, but in other parts of the city. they don't have to all go up to 65 or 80ft. but if we can find ways to increase the areas that we can create more opportunities that is where we should really be pushing the dialog. thank you. my name is ann harvey in 1978, my husband and i moved from oakland to san francisco. so to

be close to where he worked at ucsf, teaching and i because i was a partner of tiny law firm, we opened an office doing civil rights litigation, san francisco and i was commuting, first of all, to san jose and back and forth and we found a place in the western edition for us where our two sons were born. uh, this was the courthouse at the time. so i would walk to court and, um, and so my sons were born in western edition and our apartment there and then eventually my parents became disabled. and so they pulled them out there. i was there, guardian. um brought them out here, and they lived in our apartment. and eventually it was too small for all of us. so that's when we decided we needed more space. some of the sleeping on the floor and then some. somehow, by miracle, we found a my husband found a place on in cow hollow and we moved in

there. our first thing we did when we got the house was earthquake proof. it like put the foundation on. that's all we did. and also put the something on the steps. and then the next year came the earthquake 89 earthquake. i was in my office in embarcadero. i could feel the i put my hand up, get the books and falling down. fortunately we, um. well, what happened after that was evacuation. we had to stay. stay in place and walk down the steps. and fortunately, my receptionist had gone home because she would not have made it down the steps. i walked down the steps and i walked down. it was a little difficult. i was so sore for days later, but fortunately the building stood up. i got down at the bottom of the building. um, there's no elevators. we had to walk down and then the bottom of

the building. there was no no busses, no traffic. thank you ma'am, but everyone helped and we wanted to, uh, help out. but the big thing is, i know from experience. yes, ma'am. thank you. but that is your time. it's my pollution. and it's really ruins the city. anyway, i think it's awful. i don't know who's behind us. somebody's making money. thank you. um, hi. my name is erika zweig. i live in the district four, in the outer sunset. and, um, i'm a member of a group called d forward and we are affiliated with race and equity. in all planning. i had a prepared speech, but i'm here listening to all of this. i hear that dmv's the social justice activists for the rich people,

and they have no historical perspective. um, i moved here as in my 20s. like many of them, grew a family in the outer sunset. i've lived in my exact same place since 1980, and, uh, i rent controlled. i bought it two very deeply rent controlled tenants in that building. i saved them from eviction by buying it anyway. just moving just a little bit of reality. and what the real meaning of a yimby is it? were the real progressives in the day, not these type of whatever they are. um, that fought for inclusion. and so they talk about, yes, they were the people that knocked on doors, white people that tried to rent buildings or apartments and, and then proved and had lawsuits against those people that then refused the same apartment to them. so nimbys used, um, co-opted the

word um, this this plan doesn't have to be, um, approved for two more years. take the two more years. there's not one drop of affordability in this. this is a total giveaway to the real estate industry. market rate and luxury building. nobody is going to build affordable. they cannot . all of this can be up zoned. but unless there's money in the city, subsidize in it, there won't be one affordable housing out of all of this upzoning and all of these yimby kids still won't have any place to move into. so, um, something drastic has to be done. you've got two years to do it. don't let breed rush you like she's doing before we even pass prop a some extremely upset with you guys and yimbys. okay, if there's anyone still left in the north light court, the overflow area, please come up to the fourth

floor, room 400. uh, good afternoon, commissioners. uh, catherine howard, district four d forward. uh, the thriving sunset. i want to say, encountered a prior testimony where you can still find lunch for less than $50. a person. this proposal will have severe negative impacts on the sunset district, raising height limits to 6 or 14 stories in dangers. the family friendly character of our traditionally working class neighborhood, which, by the way, contrary to the redlining map, which is ancient, the sunset is now 70% nonwhite. right? so the whole race is thing. it does not apply. what will be the impact on families whose homes are directly to the north of these buildings? how much gentrification will result in pricing out these families? so this proposal has not looked closely at specific sites. for example, 85 foot and 140 foot

towers are proposed on judah between 18th and 19th avenues. this completely ignores an elementary school with a playground on the same black block directly to the north of the towers. strong winds and shade are not good for a playground. in school. this is but one example of the ways that this proposal will impact the very first responders and service workers who already live in our neighborhood. there are other ways to achieve more housing. this poorly thought out proposal must be revised. thank you. thank you. commissioners and good afternoon. the future of san francisco's neighborhoods and livability are at stake. along with our grocery stores,

local, small businesses, and our seniors working families and low income tenants. this rezoning is not required by state law until 2026, and given that the mayor's office hasn't made any real progress on the housing elements, affordable housing funding and strategies, portion of the housing elements implemented mission. why in 2024 is this rezoning legislation ocean going to the board of supervisors? what is the hurry? according to the state's no net loss law, san francisco must maintain an adequate sites to accommodate its remaining rina goals by income category throughout the entire planning cycle, the city has made no progress finding a realistic path to funding the affordable needs identified. will the city then have to keep rezoning over and over when affordable units are not built out? what is the

city's plan to meet the transit needs generated by this rezoning map? how will the city protect existing rent controlled units and their tenants? s how will the city protect existing local and neighborhood serving small businesses? how to protect against the demolition of historic buildings. please also consider this rezoning plan is estimated to yield 62,500 unit s , which is 171% more than the required. 36,200 units, plus more than the hcd recommended buffer of 115% plus fees. this is take go back to the drawing board. thank you. good

afternoon, commissioners. my name is jonathan bunnyman. i'm a resident of district two and i want to highlight something that i feel like hasn't been mentioned enough tonight or this afternoon, which is the generational aspect of this. like as it becomes abundantly clear in this room, there is clearly an aspect of generational struggle to this where the baby boomer generation and gen x were able to purchase homes relatively cheaply, protect them through 13 and through down zoning. and now homes are incredibly expensive, and my generation and generations afterwards will have no opportunity whatsoever to afford them. and even afford rent. renting here. when i moved here from berlin, germany four years ago, my rent quintupled and it is just insane how pricey housing in san francisco is. and that kind of ties into the second issue. i wanted to highlight, which is how this intersects with urbanism and having dense, walkable, environmentally friendly neighborhood, as it's very clear that we need to make sure we

upzone as much as possible around transit corridors. i think we need to expand that definition a little here and have it within ten minutes. walk from a muni rail highest volume bus line or rapid bus line and have the height limits there to be at least 65ft. where i lived in berlin before everything pretty tall, pretty dense. buildings and it was just so much more of a walkable environment than here in san francisco, where if you go outside of the core downtown part of the city, it's just really suburbia and it's car dependent and it's really a disaster. thank you. good afternoon commissioners. my name is mike chen. i also live in district two. i'm along with jonathan. i'm a volunteer with northern neighbors. we're a neighborhood group that supports a more lively, livable places. small businesses, and affordability. i live in a 12 story building that's off van ness that was built in 2016. it replaced a auto garage and it currently houses about 250 plus

people. when i'm in the lobby or outside the building, i see people smiling, going to patronized businesses on polk or in japantown. i see people with strollers and their kids, and i see a place that people have been able to move into without displacing anybody else. and i think there's great opportunities to do that in my neighborhood and elsewhere in lafayette park. you know, we see apartment buildings that were built in the 60s and 70s and the 50s, 60s and 70s, right, that were five, six, seven, ten, 20 stories. and those buildings are fine and when i go to lafayette park, i see people taking their kids there. i see people walking their dogs there enjoying the sunshine on the lawn. and we should do more of that near our parks, near our transit. and so i encourage the commission and staff to really go beyond the proposal and really think about how we can really increase affordability for the middle class for folks and make sure that we really maximize what we're doing with, with along venice, along california street, along lombard street. um, you know, my i've been calling some friends and, and, you know, in

my, in their 30s, you know, i have a friend who's married, he has a kid, and he said he's leaving the richmond to go close to his wife's family in minnesota. and i feel that that is a generational story that's happening to a lot of people around my age of folks who love san francisco, love the community, love the family that they have here, want to put down roots here. but it's really hard to make it work. and this rezoning plan, i think, is a way to help make that work, to help provide more opportunities for people in my generation. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is robin tucker. i'm the co-chair of the pacific avenue neighborhood association. um, we are very much opposed to the new zoning. um, that is being presented. we have spent years, uh, trying to make our community

a livable one, one where three foot light wells are no substitute for light and air and refrigerator style box buildings are no substitute for the small scale neighborhood charm that we have in our neighborhood. our community is really afraid that if this up zoning occurs, that they will be displayed based and that they will no longer have the community where they can walk outside and enjoy some sunshine. instead, we have very limited sunshine on our very narrow streets and are very narrow. the, uh, alleyways where many of our residents live and enjoy and play. so so we're asking you to please go back to the drawing board. we're not opposed to more density. we but we happen to be the most dense neighborhood in the city. district three, please rethink

this zoning proposition. and come back with something that's livable for all of us. thank you very much. uh hello. my name is brandon, and i'm here to speak in favor of rezoning. i'm a resident of the sunset and grew up on the north side of the city. but, you know, i don't really think that matters. i think what this is really about is making a city that is affordable, accessible and welcoming, uh, for people who want to be here regardless of how long they've been here. i don't believe that policies minimizing construction, artificially limiting the people who can live in san francisco, uh, contribute to that. as you all know, the average home price in san francisco is close to or north of $1 million. and really, that's what i think the status

quo has gotten us. uh, rezoning supports affordability for renters and people who aren't already enfranchised with million dollar homes. you know, i really love this city, and i would love for more people to be able to enjoy and find home here. uh in the way that thousands already have. so i would urge you to support the rezoning and, uh, accessibility for many. thank you. rudy gonzalez, secretary treasurer of the san francisco building and construction trades, hadn't planned on speaking to you. it was just kind of listening to my inner voices. um, but somebody said construction, so that's my lane, so i'll take the opportunity. um, you have 48,000 some odd units already entitled in the pipeline. you've had a downturn in the downtown corridor. in fact, all across the city with respect to permits being pulled. i would argue that the nimby and nimby conversation leaves out some really important facts. facts like the public corruption scandals that we've had at dbe, that we've had

across this mayoral administration for the last 5 or 6 years. fact that involve that permits are not getting pulled, not because of neighborhood character or a lack thereof. they're not getting pulled because of interest rates. so no matter what politician wants to push you into a position or what advocacy groups thinks they're having a movement moment, you can't ignore that construction financing has more to do with with the city's operation, that a lack of real chutzpah and momentum behind the dbe part of our operation has had more to do with the problems of getting institutional and global money. we have brookfield proposing something massive at stonestown, or across the street from many of the neighbors. you're hearing from this body. nor do the board of supervisors actually block many projects, and the building trades want to build them. but we have a construction financing project, so the public sector has to get real about the problems that are in front of us. and i urge all of you to use

your voices to be thoughtful, strategic and laser focused about how we unlock some of the pipeline projects we already have entitled. thank you. okay, last call for public comment. final last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners public comment is closed. and this informational item is now before you and commissioners, we've been here for three hours and ten minutes. do you want to take a bit of a break before we comment, or do you want to forge on? i hear a break, so, uh, 10 to 15 minute max break and then we will reconvene, um, at and the commissioners will weigh in on what we've heard. so i would urge the public to stay a little longer. um so that you can hear

our thoughts based upon our review of the documents, our participation in the process so far in your comments today. very good. s.f. gov okay. good afternoon, and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, february 1st, 2024. for um commissioners. we left off on on the expanding housing choice informational presentation, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you. thank you. um, i'm going to make some opening comments and then i'm going to hopefully hear from all of the commissioners get their input. it's an informational item. so there's no action taken. but i guess as staff would greatly appreciate hearing sort of our, you know, each of our thoughts as to where we are at this stage of the process. so i want to

start by saying, um, we are responding to state mandates. those are real and there are consequences if we don't follow them. so so, um, it is important to bear that in mind as we think through how we accomplish, uh, what the state has told us we must do. i think we live in an absolutely incredible city. um, but we need to make sure that we create room for other people to be able to live here. um, we need to make sure that tourists still come here. we need to make sure our. that young people don't feel like they're forced out of the city because they can't afford housing. um, that's otherwise available to them. but we also need to make sure that people who have lived here for decades, um, don't feel like this is a place they want to leave because it no longer reflects the character, the diversity, the neighborhood. um a sense of belonging being, um,

walkability that they have invested in over the years and cherish and value. and so the question is, how do we accomplish all of that? and i believe that the way to do that is not to throw out what we've started with. um, i think that staff has done an incredible job, um, over many, many months of listening to what the state is telling us we must do, you know, going out into the neighborhoods, um, seeking the opinions of those who have a stake in the outcome and those who. and by that i don't mean just the people who are already here, but the people who want to live here. and try to find the right balance. we have seen multiple versions of the plan, um, over the last year and a half, um, which reflect that continual refinement out of the various values that are necessary to get to a goal that

meets the state mandate and that balances all of those needs that i just discussed a minute ago. i, um, i really want to express a lot of appreciation, ocean for all of the people who came out here today. you know, not only the yimby folks who have been following this from the get go and making sure that their concerns are heard. but for all of the neighborhood people who came today, i understand and, um, that there is a concern about lack of notice because this will ultimately be a legislative item. it is not an item that, um, results in mailed notice to every single household in the city. um, and we're kind of used to that, you know, when there's a project going up and, you know, within 300ft of you, you get a mailed notice, it is harder to stay to be aware of and stay engaged with legislature processes. when you don't get that kind of individual notice. but i do

believe staff has tried hard to engage with the neighborhood groups and the supervisors to find other mechanisms to spread the word. and i, you know, while this may be months into the process for many of you now hearing about it for the first time, i truly appreciate the time and the effort. um, that's been made to determine what is it that's not working for you about the plan to articulate your concerns and to show up? um, it's really important, and i hope you will continue to do that through the rest of the process. um, i will say, um, that i think that this is not an independent item. for example, we have already, um, increased density basically everywhere, um, to four units or six units. we have the, um, supervisors plan to do domesticity, which is or however, the word is the thomisidae, um, which increases

the height at the corners for certain kinds of buildings, um, with uses on the bottom. so this rezoning is not independent, is not an independent item. we have a housing element. we adopted the zoning as part of the plan to implement the already adopted housing element. other legislation has already proceeded and will come, um, in the future to implement other portions of it. i am actually very appreciative of how this plan has evolved. and um, since its initial inception, i am very glad, um, that, uh, the focus of the increased heights is on the commercial corridors and that it has not spread to the residential side streets. i am not supportive of the notion. i heard from a number of the yimby folks today, basically using an analogy that was used today, spreading the peanut butter out from the commercial side streets

to have increased density and heights of 65ft beyond the commercial corridors. i think that's a really bad idea. um, we already have a, you know, significant level of contentious ness with the commercial corridors and going on to the residential side streets is just going to exacerbate that problem . so i was really glad to see that this plan stays primarily in the commercial corridors. and that's where i think, um, it should continue to focus. i am intrigued by the nodes. um, it seems like those are, uh, getting more specific with each version of the plan. and the nodes are probably our best opportunity to realistically add a significant amount of housing. the gentle density increases we get are not going to add thousands of units. the nodes, like at city center at the corner of, uh, geary and arguello and again at the corner

of geary and park presidio there, elsewhere in the city, um , are and it really very important factor and how we're going to achieve the significant numbers that are necessary in order to deal with what was the last commenters concerns, which is what's getting in the way of building the pipeline projects is likely, um, interest rates and the cost of construction, and that the idea of having, you know, denser projects that can produce more units in a smaller area, um, in my opinion, is likely to have the biggest impact on producing housing because the goal here isn't just entitlements. entitlements don't house people, it's actual housing. and so we need to get to the point where we actually have we're picking a scenario that's going to result in units being built so that people can occupy them, and our labor force can be at work. that being said,

um, although this was labeled the final plan, i'm really hoping director hillis it's not the final plan. we heard from a number of people about specific areas that i think, um, are important for a second look, there were many. we received hundreds of letters, was from people who raised issues that weren't necessarily brought up today. and i believe that those are issues that warrant, you know, a little further examination and may require additional refinement. and i hope that you will come back to us with a version that takes some of those specific concerns into account. those concerns were raised primarily by people who live in those neighborhoods. and i believe that there experience, you know, in living in those particular areas, is worthy of, you know, closer examination and seeing if we can't find some kind of solution that mitigates some of their concerns without undermining the overall goal. that was presented

in the plan. the other thing, and i think i probably say this every time we have a hearing on this because i feel like it's critical is that we need to make sure that our plans for infrastructure to accommodate all these new projects are moving side by side, um, with the plan for housing, we need to make sure that the, um, the availability of parks that are in the sunshine of neighborhood commercial corridors that stay as thriving neighborhood, commercial corridors that schools and the transportation one keeps up, um, with the level of housing that we are calling for. and i know that you have talked in the past, director hylis, about the dependent efforts that will follow along with this. but i don't want to ever lose sight of that because it's not housing alone that makes for a livable city. it's housing accompanied by all the infrastructure. and then the last point i will make is i do

have a lot of concern about the neighborhood commercial corridors and the loss of small business. um, and that simply compensates, as is proposed in the plan, the businesses who leave with 18 months of rent doesn't really get to the heart of the problem. um, well, that's, you know, important point. and i'm not saying we should get rid of that. i also think we need to focus on what is it that makes those neighborhood commercial corridors thrive. why is it that they have been the shining star during the pandemic? um likely people stayed home and shopped there. um, and frequented the stores. what is it that we can do to make sure that what makes our neighborhoods so special doesn't get lost? um, with the construction of generic eight story buildings with that are, um, designated for ground floor retail, but where the rents are too expensive for the return of the kind of tenants that are currently there. i have highlighted in the past my concern about clement avenue

between arguello and park presidio, but as i said, that's not the only one in the city, and i believe that that warrants, um, some additional attention to make sure that in our, um, in our obsession, which is appropriate to build more housing, not just to entitle but to make sure we're building more housing that we don't lose track of. why it is people want to live here in the first place. um, which is the neighborhood character that we all cherish. so with that, i will now call on commissioner ruiz. thank you. and i also just want to thank everyone who came out to make public comment. i think i'll start with questions based off of some concerns that i heard from folks. um, the first question is we had a comment around the demolition of historic buildings. um, and one commenter made or use an example of a of a victorian home that would be up zoned. so i'd like

to hear from the department and to clarify for us on the commission and the community how historic buildings will or will not be protected with the changes. thank you for the question, commissioner ruiz. um, so, you know, we didn't go into detail into kind of the zoning structure. you know, i was kind of giving the high level overview, but we did kind of mention that we are planning for historic protections as you know, the city has been conducting the sf survey process alongside the rezoning. they're prioritizing looking at these corridors and identify where potential historic resources may be. and that could potentially be listed. and so, you know, it is something we're taking very seriously because this is so focused on the commercial corridors themselves. um, so, you know, in our other rezoned areas, you know, we've had a lot of comments here that have been talking about, do not rezone the specific historic resources. right. but when you kind of look at some of our other area plans, kind of the way the structure works is we have the zoning and

that often kind of follows these gradation patterns. right? so everything on a block is 65ft or whatever the height limit is. and then we layer our protections on top of that. and so that is exactly what we're planning to do here. um, and so we have as outlined in the case packet, we kind of have three tiers of protections listed. and so for our project for parcels that have lists and resources, so that's listed in the local, state and national registers. they are not eligible for demolition. and that is objectively explained in our code. um, the second middle tier is for projects that are um, i might have to go back to it. it's the article ten and 11. um contributory buildings. and then there's within that there's certain shades of that. um, they will are not they're not eligible for ministerial review. so those will be going through our sql process and all of the mitigation measures that all of you approved through the housing element will be applied to those . so there's a process for that. and then the third layer of protection is for all of the projects that are considered eligible for listing, but may not be listed yet at. and so for

those we are planning to add objective standards to our code. we've been working with our historic team to identify from that list of mitigations. what are things that we can create objective standards around, so that we're making sure that we're make sure that we're applying those standards to those projects? great thank you so much. my next question is around the retail and commercial corridors. i just want to align myself with president diamond's comments. um, and those who made comment about, you know, commercial corridors being subject to up zoning with no commitment of, um, really basement. so can you speak to how just the small business displacement strategy that the planning department is considering? yeah um, yes. this is a major concern. and, you know, there are a lot more protections that are available for residential tenants than there are for commercial tenants . and that's, you know, part of our state law. and so we are limited by that as well. um, so what we have been exploring, um, is, you know, provisions that

are very similar to what's in ab 2011, which, you know, is up zoning law that was passed by the state on commercial corridors. um, and you know, we have a number of projects in the pipeline that are using ab 2011 and that essentially has a provision that's based on the length of tenure of the business . so you would be eligible for a certain number of months of rent , depending on how long you've been in business. so it's i think up to 18 months of rent depending on, you know, the number of years that you've been there. but we recognize that that's not enough. um, we've been working with cdd and trying to identify, you know, what other sorts of programs and protections we can use to support these, these businesses. um, you know, in addition to kind of some of our, our work around things like, um, cbds and kind of other kind of corridor level supports, you know, there are programs that are available for specific businesses through the office of small business. um for, for projects or for, for businesses that are fearful of being displaced. we did also

bring this to the small business commission. i think something like 4 or 5 months ago. and, you know, kind of shared the rezoning plan with them and just heard, you know, some of their perspectives and, you know, they also, you know, had very mixed feelings. they recognized that this is a potential impact on these small businesses that are already struggling. so much because of covid and other other factors. um, but they also recognize the need for housing. and so they just really wanted to make sure that the city is thinking holistically. i know that supervisor melgar, for example, has been exploring other funding for, for example, for business interruption for not necessarily for businesses that are being displaced themselves. but you know, the neighboring businesses who are impacted by construction. thank you so much. um, in my last two questions, um, are are in regards to the outreach and also this particular rezoning, not meeting our affordable housing goals. um, you know, i myself have yet to see the production of market rate housing bring

down the rents and address our affordable housing crisis. so i just would like to know the conversations that you all are having to ensure that the upzoning will benefit the development of affordable housing thing. um, you know, the collaboration with key affordable housing stakeholders to ensure that we will bring much needed affordable housing units. so can you speak more to that on how how the department is considering all of that in this plan? sure. so you know, i can only speak to one piece of that through the rezoning because, you know, the housing element has essentially become the department's work plan. and so, uh, director hylis or others can maybe speak to some of the other pieces that are happening in parallel with, with the rezoning. but it is definitely a core part of this plan. it's a core part of what hcd is requiring us to do. um, and so, you know, as i can identified in, in the presentation, we are relying on a strong foundation with the city's policies that we have in place already, both around tenant protections and

also around producing affordable housing. so we do have inclusionary housing requirements that go farther than many other cities. you know, i think if every other city had policy that were requiring the production of affordable housing, the state as a whole would be in a different position, right? so part of the problem and to your point, the fact that, you know, we are producing a lot of housing, we produce many more units than many other cities, but the prices are still high. the part of the issue is that we can't solve all the problems just in san francisco, and we need other cities to do the same. um, so as we mentioned, you know, we are we are relying on our existing inclusionary housing requirements. we're trying to make them all the options under that inclusionary requirement as attractive as possible and feasible as possible, so that we have that diversity of affordable housing, so that we continue to have funds for 100% affordable housing, buildings. and then, as we also mentioned, we're creating this rent controlled option for those smaller projects. so those are the projects 24 units and under, where maybe they would produce 1 or 2 affordable units through the inclusionary program, which can be administrative, difficult

to kind of administer through the dahlia system. instead you know, we're offering the option to do rent controlled units. so that's just what we're doing through the rezoning. but as we mentioned, you know, the affordable housing leadership council is going to be here in just a couple of weeks. they've been hard at work over the last year identifying every everything. you know, that we can do within our power at the local level. and then also identifying you know, other resources at the state or elsewhere that, you know, we really need to bring to the city in order to make sure that we can deliver on our commitments. thank you. those are all my questions. um, and so i just want to summarize just what i'm thinking. i mean, today i heard three different narratives. i heard, yes, yes, yes to more housing. i heard, you know, concerns around the change of character in, you know, the neighborhoods that folks are living in. and then i heard very real concerns around, around, you know, displacement of small businesses and what this upzoning is going to do or not do for our affordable housing

goals. and for our low income and vulnerable, um, renters and residents in san francisco. so, you know, i feel like we do need to upzone we do need to upzone in these areas of the city. i think it's inequitable to concentrate development and only very specific areas in san francisco. i feel like that's what we've been doing. and so we need to disperse and incentivize, you know, development in other areas that have just not produced, um, but i also think that this needs to be in tandem with anti-displacement strategies for vulnerable renters. you know, i think in the future, i would love to see a map of this up. zoning alongside the maps that we have developed for priority equity, geography and other maps that we have. um, and how that overlays and maybe overlaps with

, with, you know, areas vulnerable to displacement. and what are our strategies if there is going to be development in areas where we have identified vulnerable, you know, renters, what are we going to do about it ? um, so that would be you know, one request from me. um, i also think that, you know, we need to be really adamant about the small business, um, anti-displacement strategy. so i'm comforted to hear that we're collaborating with other city departments in regards to that, because i really think that we need to be ahead of the curve and mitigating and preventing harm. um and lastly, you know, i would really love to see in this particular rezoning effort what parcels would be good opportunities for affordable housing production. you know, i hate to see plans that will inevitably only prioritize one type of housing. just because the playing field is unequal, you know, to produce affordable

housing. so i would love to see, you know, parcels in areas that would be good opportunities for affordable housing development. and then what strategies are needed to actually make that happen and how we as a department are going to support that effort. so you know, i am in support of up zoning, but i just feel like we have to have more intentionality behind. how are we going to consider our, you know, that this is going to support everybody and not just a select few of folks. so thank you. commissioner imperial, thank you. first, i want to thank everyone from for coming here and testifying and providing your comments. um, and also to the staff as well, who've been doing this work for the last year in terms of the outreach. um, actually, one of my first question and i think,

um, more clarification and i guess that's this is my question to miss chen, um, in all of the you know, i and i've attended in all of the i mean, not in all, but in one of the open houses that the department has, has done on. um, i can see here that there are 62 housing element housing, education workshops have done by the department as well. um so i guess my question, because there are a lot of comments of neighbors saying that they did not hear about it. so i guess what what was the initial strategy by the department were the neighborhood associations were contacted and merchant associations were contacted. um, in the last year and perhaps how can they be more involved in in this outreach? sure. um, yes. as i noted, you know, we had to be strategic. um, it's a vast geography. um, and as was earlier noted, you know, given this type of legislative process, you know,

it the procedures do not allow or require for mailed notice for every single zoned property, right. um, and so, um, you know, we were really trying to have kind of both a breadth of the geography and of the types of stakeholders and opinions that we're hearing. but then also depth, um, and so, you know, we were kind of planning these larger events like open houses, our surveys, um, and other types and community conversations, which are basically one on one meetings with neighborhood groups in the spaces where they already meet. and then so that's kind of our large umbrella strategy. and then we were getting deeper by really targeting organizations that represent the types of populations that have a greater housing insecurities. um, so we were working very closely with nonprofit organizations that provide social services, that provide community development services, as in a lot of these same neighborhoods. um, and we recognize that we did not reach

everyone. right because, um, you know, we knew we only had a year. we knew we had so much ground to cover. um, but, you know, we did also try to get the word out as much as we could. you know, we had a social media campaign. we had that this wonderful art campaign that you all saw with the local artists. it was in the muni bus ads. it was in newspapers, you know, citywide newspapers and local newspapers as well. um you know, neighborhood newspapers as well. and so we really did try to get the word out as much as we could, and we're glad that people are now here and that we can kind of all have the dialog. and we expect that even more people are going to continue to hear about it and can continue to come out to our hearings. i would suggest to, um, to also partner with schools. i don't know if that, because schools are really integral part of the communities. um, and i'm, i'm not sure if there are, but i would suggest to add that to in terms of whether doing housing, education or, again, conversations to have schools be part of the outreach strategy as well. um, and i know this is i mean, i cannot imagine in the

kind of outreach work, the initial work that the planning department has done is, is extensive, and we cannot i mean, i mean, the reality is that, yes, we cannot reach everyone, but there are pockets of neighborhoods that we can look at and the for me, what what i was, um, you know, the last the last month in, in during the month of you can sit down question. um, but what i noticed, like in the month of january, i noticed a lot of the, um, um, letters from different neighborhood associations, a long list of neighborhood associations in the west side, and, um, also during the, um, you know, the holiday season to i believe there was also some sort of scandal or, you know, some issue in terms of the survey and how it's being this being manipulated. um, you know, so that's also, um, you know, i would like to, you know, just to mention that today, um, and how is that also interplay in how we

see the survey that the, that the department has collected already. i'm wondering if, you know whether the surveys can be, um, redistributed again, um, whether to this neighbor associations or through schools, um, so that you know, if we're talking about, you know, inclusiveness, then we should be able to, um, you know, the, the surveys or the input should also be considered in that. yeah, i can speak to that. so, you know, we did actually extend the survey period by a month, um, because we knew it was the holidays and we got requests from supervisors, we got requests from neighborhood organizations to allow more time for people to answer. um, you know, we because we did extend that period. we didn't have the results for today, but we are going to be sharing all of that analysis. so i think we received something like two 2400, 2400 responses. and so it was, you know, a very robust response. and you know, i kind of touched

on some of the themes from it, like you have all noted, it's been you know, very different kind of lanes of feedback that we've been receiving. um, and we do think that it is, you know, even though it didn't survey all 15,000 parcels that were represented in the rezone areas, we do think that that is probably pretty representative of kind of the range of feedback. thank you. and the reason i want to bring that up, because transparency is very important. and i think our department should be leading when it comes to transparency. um, you know, so that that's why i want to emphasize the importance of the outreach and how we're being transparent in terms of, um, you know, having this kind of conversations to the communities because it's really complicated. um, and i'm not going to, you know, um, that i think i've accepted that we're not going to please everyone at this point. um, but at least we're being transparent. but, um, another thing, too, that i want to bring up is, um, is i think both, um, president

diamond and commissioner rees is the, the concern around the small businesses and many of the comments, um, also touch on the, the neighborhood commercial districts. of course, that this is where the focus of the upzoning. um, i would and this very reminiscent, um, or what i remember during the era of tech boom and salesforce towers is coming up and the conversation around central soma is coming up during that time. and it you know, there you know, in and i just want to share this with the public like you know south of market was popular for its night time. and it's also for the bars and clubs and many of those bars and clubs are have already closed at this point. um, so i also, um, the department be thoughtful of the past. um plans that we have done and also in the in the time of the finance

boom. um, there were also many small businesses have closed. and that's because those businesses buildings have turned into condominiums. and that also also contributed to the, um, low employment in the night time industry and also many of them are bipoc community as well. um and the night time industry. i'm not going to go into detail, but, you know, the level field on that has changed as well. so i think it's really important for the city to make not just relocation plan, but protection zone protection to the small businesses, especially if we're talking about small pop. and there are many, um, you know, i used to live in the terrible area. um, i now live in the hayes valley. um, but the terrible has many small businesses. um, and, and, you know, and it keeps changing and, but at the same time, actually majority of the businesses are still alive in the terrible area. and west portal as well. west portal is has so many small

businesses in there too. um, and as we know that the narrative of small businesses are struggling, i think it's imperative for us to really look into the protection of the small businesses. and as i'm looking into this, um, you know, to this , you know, and also i want to make sure, too, that i don't get lost in the narrative that i'm not, um, that i'm, i'm anti. you know how housing. i'm actually also for zoning, just as commissioner ruiz is, um, saying i'm also up zoning, but i also want to make sure, too, that that, um, that there are, um, that we are considering businesses, schools, senior care facilities, open space and community gardens. when we're doing the rezoning. um, it reminds me a lot again, um, where i always, you know, spend my time the south of market about those conversations. and these conversations are happening again. um, and you

know, and we got to look as to what are the previous plans have done and how, you know, how thriving are they? um, you know, again, i can only speak so much weather in the south of market and the filipino cultural heritage district. what came out of it? and what could came out out of this? the west side of zoning as well. so so when we're talking about up zoning in and i'm grateful for the residents as well like really picking on the specific areas like senior care schools. i think those are needs to be really considered as well. um, when we're talking about up zoning and then another thing that i want, um, you know, again, i believe, um, president diamond has mentioned this before in terms of the state density bonus. i mean, and i think one of the public comment has mentioned this where, um, okay, we're talking about 85ft. you know, is that considering

even the state density bonus. but the fact is that 85ft plus state density bonus can happen. um, or is that a misconception? maybe you need to clarify that to me. yes we've we've tried to say it, um, multiple times, but i think the point does get lost. the final heights that you see on that map are intended to be the final heights. so we're working backwards. so we're going to have basically a local program height, um, which is if you're using the local program, you are guaranteed that height. and then we'll have a lower kind of primary or base height. and so if you want to use a state program, that is the height that you are basing your bonus project on top of. so for example, with geary boulevard, a lot of it is proposed at 85ft. so the local program height would be 85ft. the base height would be probably 55ft. and then you would use the state program on top of that. okay. thank you for that clarification. see, even i am not even clarified on that. um, so that is very important that the, the, the

project that the community members know about. this also, another question that i have is about density decontrol, and i'm assuming that the density decontrol will be part of the objective standards design. um, so the density control will be part of the base zoning amendments. so um, essentially, you know, when we create the planning code changes, all of the rezone parcels will have density control as their baseline. okay. um okay. thank you. um i think those are my comments that i have. um, and yeah, thank you. thank you, commissioner braun. yes. i just wanted to start off by saying thank you to everybody who came. it was i get really excited when we have a packed house, uh, in the hearing room. it makes for a long hearing, but it makes for a very valuable hearing. and you know, the changes that are being proposed are very significant. they represent a big shift from how things have been for a long

time. and you know, i've been wanting to hear from more people throughout this process. i'm glad that this is now on a lot of folks radar. and, you know, the input received is very helpful. and i know i'll just say, i know i was taking notes about including some specific locations raised as areas of concern. we've gotten emails that also suggest, you know, specific areas where that needed to take a we need to take a closer look at at and i saw staff taking plenty of notes during those comments as well. and so i hope that you know, we can continue to kind of craft and hone what this proposal is. um, you know, i'm i am also like my fellow commissioners are generally in favor of the up zoning, generally in favor of creating additional capacity for us to add more neighbors and more housing. um but that doesn't mean that, you know, this is a done deal. there's still some opportunity for us to keep thinking about this. i'm just going to say i'm glad everyone's paying attention. um, i will just echo a few of the comments. uh, especially. yes to

the infrastructure and facilities comments that president diamond made as we add more folks. uh some of these commercial corridors especially, we need to make sure that our parks and our transit and our other facilities are adequate to serve them, including the library was a big was. want to plug the library? um, and then also, yes, to the just emphasizing that there are protections for historic resources. and thank you for your response to that. lisa chen um, and so you know, that's there are a lot of parallel tracks here. this is one part of a whole lot of moving pieces that i think sometimes even makes us kind of our minds spin a little bit. um, and then the other thing i would just want to raise before i get into some kind of in the weeds questions is, is, uh, uh, you know, we're talking about protecting the businesses along some of these corridors. um, i just want to also emphasize my focus on ensuring protection of tenants, of residential tenants, along those corridors. we have a lot of protections for that. and there are more proposed as part of the rezoning program. um, i'm

keeping an eye on that just because often in these high resource neighborhoods, the most affordable place to live is along the commercial corridor. and i say this as somebody who spent most of my time in san francisco living in very busy, noisy commercial corridors because it was all i could afford, and so i want to make sure that we're we're cognizant of that issue as well. um, i do to let's see. so the last thing i want to raise, uh, commissioner pearl, you mentioned the survey scandal, and i appreciate that the survey was extended. i just want to make sure it's kind of clear, at least to me, and to anyone else listening. and so the issue was that, as i understand it, there's an organization or a group of organizations that were suggesting responses. his very specific response to the survey. and if i'm off about this, i welcome anyone correcting me. okay. and so, yes, i commission with staff. sorry, my voice is a

little rough today. um, so the you know, the survey had a very robust response. um, it's, you know, we don't look at it in a scientific way, like we're not doing statistical analysis in drawing specific conclusions based on you know, on on the on the response. we're looking at the breadth of the response and the nature of them. and when we get specific, um, responses. so we're not tallying up, okay. there was five on this and six on this. and then what? we're going to change the plan specifically based on that. we understand it's, you know, self-select people, fill out the survey who feel inclined to fill out the survey. and people who have access to it, you know, fill it out. i think there was concern about it. um, you know, certain groups, you know, feeding specific answers. i mean, i would say at the same time, we've been flooded with forum emails from all sorts of groups, not through the survey. i think every, you know, interest group or any group that wants to encourage a position makes it easy and kind of points the way. and so we recognize

that. and so we account for that . i mean, i'd also say people were i think people were frustrated who aren't happy and who have concerns about the rezoning, that there weren't questions is do you support the, you know, do you support rezoning? you know, should we do this at all? and so, you know, we got a lot of feedback that, well, they didn't have the opportunity to say, well, i don't like this at all. don't do this. and so we clearly weren't going to ask those questions because this is an obligation we do have to do this rezoning. and so we asked questions about the nature and the specifics. do you have specific suggestions for how we ought to shape this, given that we are going, you know, the city needs to undertake this. so yeah. thank you for thank you for clarifying that. and so, you know, i just wanted to make sure that folks aren't under the impression that it was some sort of like it was hacked or something very strange or nefarious was going on. um, you know, i as has been said, i'm getting flooded with warm emails and folks sending those customize them, or they consider whether or not that's what they want to say, you know? but the

starting template might be coming from somewhere. and so that was kind of the nature of what was happening with that survey. and it's just one of many different tools for collecting input in this process, including these hearings and emailing commissioners and staff. um, now it's time. i'm going to get a little in the weeds here. so let's see the, the i was you know, i really appreciate that part of this rezoning is focused on the current reality of our legislative landscape with the state laws that have come down and i'm glad to hear the clarification that the height shown on the map are the highest achievable heights. by combining , you know, the reality that we have our base zoning and maybe that's going up a little bit in terms of height. um, but what we're really reflecting is the reality that a lot of developers are taking advantage of state programs, aims to get taller than that. and now we are also putting forward this local program as well, which will have some other benefits for the city. and for, you know, providing affordable housing and different pathways, providing

affordable housing, funding. um, as part of this, i think that you know, i maybe it would help. i just one suggestion to staff is it might be helpful to publish the base height map as well. and i don't i understand why we've only published the final like maximum people could get to map because that's what might end up happening. but if folks are comparing today's height limit against the rezoned height limit, it looks like such a huge jump when in reality reality, it's not quite as big as it seems. i know i'm not going to satisfy people with this, but it's not as big as it seems because those developers can already go quite a bit taller than our current base heights, because the state density bonus programs. so i know that i personally would like to see how the also see how the base height, uh, is changing versus today's condition. so at the very least, i'd like to see that, um, we, we also also have

there's two things i just want to raise. i'm sure staff is on top of this, but, um, with our with our shift from density to maximum density limits to, to having form based code that can have kind of odd implications for the final building size, because now the bonus is being calculated based on the square feet and the base project. and, um, i just want to ensure that we are we are addressing that, you know, the combination of our, our removal of maximum densities. um, and then how that plays out in terms of what the density bonuses end up being and how the heights change. um, i saw the references to ab 20 1287, which is those listening. it's new legislation that allows a further density bonus as a state legislation that went into effect this year. um, it looks like ab 1287 is applications. well, actually, this is a question. i mean, we knew that was coming. is ab 1287 already fully accounted for in the height limits and other considerations of the rezoning?

yes um, so we are looking at it. yes. because um, you know, we are doing an extensive financial feasibility analysis where we're looking at prototypical sites and really exploring, you know, on this specific site, what would a developer do? and we're studying, you know, the base conditions, the base conditions with density decontrol you know that those same iterations with state density bonus, those same iterations with density bonus plus 12, 87, and then also our local program, um, and i had actually lost track of how many iterations our consultant had studied. and then they told us last week that they've looked at 500 so far. um, so you know, we are thoroughly exploring it. you know, the intention behind 1287 at the state level is that it is a true bonus that if you are essentially doubling your affordable housing commitment, you are doubling your bonus. and so, you know, we want to maintain the intent of that law, and it still remains to be seen how feasible it really will be. right. and that's really what we're trying to evaluate through our analysis as well. okay, i

appreciate it i appreciate that it's being looked at. that is the implications of these density bonuses is not easy to model. i know from firsthand experience. um, so i appreciate that. i would just say if we are putting forward a map that says these are the final or these are the ultimate heights at which buildings could end up being after accounting for state laws, that we really are reflecting, that properly. um and so then one small question. there was a mention that, uh, there is a potential one story addition under the base height or the local density bonus program. if developers were to provide additional community benefit units, uh, will we when do we expect to have a sense of what that list of community benefits would be? i'd appreciate the opportunity to kind of see that and review it. yes. so as we mentioned, we're actively drafting the code. so um, you know, i think we're kind of taking a cue from what we've heard through past processes. so for example, sunset forward

through the housing element itself. there's been a lot of discussion of what sorts of services people need in their neighborhoods. um, things like child care, um, social services, community facilities for recreation and whatnot. and so i think, you know, we want to model it on those sorts of those sorts of uses, but we're absolutely happy to share that and get feedback. sure. yes. yeah, i appreciate that opportunity. uh and then let's see lastly, the with the shift to objective design standards and more of a form removal of the density limits and shifting to more of a form based, uh, code, you know, it's a parallel effort that's going to i just want to put out there it's a parallel effort that's really going to shape what the buildings look like. we already have elements of our planning code that ensure, you know, a better level of compatibility with taller buildings and adjacent, shorter buildings and those kinds of things. um, and i know that we are currently working as a separate process on

or actually as part of this process on, uh, the objective design standards, the issue in lakeside. did there are people here who spoke about that today. you know, the fact that on one side, those parcels front onto a very busy major transit oriented street and then the other side, those parcels front onto a narrow residential street. and so, uh, i am not going to get too deep into this. i would just say i want to make sure that whatever gets put forward in the form based code requirements would recognize situations with, you know, the relationship of building height to street width, uh, in order to ensure that there is an appropriate step down or acknowledgment of changes in density that might not be directly adjacent properties, but properties that are still very close to each other. so i'm looking forward to seeing the results of that work. and those are my comments. thank you so much. thank you. vice president moore. for hours

later, it's a little bit too concerned. great. and taking in as many comments as we have, i do thank the public for remarks, endurance and sitting here and thoughtfully sharing their comments and concerns. thank you to planning. i would not want to be in your shoes. it's just too hard. and the reason why i'm saying that san francisco knows for the last 40 plus years, uh, that densification was necessary so we could have gone ahead with anticipatory and slow up zoning instead of having reactionary up zoning as we have it in front of us. and reactionary is not a negative word in the way that i'm using it. but if you take the body of the city as a whole, consider that surgery, this would call be called invasive surgery by a small stretch. and it is indeed the massiveness and the extent of everywhere where i

believe the citizens questions and concerns are well expressed. i have a few concerns of my own, and i want to try to inject a creative and positive element into the discussion. i admire the incredible work that the department has put into it. there are two issues i would like to see an answer to, and one is have we, in a traditional way of our planning, is done tested picking up on president diamond's comments, have we truly tested the capacity of our infrastructure? and i'm not just talking about the visual infrastructure of civic institute, schools, libraries, etc. are hospitals, police stations, fire stations? have we looked underground about water capacity? i don't believe that the upgrade of our water systems that we did in a few years ago are quite projected. the amount of built things we are trying to attach to the existing system,

not to talk about sewer. anybody who has been around long enough knows that the extent of rebuilding of the sewer system in san francisco, under the marina outfall, as well as the west side outfall, may be seriously impacted by what we call sea level rise. and we all know this, that that is indeed happening. these are very basic planner questions that you normally do when you look at any larger project. it's a capacity. and i kind of wonder that we are rushing in a way that we may not have done that. that aside, um, what i would like to ask for and i'm picking up on mr. gonzalez. gonzalez presenting the construction industry. i would like to suggest most creative, suggest only, uh, that we take a phase approach of how we employ meant upzoning. it is the economic reality of having financing sources that one gets

us caught up with 46,000 units in already entitled inventory. that's a huge number. and the second thing i would say we used to call that when we build larger communities, cities, new towns or whatever, which i've done quite a few of, uh, um, we want to avoid what we call leapfrogging and that means that everywhere where there is an opportunity site, somebody starts to nibble away. but i would like to see a neighborhood faced, a neighborhood focused phasing plan for each neighborhood. how density would be equitably implemented on the long range version of this absolute plan. the hardest part is when you do invasive surgery, and i'm using that word intentionally, that you avoid damage to the body at all. and the extent of this particular growth scenario, while acceptable in ultimate numbers, has to be guided so that the

rest of the city is not falling apart on us. as we're sitting here, i think commissioners, um, ruiz imperial, brown and president diamond very well expressed their support for the protection of tenant displacement as well as the impact on small business as we would want. uh anti-displacement tools for both of those vulnerable segments of the community. we have spoken over many, many months, primarily focused on tenants. i see the small business vulnerability to be an equally large component of my concern. as we know the strengths of san francisco's neighborhoods, the strength of san francisco as an international attraction lies on on the entrepreneurial small. san francisco founded business forces that are making up the character and the surprise of the city. this is in its in its

own right, a very european city. i'm speaking with an accent so i can claim that i know about it. um that said, i believe that we have ample evidence that any of the newer buildings be that up and down market street into mission bay, the majority of ground floors are are set aside for business. however, there are no businesses there, mostly paste pasted over, and covid has not helped us to fill those spaces. they were not substitute spaces for businesses, which in the avenues for perhaps less, had less foot traffic than they might have had in mission bay. so i'm concerned that the replacement spaces that we are creating in these new up zone buildings may not quite create or foster small business and business, and the impact on business replacement as we are currently in this plan. envisioning it. i want to hang these, uh, thoughts out as a as

ideas that are not criticism. i like to broaden the discussion. uh, i am a reader of words and pay close attention to words, and i have a couple of questions to perhaps miss miss chen or mr. zwicky. um, am i supposed to use every sentence in this document as a given fact? i would say so. i guess the question is, what words are you? are you referring to? uh, there are at least three areas of four areas where the answers are too vague for me. the kind of waffle. i'm sorry to use a negative word, there seem to be kind of saying, uh, it may be perhaps so. and those are critical questions. let me go to one of them. um, let me go. to.

on page seven, um, under local program, you are describing, uh, using state density bonus exceptions. we will yard exposure used open space among other areas. that's vague. that leaves the possibility for all kinds of other things being stripped away as we go along. yes, these were meant to be illustrative examples. so what we've been doing is taking a deep look at the data from projects that are using state density bonus. and we're trying to understand where are kind of the kinks, what are the parts of our code that can make it very challenging or make it less feasible to build housing, because what we really want is people to use our local program, right? we want to make sure that, um, you know, if it's something in our code about the configuration of the, the rear yard, for example. so it's not even the amount of the rear yard, it's just the way it's shaped or the dimensions. we

want to make sure that we create an avenue for that flexibility through our local programs. so that we incentivize people to use it. and so these are not going to be carte blanche waivers. they are going to be quantified. they're going to be objective. and there's going to be a limited menu. and we're basing it on you know, the waivers and concessions that projects have sought that we think are still in line with our public policy goals. right so i mentioned, you know, some of the unintended, you know, kind of maybe overreach or abuses of the state density bonus that have done things like created waivers from our our formula, retail requirements or, uh, you know, created parking that's far above our maximums in areas that are very transit rich. so what we want to do is create a more limited menu of things that we think are reasonable and that maybe, you know, we have been in our code for a long time and maybe deserve another look. um and offer that flexibility to projects so that we get that assurance that they're abiding by our code standards and they're using our local program. um, and we get the housing that we need. um, i appreciate your

answer. and i believe that what you're saying is true. the only thing i would like to caution for is spelling out what they are, because ultimately, you should not be told of what our subjective standards regarding the city of san francisco, given that we live already with taller buildings than almost any other community in in california, i think those standards mean a very different things in one community versus another. and thank you for explaining it. but the more vagueness we can take out and the more we can guarantee that we're holding to base values, that would be at least very comforting to me. another point i had was on page four. um and again, it's the devil is in the detail. and so it being so picky on words here, um, the heights shown on the map illustrates the final intended heights. these are the specific heights that will be permitted under the local program and inclusive of the height likely achievable under the state density bonus. i'm concerned

about the word likely. yes. so as you know, through the state density bonus, um, height is probably the most common waiver that that projects seek. and so, you know, when projects are getting those waivers, we don't we lose that control over what the actual height is. right? so we're doing our best. we're looking at the, you know, 90% or however many projects that have been approved through state density bonus. and we're actually looking at that delta. what what is the starting height that they're basing their project off of. and what's their final height that they're getting. and we're doing our best to account for that. so that on average we are getting to these final heights. but you know there are conditions. so very large sites for example, are very strangely shaped sites where maybe the project may reconfigure their development in a different way, where they're going taller. um, but on average, you know, we're absolutely trying to maintain the heights that we see on the

map. and then just to add to that, that is another reason why the design of the local program is so critical and why we really need to do everything we can to incentivize projects to use that program. um, you know, you heard from the representative from the aia earlier. you know, we've been vetting the objective standards that those actually we have the draft that lists, you know, here are the areas where we expect to have the local waivers. we're really grateful that we're getting the feedback on, you know, whether or not this local program is going to be an attractive alternative. the levels in the detail, yes. um, i have two questions under your second page policy discussion, and it's not as much vague as i do not quite understand the premise. perhaps mr. schwartz could answer that. uh, addressing historic preservation, ensuring inspiring urban design and architecture. i am not quite sure how you can do that, given the other pressures that are on you. i think lisa spoke earlier, earlier to the

interplay of preservation and the rezoning. i mean, listed landmarks or state and national list register listed buildings would be would be simply be protected and the department staff is you know, expediting work on the citywide survey on these corridors so that we can proceed, as, you know, as quickly as, as as possible with listing more buildings around the city in these areas so that the, you know, the most precious buildings, uh, get protected. i mean, the objective design standards, um, will speak more broadly to the general character of the neighborhoods, um, to the extent that there are specific districts, historic districts that are listed, um, and have specific characteristics that we can, you know, create objective standards around, um, based on those specific districts. the department would would go ahead

and do so. we have some of those in article ten that have specific, you know, objective standards. um, so, i mean, the department looks forward. i mean, rich could say more about, well, just on that. and we've been working with supervisor peskin a bit on this too, because the way state law now works and you've seen this in our presentation we gave before the fact that a building is categorized as an a in our system, um, doesn't necessarily protect it from some of the state programs that would allow for ministerial approval. so what we're looking at is, is, is kind of shifting a little bit of what we're doing in the survey so that we're not just using the survey to categorize buildings that are currently categorized as a b, as a c, or an a, but looking at ones that we can list or districts we can create, because that would give them more protection. not not not from our local program, um, but from some of the state minister approval processes that mandate that those buildings be locally

listed, which is an article ten to be protected. so we're shifting a bit what we're doing and, you know, we're in the process of doing this in our survey to put more buildings on in article ten, instead of just categorizing them as, as, as you were speaking, perhaps protect mr. sawicki's voice. um i'm asking you on the effectiveness of having two parallel, uh, options for reaching state and local programs. how do you believe that that plays itself out against each other? will the state support that? uh, how do you have staff prepared? you have two teams, one does this, one does that. no i mean, we're very familiar with both. you know, we currently have that where our projects could come in and get approved under our local program or under the current zoning or they can use state density. boss, i think when we rezoned much of the city in the

eastern, eastern half of the city, we weren't as familiar projects, weren't using state density bonus. so i think it leads to kind of what stan hays and others showed. like we didn't we can't control the heights as much as we anticipate. we're able to do in this rezoning, because we're going in more with our eyes wide open as to how projects and in, frankly, the anticipation that most projects will take advantage of state density bonus. so we're creating this option in that we're hoping to be, you know, an equivalent option. so they wouldn't use the state density bonus, but the state density bonus by law will still be an option for projects. um how do you see that potential legislation that seems to be still happening as we move forward is going to affect of what we're currently doing here, which potential legislation this legislation coming out of, uh, sacramento trying to clarify or trying to increase, uh, uh,

putting out restrictions or how state density bonus projects need to be. yeah i think that's i mean, i think we'll start seeing some of that because i think when state state density bonus is a decades old law, you know, that's just become, uh, has been put more into use in the past several years than it was in the past. but i think there are these unintended, unintended consequences. as lisa talked about, like where you can waive our parking maximums. and so we're talking to folks at the state level on our own, um, mayor's office staff on can we kind of correct for some of these waivers and incentives that i don't think were intended through state density bonus? so you're prepared to deal with that without basically changing the map? i think we have to we have to we have to address that at the state level, because state density bonus is still an option. and as you know, you know, it's happening. most projects that are coming to us are coming to us as state

density bonus projects. we can anticipate that now in zone accordingly on the eastern side of the city where we already have zoning in place, you know, i think we need a kind of a correction at the state level to look at some of these issues, like ground floor active uses on the ground floor parking and some of the other things we want to see that there's limits on the use of state density, bonus for i want to close just was restating my concerns that this map seeing it all at once requires i think, a face strategic way of how it is implemented in order to protect the city as a whole. and it could be neighborhood focused, which i think would be the best strategy because indeed we want to make it equitable in every neighborhood, but we don't want to leave it open block by block. you can do it here and there and everywhere. so the entire city becomes a wide open construction site. yeah. and i just want to push back a little bit, like it's not the entire city, right? it's commercial corridors on the, on the western side of the city, um, that really have been

protected by these artificial or that we've not seen the reason we haven't seen development on the western side of the city is not because there wasn't zoning. zoning was in place, but it was really zoning, uh, where these artificial density limits were in place. so if you had a 40 foot height district on geary that you could cover 75% of the yard, you generally couldn't get units to fill that box. and so there was this artificial dense city cap on projects where you couldn't even you couldn't even get to that 40 foot height. and so we corrected that in our rezoning on the east side. but i think, what's that what that led to? that's leading to is this inequity where you saw on the maps 10% of the housing that's been built has been built in the areas we're looking at to rezone . and so the first step is kind of correcting that, that kind of density problem that we have. and i'm i'm all for it. i'd like to see it so pursued in a kind

of anticipatory kind of phased way that that still makes it a gradual. way rather than happening all at once. because if you destroy the corridor, no neighborhood will be able to survive. yeah. that said, there's one additional question is it correct that the state does not want us to use the word um, livability anymore, or has that been struck from our discussion as great? so livability i don't believe it's neighborhood character. our neighborhood character is out and livability is still there. yeah. okay and just on on commercial corridors where we've rezoned in the past and where we've seen things happen upper market, ocean avenue and balboa. you know, as lisa said, there are protections. so we zone you know, our rezone to say, to get to a 65 foot height. but but there are historic buildings which which can be there see us for certain things right. to remove a laundromat or to remove a grocery store. there are limits on we don't see the demolition of existing rent

controlled housing. so you know, on a on a street like haight street, there are a lot of buildings that have residential above. those can't be, uh, redeveloped for, for housing. so there are those protections in place already where we tend not to see kind of one corridor just being developed. but it happens. it happens over time. gradually those are my comments. thank you . thank you, commissioner imperial. yeah um, i just want to actually just want to add something about this map and just again, trying to brainstorm and trying to be creative on this as well as, you know, um, you know, as we see these, these, these up zoning, um, but again, the, the, you know, my concern in terms of affordable housing is that, um, you know, we haven't really identified in the west side area, um, how are these, let's say these areas,

neighborhood corridors. um, how can we make sure that there are these affordable housing developments that can happen in, in this upzoning proposal? so i think that's what i'm kind of like, um, trying to you know, i don't know if it's a protection or what or i don't know what the state also comments on that. if we're talking about upzoning and we're relying on the inclusionary housing ing, you know, whether off site on site fee and then the rent, the, you know, identifying as a rent control unit, but how do we make sure that, you know, like i'm looking at the, the i think i believe on the 19 taraval because i still live there. and i think one of the parcel there is upzone for um, one 40ft. you know, and that's 14 stories. how do we make sure that that parcel can is because what's happening is like, you know, affordable housing developers are trying to compete with the market as well.

and, you know, we're not i mean, market developers can probably buy that land faster than affordable housing developer is. so what can be our strategy on that or perhaps that's a perhaps my question to the affordable housing council people as well. but yeah, i mean how how are we competing with the market in terms of affordable housing development. um, yeah. yeah i mean, i think this queues up the discussion on, um, later in february with the affordable housing leadership council. really. well um, so, you know, mo cd has, you know, participated and collaborated with us throughout the development of the rezoning. they've been at all of our open houses. um, they are very aware of the housing element mandate that we, um, that we plan for 25 to 50% of new affordable units in these same neighborhoods. so, um, you know, through the, the rezoning, what we're doing, just within that legislation, um, you know, uh, the inclusionary

housing, if they're if they're meeting their projects, are meeting their obligation on site, that kind of guarantees that the housing will be in these neighborhoods. um, if they're doing off site, um, you know, we will have policies that basically create a radius within which that, you know, those off site commitments can be made because the intention is that we are creating housing opportunity in the west side. we're not collecting fees or doing off site requirement for land dedication and then putting that housing back in the priority equity geographies. um, so, you know, that's kind of within the structure of the rezoning itself. we do also have plans to do a more thorough analysis of sites for affordable housing, um, including, you know, looking at institutional sites, nonprofit sites, school of private schools, things like that, that maybe larger sites that have a lot of potential. there was recent legislation, you know, one of them, i think 60 some housing bills last year. sb four does create some zoning incentives and zoning changes on institutional sites. but we

think that we can actually build on that and create maybe even more height to make those sites even more feasible. um so it's, you know, it's many different strategies. and one. yeah, i'd like to explore more on those kind of strategies because i think at the end of the day, you know, we i mean, we are competing against the market value and the banking system as well. and, um, you know, one thing that came off my mind is like affordable housing zone or something like that. um, and, and definitely in terms of impact fees, um, again, i'm hoping that the inclusionary housing impact fees will not be reduced, but in the years to come. but i mean, you know, there are scenarios where, you know, if a demolition happens, well, not demolition, but if this housing is cut that it will be returning back to that community. so, so those can be explored as well. um, i just want to make sure that, um, in terms of the, the rezoning that

we are proactively incorporating affordable housing strategy, um, and in terms of the demolition option, there is a coa on that. and i think there also needs to have a comprehensive still, um, resolution in terms of how do people get back, um, you know, the relocation plan or, you know, going returning back the first. right to return. i don't think the city we have comprehensively have that kind of conversation. and, um, you know, and that's something to really for us to really look into. um, but those are my comments. yield my time. commissioner koppell, i first want to recognize a former commissioner was here earlier who spent at least a solid decade up here at the dais. uh, mike anthony fauci was here, uh, in the crowd. so i just wanted to acknowledge him, uh, and his

service for the city. uh, also, i wanted to just note that anyone on the west side of town, if you were not receiving notice or saying you weren't receiving notice, i do want to acknowledge that commissioner diamond was up here for years. years and years telling the staff and directing everyone to make sure everyone on the west side was notified and that this stuff was coming. we've we've been hearing about this, this stuff for years, and we've been going above and beyond telling staff to just make sure that the people are notified, because we knew this was was coming. and it's here now. so today was the first of probably what's going to be many hearings. uh, i don't want to repeat what too many people have already said, but i do want to acknowledge commissioner moore on just acknowledging the fact that we need to make sure the infrastructure is set up for this to properly happen, not just sewage and water, but, um, electricity. we are electrified. our buildings, we're getting rid of natural gas. uh, so not just electric cars, but now electric bicycles. uh, i don't know what

happened to regular bicycles, but they're all electronic now. apparently uh, furnaces, water heaters, ovens and stoves, like, they're they're all going to be electric. times 82,000 units. that's a lot. and then figure you're going to have at least 1.5 people per unit. so there's going to be a lot more people here. where are those people going to work? are they going to have jobs? i don't know, maybe they will, but just i want to just take away the one dimensionality of just looking at this as just upzoning and housing and just make sure we're looking at this citywide, uh, and how things are going to function, hopefully, ideally and properly after this. um, but you know, we're here at the beginning, this is just the start. but, um, you know, but still the local businesses are leaving. we produced a lot of housing on mid-market street. there's a lot of vacancies. we produced a lot of housing on venice and there's a lot of vacancies. so uh, are we going to have, um, you know, a functioning neighborhood hood if we just build housing? i don't

know. so hopefully we're looking at things, uh, very, very, uh, you know, with 360 degree lens here because because this is this is quite an ordeal we're looking at. and it could have some big impacts in the city. and then when also comes to jobs, who's going to be building all this housing. is it going to be people from grass valley and people from fresno, or is it going to be people that live here? uh, i'd prefer if people that lived here built the housing so they could spend their money here, um, and create less, you know, cars and bridge traffic from people, you know, coming in from hours and hours away just because they're really cheap. uh, i don't think that's the best way for this city to keep, keep itself in survival. um, but just i want to you know, is the muni getting ramped up? is are the muni busses and trains going to be able to handle these? you know, possibly large amounts of, uh, people coming into the city? and then mr. gonzales has brought up a really good point. we have thousands and thousands of units that have already been approved, and we're up here to approve housing. so we don't shoot down

almost any, um, but if they're not getting built, you know, what's to say? these are going to get built too. so i'm trying to be hopeful. i just want to make sure everything's being looked at here. so this actually , uh, you know, gets followed through with and happens correctly. and there aren't as many of these unintended consequences as there could be. thanks so at the risk of trying everybody's patience, yes, i thought there were three really good examples that were raised by my fellow commissioners that i'm not sure i understand. the answer to, and i want to make sure that i do. and the people who have sat through all of this do as well too. so so let me start with a example raised by commissioner braun, uh, which is the possibility of an additional floor going on top of the projects that are built under the local zoning program. do i understand correctly, from your dialog that if the base height is 55ft, um, and they could go to 85ft, um, under our local program, but they agree to put

let's say, child care, a community benefit on the ground floor that they could go to 95ft. that's correct. that's the intention. so i just want to add to that, which is, you know, the local program is for our code compliant projects that meet the standard requirement. you know, all the requirements and meet all the design standards. and our code compliant. we don't otherwise have any incentives to get some of this community building stuff that we want to see in our neighborhoods, above and beyond what we already require. so if we really do want some of these additional community beneficial uses in these neighborhoods, this is one lever that we have to try to incentivize some of those things , which is to offer some. you know, some additional above and beyond what we otherwise expect from all projects. so i am quite concerned about that, that

approach, unless it's a very small and specific list of uses that we really are going to have an incredibly hard time getting otherwise. and that this doesn't become a list that expands to basically become the dominant, um, characteristic. and so i, i am very hesitant to endorse that until i see the specific list. um, and i feel like we all need to understand that and be able to provide input to you and that the public needs to as well, too. yeah, we would love to hear what people's thoughts are on what those things are or are not . yeah. in my just giving you a heads up, it would need to be really narrow and contained. so this doesn't become, you know, the predominant, uh, feature going forward. the second example was the picture of the victorian that was shown by one of the, um, members of the public and which was raised by one of the other commissioners. i think it was commissioner ruiz. um so do i understand

correctly that if the victorian in, um is not a landmark either under our local laws or is not listed, actually listed under a state or federal law, that the only protection is design standards that we would adopt, that whoever wanted to develop that site would need to adhere to. and those design standards are not likely to say you can't tear the building down well, and you can get out of the design standards through state and city bus. so i think in that example, one, that was an article ten building. so it's protected and it can't be that that particular one. yes. so and i think though you know you're building like that, the notion is we can't just rely on the fact that it's a category a to protect it. we should if we value that kind of i call it an a plus, a prime, whatever you want to call it. we should put it in article ten. now it's only single family homes just to be clear to the public, article ten is our

landmark, right? okay yeah. okay. um just to be clear too, it's only single family homes that wouldn't have this protection that are a's. that may not be in article ten. so if you're a multifamily building, victorian, you're built before 1979. it's a rent controlled building. you need a c u even if you didn't, if you if you're a multifamily right, you would need a c u um to be able to demolish that and build something else. so that's what we're, that's what i alluded to before that we're looking at, you know, not just accepting. we're just going to categorize them as a's. we're going to actually put them into article ten. so i would really encourage that. that's what i thought you were saying and really encourage you to, um, think very broadly about listing these buildings. i mean, one of the reasons our city is known for being like this incredible place for people to live and for tourists to descend to, is the architecture. um, and so to the extent we

have, you know, a lot of buildings that we think need to stay part of our public fabric, then if the only way to protect them is to declare them to be landmarks, we need to be, uh, now, i recognize that puts limitations on the homeowners themselves. and so it's a balance between their interests and everyone else. but that we're in a new environment and we need to think about that more carefully. the homeowner would have to go through a certificate of appropriateness who wants to make any changes. but we can also change what gets elevated to a administrative certificate of appropriateness or going to the commission. so we're having those we recognize that too. and we're having those discussions okay. third question again sdbs. because we keep coming back to this because it keeps coming up. um if how what is our level of confidence as a city that developers will not be able to take the higher height under the local, um, density bonus program as their base height for the sdb

program? so, i mean, if we're not, we're going to get we're going to get either a yes or a no from hcd. you're asking them that question, okay. i would say we're pretty. we're we're very confident that that is not a significant risk. we have multiple programs in the planning code right now that have this exact structure ranging from msf to the recent four plex ordinance, and there's a couple other exceptions in the code that provide density and height specific height bonuses. those that explicitly say for projects that are not using the individually requested state density bonus, you can use this program. so this is not new territory. we're comfortable with it. um, okay. because that that would be a very big risk area that we're not. yeah. i mean, if the state told us it wasn't an option, people could take this, we wouldn't propose it. okay yeah. okay. and then related to the sdb question is, i think one of the points of

ongoing frustration that i've heard over the years expressed by many of the commissioners, is we are being encouraged, rightfully so, by the state to develop objective standards. um, so that when a developer comes in, um, it's, you know, it's not a one off each time at the commission that it's very clear rules as to what they need to follow, but then that's completely undercut by the fact that if you do a state density bonus project, you can ignore the objective design standards. and so to me, that is an area where i feel like we need lobbying, um, at the state level. so that on one hand, we don't say, yeah, here are the objective design standards. we're doing exactly what you want state. and then the state says great, but actually they can be waived. you know, as long as somebody is providing this minimal amount of affordable housing and i don't see how we solve that unless we get clarity at the state level. so is that an effort that's being looked at? yeah. okay. and then i want to close by asking when do you

think we would see another iteration of the plan that might reflect that? um, the concerns and issues that the public stated and that we stated here. sure. so we know this has been an iterative process. it will continue to be an iterative process. our charge was to submit a final proposal to the mayor's office by january 2024. and that's what you know, we're here to mark that occasion for, um, and so, you know, we're we're going to continue to work with them. we're also, as we noted, actively drafting the many ordinances that are in company. this um, so, you know, we hope to come as soon as we, we can, you know, we were given this charge to act quickly because we want to see the housing built sooner. um, and so you know, we are hoping to have the ordinances before you as soon as possible. so when you know, we are, we have another. can i stop you there? i'm not asking you about the ordinances. i'm asking about any map changes. the map that you might

do as a reflection, even though you use the firm final. i started this discussion by saying i'm having trouble with that word. um, because we took testimony today with people able to express concerns. you heard a number of issues raised by the commissioners, which is are you treating this as a done deal? and it really is final or might you make more changes that you would bring back for us to see? and i'm hoping it's the latter. and if so, what's the timing? yeah, i think we are expecting to make continued changes right until it's signed by the mayor. right. so so, um, you know, we don't have a specific schedule of when we will publish the next map, but, you know, it's kind of it's based on the analysis that we're able to provide. and, you know, like we sa we have the survey results. we're continuing to get emails. we take all of those very seriously. we have responded to those to those requests and have made some of those changes and will continue to do that. if if appropriate. okay. i'm i'm still not really sure it'll be iterative. so there may be changes. you see, the next time you hear this, which is on the 22nd, you may want to ask for more changes or

we may present you with more changes beyond that at the next hearing. okay so again, i think what lisa said that this is iterative. it is, you know, we'll make changes and we'll add our next, uh, meeting with you, kind of let you know what's changed from this last, last map or if we're not able to kind of change the map, what we intend to change. we're also meeting with supervisors and getting their feedback back as well. so by the end of february, it is likely that you'll have some. yeah, some coming back to us. okay. because i want the public who showed up to have some sense of understanding as to when they should next expect, um, a version, um, and if they've got issues with it, you know, we need to hear that. so okay. anybody have anything else they want to add on this subject. thank you again to the public. um, especially those of you who stuck with us the entire time. and we hope you continue to participate. your comments are incredibly valuable. okay well,

thank you for that brief discussion. commissioners item 14 and 1518 for case numbers 2019 hyphen 004110e and v. hyphen zero two and q a. hyphen zero two for the property at 2006 75. gary boulevard, also known as the whole foods project commissioners. we're calling the certification of the final environmental impact report and the conditional use together. but as always, we recommend that you take up the certification first and then the project entitlements. second. please note that the public hearing on the draft eir is closed. the public comment period for the draft eir ended on january 30th, 2023. public comment will be received now. uh however, comments will submitted will not be included in the final eir. uh, good afternoon, president diamond and commissioners rachel shutt planning department staff and environmental review coordinator for the whole foods at 2006 75 geary boulevard project at um stone. as

mentioned, the item before you is certification of the final environmental impact report or final eir for the proposed project. uh, before i get going, i have one minor housekeeping item, um, the draft eir certification motion contained a small typographic error on page one. in the last sentence before the preamble, which stated that the project site is within the 40 x 80 x height and bulk districts. the project site is actually within the 40 x and 80 d height and bulk districts. um ad was correctly referenced at the top of the same page. the correction will be made in the final eir certification moment. motion okay to continue a hearing before this commission was held on january 19th, 2023 to receive comments on the draft eir, which was published on december 14th, 2022. the 45 day public comment period ran from december 14th, 2022 to january 30th, 2023. all comments received on the draft eir are included in the responses to comments, document or rtc, which was published on january 10th,

2024. um, here's a high level project description refresher, including minor updates since the draft eir publication. so the project site is a vacant commercial space on level three of the city center shopping center, which is located at the southeast corner of gary boulevard and masonic avenue in the western edition neighborhood. the proposed project is a change of use. best buy was the last tenant to occupy the space they vacated in 2017, and the almost 50,000 gross square foot project site has been vacant since that time. the project sponsor and current lease holder, whole foods market, is proposing tenant improvement to support a new full service grocery store, exterior improvements would be limited to new signage, replacement of the loading dock, levelers, installation of upgraded heating, ventilation and air conditioning or hvac equipment, and two new cooling towers to support the refrigeration requirements of a large full service grocery store . as i mentioned, a minor change

to the project description was introduced after the draft eir was published. the change is limited to the rooftop mechanical plan, specifically the size, number, and placement of the proposed cooling towers. the draft eir analyzed a single cooling tower 23ft tall on level four inside an expanded rooftop mechanical penthouse enclosure and the draft eir identified mitigation with detailed noise control measures to reduce mechanical noise impacts. the rtc analyzed a slightly revised project, which includes two cooling towers, 26ft tall, placed on the roof of the existing loading dock area. a new acoustical analysis was prepared for the revised project, and it's included as attachment three to the rtc with implementation. implementation of the identified mitigation as revised in the rtc. noise impacts related to mechanical equipment would be reduced to a less than significant level. um okay. so during the public review period, we received one substantive comment on the eir analysis is the comment letter

was focused on potential cumulative air quality, noise and urban decay impacts. these impacts have been addressed. sorry these comments have been addressed in the rtc. we received additional comments both in writing and during the draft eir hearing. these comments generally express support for the proposed project . all comments received on the draft eir are included in the rtc document, along with the department's responses. um, just a little bit of a reminder about alternate lives at the draft eir hearing, we gave a detailed description of the project alternatives um, required to address the project's mechanical equipment, noise impact at um. given that the revised project's mechanical equipment noise would be reduced to a less than significant level with identified mitigation, we did not need to analyze additional alternatives in rtc. um in conclusion, staff recommends that the commission adopt the motion before you that certifies the contents of the final eir are adequate and accurate, and that the procedures through which the final eir was prepared comply with the provisions of sequa. the ceqa guidelines and chapter 31 of the administrative

code. i am joined today by jessica range, the principal planner for the project. she and i are available for questions, but first i'll turn the presentation over to my colleague jeff horn, who will provide more information on the project entitlements. thank you. good afternoon, president diamond. fellow commissioners jeff horn, planning staff thank you, rachel, for the summary of the site and project history. uh, the item before you is a request for condition conditional use authorization and adoption of ceqa findings to establish a formula retail use within a vacant 4900 and 825 square foot commercial space to implement the project, the planning commission shall consider the following items. number one. adopt uh findings under sequa, including findings rejecting alternatives as infeasible and adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and number

two, grant conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 303, three, 3.1 and 712 to permit a formula retail use uh doing business as whole foods market within the nc three zoning district. again um whole foods market requires a formula retail authorization as it has 500 units worldwide. in a study of the surrounding areas of the 57 commercial ground floor storefronts within a quarter mile of the project site, 15 are formula retail, amounting to a concentration of approximately 30 or approximately 26.3, and when measured as linear feet of total frontage, the concentration is 32.75, with incorporation of the proposed project as additional formula. retail use, the concentration would increase by 1.5. in regards to uh by measured by the number of storefronts and increased by less than half a

percent when measured by the linear feet of total frontage. the project has as a formula retail use. the project has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the performance based standard design guidelines for formula retail uses. at the time of the publication of this case report, the department had received 23 public comments in support of the project. generally the comments are in support of new active use within a vacant and underutilized space , a new job opportunities and the addition of a new grocery option within the neighborhood. since the publishing of the case report and additional 100 letters in support have been received, the majority of all these letters have been from residents, um, of the neighborhood and the city as a whole. but we did receive two letters from organizations, organizations, one of which was the sf chamber of commerce. the other is local 38 plumbers and steamfitters union. uh, for the record, i wanted to note that a revision to the draft motion was

emailed to the commission earlier today. uh, the language for finding at which is on page 11 of the draft motion or page 40 of the pdf document, uh, contained an errant language. uh, that was a sentence starting with in harmony and i'm as well as providing to the commission, entering into the record a written documentation of the new language to be used in the final motion. and overall, the department finds the project is, on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project will add a grocery store in a location that is historically and currently occupied by a number of large formula retailers. the project will not displace any existing commercial tenants, and the whole foods market will be the first occupant to occupy a now vacant space that was vacated by best buy several years ago. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not detrimental to persons or

adjacent properties in the vicinity. therefore, staff recommends that the commission adopt sequa findings and approve the conditional use authorization. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes. i think i have to say good evening instead of good afternoon as i had planned. um, so good evening, president diamond and members of the planning commission. my name is jennifer rank. i'm a land use partner at sheppard mullin and represent whole foods market for this 2675 geary project. unfortunately, jay warren from whole foods, who has been spearheading this effort, was planning this planning staff had a family emergency that prevents him from being here today. so he sends his sincere regrets and asked me to present his statement to the planning commission today. so i'll do that. and i'm going to try to be very brief, honorable members of the planning commission. my name is jay warren and i am the vice president of real estate at

whole foods market. due to a sudden death in my family, i regrettably am not able to attend today's hearing in person. that said, i want to submit a brief statement that i hope the commission finds helpful, as i'm sure you are aware, the proposed 2006 75 geary boulevard location is roughly 50,000ft!s of underutilized space that was formerly occupied by best buy. this proposed whole foods location can help increase access to high quality, wholesome food that meets sustainable and socially responsible standards in the community while activating a site made for formula retail uses. since the last time this project was before the commission, the company has diligently worked to incorporate much of the feedback we've received by undergoing a full environmental impact report, which found that there were no significant and unavoidable impacts. we have worked closely with planning staff and believe that our proposed project is an appropriate use for this site. we are very excited to reach this milestone today and wanted

to express our gratitude to staff for all of their hard, thoughtful work on the project. whole foods currently has eight locations in san francisco and is deeply invested in the success of the city as we continue to grow in addition to fostering access to natural and organic products, our goal is to support the city's economic development efforts and act as an anchor institution not only for the merchants located at city center, but the entire geary boulevard corridor and beyond. as part of our commitment to san francisco residents, we have worked with city leadership on a first source hiring agreement to ensure that at least 30% of the 200 permanent jobs of this store will create goes to local residents, and we will work alongside collective impact and cd funded community partner to fulfill our first source hiring obligations and create opportunities for people to work in the communities where they live. we are also proud to have reached a project labor agreement with the san francisco

building trades to ensure that there is strong union representation based on comparable projects and what we expect from this site. it is estimated that approximately 14 different trade unions unions will be incorporated into this project's improvements, creating up to 115 to 140 union jobs and generating millions of dollars in union labor work. we have received tremendous support from the neighborhood and look forward to working with the community to ensure this project is a benefit to the city for years to come. i also just wanted to mention, in response to a question from president diamond that whole foods is certainly willing to explore the opportunities for e-bike storage and charging. so we'll have to work with the landlord who controls the site. so we'll we'll be happy to look into that. and so thank you for your consideration. and in closing, i would just ask that you approve us today. thank you. thank you. uh, with that, we should open up public comment through the chair

. each member of the public will have one minute need to come forward. line up on the screen side of the room. everybody else left your. good evening. commissioners my name is dan torres. i'm a business agent with sprinkler fitters local 43 and also a trustee on the san francisco building trades council. uh, i'm speaking for myself, my membership, and probably a handful of delegates that were here but had to go home due to their bosses, their, their spouses. so i'm here. i'm here to speak in favor of the whole foods project. i mean, pla a project labor agreement, local hire. these are things that we like to hear when there's development, responsible development. so i stand before you, the people that i represent and the community to continue or approve this project. and let's let's put people to work. thank you for your time. thanks, dan.

rudy gonzalez again, secretary treasurer of the building trades council. i represent, uh, those 14 crafts that will get to work on this and then some. but i recognize that the motion before you is very specific to the, um, environmental impact report. and the certifying the draft. we believe that the project sponsor has gone through great lengths and a great amount of time, uh, to really do a thoughtful and thorough and comprehensive report. we believe it meets the standards objectively. um, and it's a project that is going to occupy an existing space that really was made for, uh, this type of project. so we're excited about it. of course, like mr. torres said, we're also excited for the community impact and the neighborhood impact. um, the project, uh, labor agreement really will lead to economic benefits that extend beyond even the permanent operations job and really, uh, i think will be a shot in the arm for the city. we don't see a lot of tenant improvement, uh, and related permits being pulled right now. and here we have an established institution that is willing to do this kind of work and do it

quickly. so we're excited about it. and we urge support on the draft environmental impact report. thank you. okay, last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak. public comment is closed. and as previously stated, commissioners , we recommend that you take up the certification first and the project entitlements second. uh, any comments or motions on the certification commissioner? koppell i just want to say thank you to whole foods to assimilating into the community, to adding to the community. this is a big opportunity site, very big intersection, very big formula retail shopping center, uh, with a lot of parking. so this is the place where this goes, uh, just thrill to hear that local contractors, local minority contractor actors, local apprentices, local graduates from city build will have a chance to build this building. very important. thank you. and i do, uh, make a motion

to certify, uh, the environmental, environmental impact report. and. uh, move to approve the coa. second, i'd. okay. we'll take up the certification separately on the motion to certify the environmental impact report. commissioner braun, high commissioner ruiz, high commissioner, imperial high commissioner coppell, high commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously on the motion to approve the conditional use authorization with conditions, um, as were amended by staff on that motion. commissioner braun, i, commissioner ruiz, high commissioner, imperial high commissioner. coppell, high commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 placing us on item items 16 a and b for case numbers 2023. hyphen 004579c, u, and va r for

the property at 330 133 33 cortland avenue. commissioners. you will consider the conditional use authorization. acting. oh and the zoning administrator will consider the variance. okay, just go ahead and put that down. all right. good afternoon, president diamond commissioners. gabriela pancho department staff, the case. before you is a request for a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303, 317

and 738 for the conversion of an existing two story, mixed use building, uh, that includes a dwelling unit into a religious institution doing business as our shalom jewish community. the subject property, located within the cortland avenue neighborhood. commercial zoning district at 40 x height and bulk and bernal heights neighborhood is developed with two independent buildings, a two story mixed use building located at the front of the building in front of the property, which includes commercial space at the ground floor and a dwelling unit at the second floor, and a second building. a two story dwelling unit located at the rear of the subject property that is accessed via a tradesman entrance and passageway along the west side property line. according to the project sponsor, the detached dwelling unit also known as 33a cortland avenue, is currently occupied by um or shalom's rabbi by clarifying an and the second dwelling unit at the second

floor is vacant. um the second floor dwelling unit was illegally converted and occupied with authorization by non residential use for approximately 12 years. until 2021, as proposed, the project will establish a religious institution use at both the first and second floors of the existing mixed use building and maintain. a two story detached dwelling unit and maintain class two bicycle parking spaces within the public right of way. as of today, the department has received more than 165 letters in support of the project. members of the public expressing support state the project's ability to provide a religious institution within the bernal heights neighborhood that will serve the greater community. the item before you is required by planning code section 303 and 738 to establish a religious institution at the second floor, and planning code section 317 for the conversion of an existing dwelling unit into a non residential use.

additionally, for consideration by the zoning administrator, the project seeks a variance and planning code section 150 5.2 bicycle parking requirements. the department does recommend disapproval for the following reasons. the department finds the project is not on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan . and while the proposed religious institution would be compatible with mix of uses in the neighborhood and is supported at the ground floor level of the subject building, the legalization of the conversion of a second floor dwelling unit into a non residential use would eliminate the sound housing that is suited for to be occupied. additionally, although the unauthorized conversion of the dwelling unit was done by a previous property owner and it has not had a residential tenant for the last 14 years, the project will not meet all findings of planning code section 317 g three and advance the city's implementation of the housing element to preserve existing rental dwelling units. uh. this does conclude staff's presentation. i'm available for

any questions from the project manager. does have a presentation for you all. project sponsor to the chair. you'll have seven minutes. thank you. d.o.j. oh, yeah. yeah. good good afternoon. i'm matt rudolph, board president of shalom jewish community. and the named project sponsor. on the application, i first want to thank our assigned planner, gabriela pantoja, for her support and professionalism through the application process. these are our speakers today. awschalom is a small congregation of approximately 145 households, founded in the living room in bernal heights after more than 30 years of wandering and renting space across san francisco. it was a long held dream come true and a full circle return when we were able to purchase our first

permanent home on courtland avenue in 2022. not the typical synagogue space, but awschalom is not the typical congregation we are a proudly barrier free where all are welcomed and there is no threshold, monetary or otherwise, to joining awschalom. we are a congregation representative of the diversity of san francisco, so we share a common mission to be actively engaged in the community and in the social, economic and environmental justice efforts of our time. now, with a permanent home in a mixed use corridor that includes other nonprofit and religious institutions, awschalom can grow its efforts with wider and deeper effect. but for awschalom to fully utilize its abilities and resources, we must be able to utilize every single square inch of both floors. anything less will severely limit our activities religious, administrative, educational, social, and community based action. we ask the commissioners to recognize us, the awschalom and our project, our commitment to bernal heights and to the san francisco bay area is exceptional and warrants approval of our application.

over 160 letters of support have been submitted to planning from not only awschalom members, but from bernal residents, merchants , community activists and housing advocates, and from multiple faith leaders who know our social justice work. these folks, our neighbors, know we are exceptional and believe our project application warrants approval. thank you. my name is emma remoy and i'm serving as project manager for herman colliver lucas, the architect. this is an image of the front of the building as it appears today. it has a scale and charm that's very well suited for courtland avenue, with a playful array of storefront windows, bay windows above, and an elegant cornice line. happily, we aren't changing any of that. it's really perfect just the way it is. there's an existing one bedroom cottage at the back of the site, and that two is not being altered in this application. it will remain a dwelling unit and it is currently leased and occupied inside the main building. the ground floor along courtland avenue is currently occupied by a chiropractor, so you can

imagine there might be 1 or 2 patients in this space at any given day and time. our plan for the ground floor is a double duty storefront, sacred space and community space. it's a pioneering idea that will no doubt bring life to the street and its neighboring businesses. as this type of institutional use is really fundamental to the success of courtland avenue. and this is the second floor. it was once rented as an apartment, but its kitchen was removed without a permit. as you heard roughly 14 years ago. so that it could be leased to businesses. most recently, it was a pilates studio, as seen here, and it is now currently vacant. we aren't proposing any architecture changes to the second floor. it's just going to be furnished to serve awschalom. it can easily revert back to a dwelling unit should awschalom someday in the distant future outgrow this space. but today, as you can see from these modest plans, they'll

require every square inch that this building offers. thank you. good afternoon. members of the planning commission. my name is sarah hoffman, and i'm an attorney at venable. so first up, we acknowledge that this application represents a balancing act for you. and as an organization that works to help the unhoused, awschalom understands the importance of housing. indeed it's maintaining the residential use in the rear cottage, which, as you've heard, is currently occupied. but under section 317 of the planning code , housing is not the only consideration before you today. rather, the code allows the commission to consider a range of important policies and in recent years, the commission has approved residential conversions, including adding of rent controlled units. because the projects community benefit tipped the balance in favor of approval. here you have the discretion to ask will the

project provide desirable new nonresidential uses, or will the project support the courtland ave community corridor, a commercial corridor, a key community hub? will the project enrich the religious and cultural diversity of the neighborhood? the answer to all of these questions is an emphatic yes, as more than 160 neighbors report letters attest, awschalom is a valuable member of the bernal heights community. they are open, community focused , and work to promote social justice, mutual acceptance, and progressive values. as the staff report acknowledges, the project will provide a desirable community serving use that will preserve and enhance the existing commercial corridor by introducing new patrons to the immediate neighborhood. add these patrons will shop and eat at local businesses and ensure

that cortland ave remains bustling and vibrant. this mix of uses along this corridor is a key part of why it survived through covid and beyond. rather than turning into another really sad street of vacancy signs. so today we're asking the commission to engage in that balancing act. you have the discretion to do and give full effect to the compelling policies of supporting diversity and local businesses in bernal heights. thank you. hello, commissioners. my name is ferran barela and i am the new rabbi at shalom jewish community. and in june i moved to bernal heights and was immediately charmed by the community support that is palpable when you're walking through the neighborhood and people began to stop me pretty immediately, recognizing me from pictures and from interviews as the new rabbi to tell me how excited they are that a synagogue is moving to the neighborhood, and when will we finally be able to actually offer programing in the new

building? i've heard from countless people on the street at cafes, at the library. we've been waiting a long time for a jewish community here. we don't want to wait any longer. the name of our community is aura shalom, which in hebrew means light of peace. in a time in both the jewish and the wider world, that is the farthest from peace i've ever experienced in my lifetime. i've personally witnessed how awschalom community serves as a beacon of light, guiding us to a better world. and i have full faith that our shalom will add luminescence to this brilliant neighborhood. this brilliant residential neighborhood, and help bolster the community. so thank you all so much. okay, with that, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter through the chair. you'll each have two minutes. come on. forward folks. hi my

name is betsy strasberg. and i'm speaking with two hats, so you can't see them. one of them is a resident of bernal heights for over 50 years. and one of them is a member, actually, one of the founding mothers of bernal heights. and the two began in, um, in my living room many, many years ago. there were three of us in interfaith relationships who had children, and we wanted our children to have a type of jewish education where we could question everything and openly discuss everything, including the politics of israel, whether or not there is a god, what we believe, everything. and we didn't feel welcome that we could do that in any way, anywhere else. so we started a little class in my living room, which is four blocks from where the building is now, and i'm still there and i'm very, very proud and surprised and amazed

by this community. and, um, bernal heights, everybody i've talked to, everybody i engage with a lot of people about what it would be, what it would mean for them to have a synagogue in a in a neighborhood that has the second oldest mosque, mosque, in my understand, in northern california, has multiple churches and now has an opportunity to have an amazingly inclusive and open synagogue, very engaged in interfaith work. and, um, i think it's very, very important and also involved with churches in the mission and interfaith work and so we have a very particular history and beginning and foundation of principles. that is very welcoming to people. and from everybody i've talked to in the neighborhood, they are really excited that we're there. so i hope you'll approve this application. thank you. hi, i'm

judy allazov. i'm another founding mother of shalom, and i think you'll be very happy to know that about 30 people who were planning to speak in favor of this have had to leave because it took so long. so you've got to win on that. um so when i was i'm also a i've been president a couple of times when i was president back in the early 90s, i got up at high holidays and made a speech about that at shalom. you'll never be asked to donate to a building fund, because at that point we saw ourselves as not having the wherewithal to have a building. and as we've heard throughout the afternoon about how rare affordable housing is in san francisco, i can tell you that affordable commercial property is equally rare in san francisco. and we've, you know,

been renters for so long. and finally, this amazing building right in the neighborhood where we started became available to us. um, as you've heard, we it was represented to us that the residents had been properly converted to commercial before we took it over. and i sincerely hope that you will grant us this variance and let us be a fully functional organization in that space. thank you. hi, my name is jennifer joseph. i'm a new member of awschalom. i've lived and worked in bernal heights for more than 27 years, and i'm really excited about the affordable housing going in at 3300 mission. uh, down below, uh, bernal heights, as well as

the four new units being, uh, planned for a block away from the building in question at the new units are going to be at 432 cortland and, um, the address in question on cortland avenue. uh has not been a dwelling unit for since at least 2007, 17 years. and this is according not only to neighborhood memory, but it's confirmed by specific public testimony currently available on yelp.com by former customers of the now defunct previous business, which was called pilates heights. anybody can look that up and find it. it was located at this address. in 2007. somebody said, oh yeah, i love the class. i took upstairs. so it hasn't been a dwelling unit in a very long time for 25 years, until last year, i belonged to a small san francisco synagogue founded by holocaust survivors called b'nai amoona, which was located at 3595 taraval, now closed. it joins the long sad list of san francisco's jewish communities

that no longer exist, which includes former historic synagogue buildings still standing at 1881 bush street in the fillmore 100 felton street in the portola, and 3535 19th street in the mission. among others. two of those former synagogues i mentioned are now used for residential purposes, including multi use senior housing, with the closing of the taraval synagogue, san francisco has lost another significant piece of its jewish history. i was deeply moved and greatly heartened when awschalom arrived in bernal to create a warm and welcoming progressive jewish presence in our neighborhood. it gives me hope for the people's collective future in san francisco, as well as for me personally, to have access to joining a nearby jewish community. as i look forward to aging in place here in bernal heights. in addition, thank you. that is your time. okay. we have a mosque. we have a catholic church. we have a spanish speaking that is your church. and now we have a jewish synagogue. thank you. good

evening commissioners. my name is steven gerrard and i have been a member of shalom jewish community for over 22 years. i'm here to express my strong support for shalom's application to revise the zoning to permit our use of the courtland avenue property for religious use. also relevant is that i endowed a building funded awschalom that provided a substantial portion of the down payment used for our purchase of the bernal property that donation was enabled by substantial bequests that i received from my parents, who were both survivors of the holocaust. we actually have a number of other over a dozen members in our community, possibly growing of other children or grandchild of holocaust survivors by endowing our building fund. it was my intention to create an enduring legacy for my parents. to be

fulfilled by the use of our new synagogue by our current and future generations of members, for many years to come. please consider the importance of fulfilling that legacy when making your decision on shalom's application for rezoning. again, for the benefit of current and future generations seasons for years to come. thank you. good evening. good evening. my name is joel rubenstein. i would like to read a letter that i received from my friend michael g. pappas. dear president diamond and commissioners, i write to you today in my capacity as executive director of the san francisco interfaith council. sfic in support of congregation or shalom conditional use application number two two, 2020 3-004579 coa var. at 331333. courtland avenue. congregation

or shalom. like so many of san francisco's 800 communities of faith and religious institutions, has contributed back to the greater community. it has offered an important jewish voice in the work and mission of the sfic, in particular in areas of social justice and philanthropy. by its presence and support of our important programmatic work in including the annual reverend doctor martin luther king day march and interfaith celebration. as well as preparing and serving meals at the interfaith winter shelter to name a few. in order to fulfill their religious, cultural, and service missions, religious communities need a home. it is in this spirit that the san francisco interfaith council respectfully urges the san francisco planning commission to approve its application for the conditional use authorization, thanking you in advance for your

thoughtful consideration of this request. i remain appreciatively michael g. pappas executive director, san francisco interfaith council, thank you very much. good evening, commissioners. my name is paul stein. i live in bernal heights. um, i'm here to ask you to approve the commission conditional use permit and variance for the project for the progressive or shalom jewish community. um, many of our members live in bernal heights and can walk to the, uh, synagogue. my wife, who's in the choir, can walk right now and, uh, this would be a great benefit for a lot of us. um, despite. it not that i don't agree with the recommendation of the staff. i do appreciate the need for housing being built. and in fact, i'm probably the only person in this room who has actually built a house on bernal heights. and i live in it now with my wife and my son. um the,

um. there's a lot of synagogues. i mean, a lot of churches and mosques, other religious institutes around in and around bernal heights. but there are no synagogues. um, i can't, you know, having listened to what everybody said, i can't see how anybody in good conscience could say you can't have a synagogue there. it just doesn't make any sense. and i hope that you will consider, uh, giving us this opportunity to have our synagogue in courtland avenue. so thank you for listening. good evening, commissioners. um, i'm relatively new newbie to san francisco, having followed my daughter and granddaughter here, and i was seeking community, uh, in my new place. uh, i was here the whole time listening to the comments of the earlier

presentations before you. and i understand the importance of housing, as i saw it, housing when i first came here. um, i wish to mention often that housing is also a place to house the spirit just as much as it is a place to house the body. and i encourage you to, uh, allow the continued flowering of our community body, uh, for all of us, for our expressions of, of, uh, our lives is not just a place to live, but a place to flourish. thank you. okay. last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak. public comment is closed in. this matter is now before you commissioners. okay commissioners, when i read the staff report, i was is, um. pretty upset. um, because i feel

like staff took a very, um, uh. they took a reading of the code that didn't allow for the balancing that i think. 317 um, allows for, um, i spent 12 years from, um, actually, not 12 a little less than 12 years, um, from 2011 until 2020, representing non exclusively nonprofits that were seeking space for their needs. um, some of them were in the city, some of them were outside of the city. and i became deeply aware of how challenging it is for nonprofits, particularly those that are dependent on fundraising, trying to gather the means, come up with the mission, you know, find available space, um, find the find lansing and actually execute on it. and so i did

spend a lot of time, by the way, i should say, awschalom was never a client during this this process. so there's no conflict. and i did check that out with the city attorney. um, i spent a fair amount of time with staff, um, trying to understand hand, um, their position. and i do get you know, the loss of even a single rent control unit is you know, is a real loss for our city. um, on the other hand, um, a city is more than just a series of houses. um, a city is composed of, you know, all of the institute missions that are necessary to create community flourishing, vibrant and alive place that people want to live in and choose to, um, choose to call their home. i read every single one of the letters. um, that was sent, and it was an amazing display of support not only by the congregant, obviously, but by the community members and the interfaith community about the importance

that awschalom plays in this community. i was particularly taken by michael pappas letter, who i know who's the head of the interfaith council, who does incredible work on behalf of the interfaith, um, community for our city. and so, so, um, i did spend time exploring with staff if there's a series of conditions that could be attached that might address the concerns. um, and, uh, two of the conditions that came up in that discussion were, um, reconsider section immediately of the kitchen that was taken out. um so that it would be, um, an easy conversion at a later point in time. um back to housing. so that was one condition that had some discussion on with staff and the second one was, um, a condition that says if it's ever not used as an institutional use or as, uh, housing, um, that it would

require for a conditional use permit and there was some amount of discussion that went back and forth and so i, um, believe that staff has prepared an alternative motion with conditions. if this commission, you know, if four of us or more think that there is a way to get to yes on this. so before, um, i asked staff to talk about their alternative motion, i'd like to call on commissioner moore, um, to share her thoughts, and then any of the rest of you who want to weigh in to see if there's sort of, you know, agreed among us as to whether or not. no we want to stick to you know, a tough interpretation that says we've got to make them put back the unit and they can't use it, or whether or not there's a way to get to yes on this. so, commissioner moore. let me just briefly reflect on what president diamond said. we said together in a very thoughtful

conversation with miss, what is the other day feel ing kind of overwhelmed by the pressure that you saw in a five hour conversation earlier today. the pressure on us about housing is becoming almost overbearing. and under that pressure, i think everybody has become kind of intimidated and frightened. what we're doing and while i think the commission has thoughtfully attended to the responsibility of housing, we are also capable and very much tuned to what is the community actually saying? and in this particular case, i think opening the door to the thoughtful exchange we had made actually very clear for us that there is a way and i think i want to actually ask miss wadi, who led the discussion, to restate how we engaged in the exchange, that we really basically all understand what the possibilities are for us to support you. thank you

commissioner. uh, more. i'm probably going to fail on regurgitating yesterday's conversation because i feel like a lot's happened since yesterday. um, but in short, you know, i think we really, um, undertook a conversation of where staff started. and, you know what many of our driving principles are particularly around, you know, rent controlled housing and the loss of units. and although we all know the unit was not removed by , you know, the congregation, um, this commission sees you know, nearly weekly, oftentimes, as, you know, the bad acts of previous property owners and we really struggle with how current property owners have to sort of bear the brunt of those, those decisions. and so there was that's that was sort of the starting place of sort of the facts on the ground on you know what, removing the dwelling unit, top floor was. i think there was also clarification, no concern about the congregation at being established. the religious use on the ground floor. this was really about the second floor exclusively. um, but where i think we got was also a very strong understanding

about, um, you know, what makes sort of place making. that's what we do as planners and complete communities and complete cities and sort of a larger understanding, too, about although there's sort of the academic exercise of the loss of a dwelling unit, um, you know, boiling a little down to the practical reality of is this actually losing housing as a result of this project? in reality, is anyone being displaced actively? is any housing that has, you know, been on the market recently actually being lost? and then also thinking through that, you know, the there is a difference between this space being used as a pilates studio versus this space being used as a religious use or another institution, national use, like for example, a child care facility. we you know, we would probably be having a similar struggle right now if it was a use of that nature. so where i think the conversation concluded, um, you know, was sort of a direction of for staff to explore an alternative motion to be prepared with should for commissioners or more want to go in that direction. um, and we have since we had that

conversation, sort of connected internally. we want to also make sure our new proposal makes passes legal muster and works. we've worked with both the wsa and the city attorney and where we've landed is actually not, um, even mandating the restoration of the kitchen right now. so, um, but but basically saying that, um, should the institutional use end or should the building go, you know, vacant, they use no longer be there. um, that any use other than a residential use would require a mandatory doctor in front of the commission. so it has the effect of saying the easy path forward is restoring to residential. any other use would require somebody to come back here and justify why that land use is, um, more appropriate than a residential use. um, so that's that's the motion we do have prepared that. maybe i'll ask gaby if you can come up and pass that around just so commissioners can have that in front of them. as we have this deliberation. but i think that's effectively the, um, summary of the conversation we have and what has evolved since. i'm delighted to hear

that we have lightened the burden. and again, it would be optional for you to have a kitchen counter for somebody to make a coffee or whatever. uh but it is not mandatory, given the way it has been legally worked out. uh, i'm delighted to hear that, because we were trying just the other day to figure out could there be a realistic a kitchen somewhere, if we would have been pushed that way? it probably could. but this gives you option options that we in either way can support. so thank you. and, uh, i'm in full support and i would like to make a motion to accept the alternative motion, which we only can approve in intent today . but that you can approve it in full just distributed. we can, uh, since since it is written, we can approve it in full. and i'd like to make a motion to approve the alternative motion. uh, as in front of us here today. second commissioner imperial. thank you. and. um, and thank you, miss wadi, for explaining meaning as to where

the staff staff came from in terms of the decision on, um, when i first read this, um, this project, i, i, i was in general supportive of the awschalom being established in this community and, um, i although i can understand where the department's coming from in terms of the residential loss, i mean, there has been a lot of, you know, um, this commission receives a lot of pressure, especially if it's a rent controlled unit, um, being taken out. um, and i can see where the staff is coming from on that. um, but holistically, on balance , in terms of the community and what it looks like. um, i am generally supportive of the, um, um, of having or being established or institutional being established. um, in terms of the, um, you know, of residential conversion coming back as a cour or mandatory discretion, does that mean that

they will return as a residential, uh, rent control unit? is that what it would also entail? so this is where unfortunately, we don't have a can't give quite a concrete answer. um, the removal of the unit does take the unit, um, remaining out of rent control status because they'll now be only one unit remaining on the property. so it's effectively treated as a single family home. we've consulted with the rent board. um, and they basically gave us an answer of the argument. could be made either way. um of whether reestablishing a dwelling unit into a building that no longer is residential, um, whether that would or wouldn't. so we can't kind of tell you one way or the other. i think the rent board said that they could see the argument being posed both ways, and usually, um, you know, my understanding is sort of there's a presumption in an older building of, of rent control, but usually people can argue and request through an administrative law judge for a different decision to be made. and that option is still available to folks. but i think to us, one of the more important things that we learned again in

just the last few days is the fact that the rear unit unit is a indeed occupied, which was not information we had at the original recommendation. and you know, be it's not just, you know, being rented by anyone, but clearly in advancement of the mission of the religious institution. um, and so those two things, i think, also gave us confidence that it is, you know, in that same way that housing unit is serving the community. um, and so you know, hopefully that it's not exact answer, but hopefully that gives a little more context as well. i think if that ever comes, i think perhaps the commission can also add as a provision of putting it back in rent control. i don't see it as a big issue. um just because in totality of what it means, the community, um, and i base my decision of what it would mean to, of course , to the bernal heights community and to the people. that is, um, worshiping. um, as for jewish faith, so, um, so i also, um, um, support

commissioner braun. yes. i have to say, i mean, i really appreciate the efforts of president diamond, commissioner moore, and the planning department staff for trying to find an alternative path forward on this item. if this really did boil down, i will admit, if it just boiled down to where we stood after hearing staff presentation and public comment, i probably would have said no. actually, i probably would have denied this project. um, just because to me, this site, the 14 years of this space being used for commercial use, you know, it was still marketed as a three bedroom, two bath unit. but sounds like a lack of clarity about the commercial use that's been in place. alongside that, it's still a very functional, uh, residential unit. besides the kitchen having been removed illegally. um, previously, um, however, with this, this alternative path forward offered, uh, i think i am. i am getting comfortable with

approving the project. as long as we are adopting the revisions here. um, i do have a question about sort of precedent that we're setting because to me, since, again, this upper level unit is a housing unit as far as the law goes. um, the, the could we potentially have what happens next time? you know, we don't get a lot of institutions, religious institutions coming to us, um, for these kinds of conversion. it is kind of a pretty rare, almost one off thing. um, but still, i want to make sure that maybe there's no way to answer this, you know? but to me, it does set a little bit of a precedent. and is there anything in in the findings or or, uh, the motion that speaks to, to our guidance on this the next time this might happen and somebody wants to take out a housing unit. sure and a couple things. i mean, the good news is all dwelling unit removals require a conditional use, which means each and every one is a

case by case basis. so these are not none of these decisions are precedent making. um, you know, i do think the applicant did point out in their brief, which was in your packets, that there were two, um, dwelling unit removals for or conversions for commercial uses from, i believe, around 2019 or so. one was for another for community serving use, and one was a just a commercial for a massage establishment, i think, on union street. so it has happened before in terms of has there ever been precedent for this? of course. but every case coming before you will be on a case by case basis. and i think, you know, certainly we can take this feedback to heart of the other principles that you're debating here and are taking into consideration, and make sure we're, you know, learning from today and applying the nuggets that we should apply in the future, but also still, you know, we are going to continue to take with caution any requests for the removal or conversion of a dwelling unit. okay, i appreciate that answer. and i'll also say what's also

helping is the over whelming community support, um, for this project and how important that this congregation is in the bernal heights community. and i totally respect and appreciate that. um, so yes, this does have my approval with the revisions that have been made. commissioner ruiz yeah, i just want to ask a clarifying question. following commissioner imperial's comments about the removal of the rent control unit. so in the conditions, if it were to be switched back to a dwelling unit, can we put in the language that we switched back to? we can't. no, we can't condition rent control. um, the imposition of rent control. and certainly the city attorney can interrupt me if i get this wrong. but we had this conversation earlier, the, um, imposition of rent control on new units would require a costa-hawkins agreement. um, and we don't believe that the exceptions are in place to be able to require that. however we can certainly a should that time ever come, hopefully the congregation stays there and for many generations, and we don't

have to cross that bridge. but should that come up, we can certainly dig into that more at that time and get a more concrete, um, decision on. but that is not something that can just be applied through a condition of approval of a normal. see, you got it. okay. well thank you so much. i am supportive, i want to kind of piggyback off of commissioner bronze comments. my first, first inkling was to not approve, and i do appreciate the planning department's recommend action. i think it's just, you know, in spirit of trying to be in alignment with our housing element and ensure we're protecting rent controlled housing, um, and not losing housing units. but i think, you know, based off of the presentation and all of the folks who commented and it being an asset to the community, you know, i would see myself supporting this. so thank you. there's nothing further commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner braun, i, commissioner ruiz, commissioner imperial i, commissioner coppell i commissioner moore i and

commissioner. president diamond i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. zoning administrator would say i will close the public hearing for the variance and intend to grant the bicycle parking variance with the standard conditions. thank you. commissioners that will place us on item. 18 is item 17 was continued to february 29th. case number 2023. hyphen 002709 cour at 2812 mission street. conditional use authorization. give folks a moment to clear out . thank you. good evening, president diamond. members of the commission, laura aiello with department staff. i have an easy one for you. the conditional use authorization proposal. before you will simply

replace one formula retail bank with a larger formula retail bank. this project is a change in operator only and does not include any tenant improvements beyond updating the existing business signage, which will be processed under a separate sign permit. the applicant, bmo, also known as bank of montreal, recently acquired bank of the west and has been converting existing branch locations as the current staff product assortment. interior layout and building exteriors will not be changed as a result of this project. the project is located within the mission street neighborhood. commercial transit district, on a through lot that abuts the 24th and mission bart plaza. the project. the property measures approximately 50ft wide by 114ft deep, and contains a one story commercial building with full lot coverage. mission street is a significant retail,

dining, and entertainment corridor lined with small and medium sized mixed use properties. buildings are generally 1 to 3 stories tall. most have ground floor commercial storefronts, and many have residential units on upper floors. mission street is also an essential public transit artery and other zoning districts in the vicinity of the project site include public residential, transit oriented moderate scale, and the 24th and mission neighborhood commercial transit zoning district. there are five existing ground floor formula retail establishments out of the 48 establishments within the 300 foot radius site of the project, formula retail businesses make up 10% of the surrounding businesses and are well dispersed on the subject and surrounding blocks. the proposed bmo branch will. not

increase the number of formula retail businesses. neither for the nature nor scope of formula retail use will change. therefore this is not an increase of the formula. retail concentration or formula. retail linear for commercial street frontage within the district, the department has not received any public comments regarding the project. community outreach meetings for this site and the five bmo branches that were approved on the consent calendar earlier today. they were held at the department back in september, and there were no attendees. the department supports the project. it will preserve an existing use that will continue serving the community and the greater community. the proposed use will not increase the overall concentration of formula retail establishes within the zoning district and meets the commission's guide for formula retail. this concludes my presentation and i'm available if you have any questions. the project sponsor is here and will give a brief summary. thank you.

thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes. if you need it. thank you. good evening commissioners i'm dan maroon, land use counsel for bmo on this application. i just want to thank staff and the commissioners for your time and attention to this application. um i don't have anything to add to staff's presentation other than to highlight two broad points. related to the application. number one, i just want to emphasize that this project is not include an expansion or relocation, or even a change of use of an existing formula. retail use. um, the project is a change in operator only, and would not include any tenant improvements beyond changes to exterior signage at this site, which would be approved via a separate sign application to be filed after this hearing. ideally, i also want to emphasize that in compliance with the zoning provisions applicable at this site, uh, bmo currently partners with meta mission economic development agency to provide personal finance and career development seminars, cars for the communities in which it

currently operates in the city. um and bmo will continue to do so. um, in the community surrounding this particular site. i also want to note that bmo has committed to engaging with the city's office of economic and workforce development to identify additional opportunities to serve the community's economic development. um, so with that, i will also make myself available for any questions that the commissioners may have. um, thank you for your time. thank you. with that, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. so none public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners. vice president moore. uh, mr. gallo, i have only one curious question. since we heard five, uh, projects like this today, why couldn't this be on consent? because it's a size of the project. i'm new to this district, but it is my understanding that the department has a long standing policy within this neighborhood that the neighborhood

organizations do not want any items on consent, but perhaps that is something we could reevaluate. that's not for me to ask, but i'm glad to hear that. and so i think it is pretty simple. we spent quite a bit of time with bank of the west at its time, and so i'll move to approve second. thank you, commissioners, on that motion to approve with conditions. commissioner braun, a commissioner. ruiz, a commissioner imperial i commissioner copple i commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. commissioners. i will place this under your discretionary review calendar for the final item on your agenda today. number 19, case number 2023 hyphen 003851 drb at 2247 31st avenue. discretionary review. uh, sorry.

uh, good afternoon, commissioners trent green and staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for a discretionary review. a building permit application to. 2023 .0206.1476 to construct a side addition and rear deck to a two story, single family dwelling. the existing building is a category c built in 1927. to date, the department has received no letters supporting and no letters opposing the project. the d r requesters andre, earn and yang yang dang of 22, 51, 31st avenue, the adjacent property to the south, are concerned that the proposed project does not comply with the residential design guidelines for respect the existing pattern of side spacing. there proposed alternative is to deny the

permit staff supports the proposed project as it is code complying and meets the residential design guidelines as the building pattern of this block consists of nearly identical two story houses with side setbacks at the rear. the rear walls are likewise extremely consistent to maintain ample mid-block open space, the subject property and immediate neighbor to the south have a subtle variation of the rear deck rear side setback pattern, and that the south side setback extends deeper against the property line condition. this project seeks to add into a portion of the subject properties side setback, and leave the lightwell to preserve the functionality of the dr. requester's property line window , so there is no lightwell on the dr. requester's property. the scale of the building at the rear and functionality of the side setback is maintained. building adjacent to a property line wall is a typical condition

in san francisco. therefore our staff deems there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretion. tree review and approving. thank you. okay, project sponsor, you have five minutes. i mean, excuse me, dr. requester, i apologize, dr. requester, thank you so much. and thank you for allowing us to speak at the end of a very long day. um, my name is andre ani. i'm a san francisco native, grew up in the western addition, lived in the richmond and now in the sunset. my wife and i are the residents and owners at two, two five, 1/31 avenue. the applicants at 2247 recently completed a full renovation of their house, which is great. however, one of the net impacts of that is through whatever combination of the plans and construction the contractors, the architecture, the walls that are flush between our houses on that side, we can hear everything at this point in time, we could also hear. we can

also smell cigaret smoke that's coming through that side. the other side. we cannot. there's nothing we can do about that at this point in time. however, the addition that they are seeking to build right now on the second floor will be flush to our primary bedroom. when we've tried to speak to the applicant about this as an issue on two occasions, they did not show up. on the third occasion. when we did speak to them, we were told essentially three things one, don't worry about it, it's not a problem. two sure, we can consider building in some noise variance. noise buffering, but there's nothing in the plans to do that. three three we were essentially told, uh, i forgot my third point because it's late in the day, but essentially for us there is going to be an extraordinary impact to us if things are not changed, if there's no modification to it, we will likely lose the ability to use our primary bedroom as a bedroom. um, my wife is a first responder. she's a nurse. she

works at ucsf. she works with critical care patients. she's often on call for emergency surgeries. one of the primary points of having a home is to be able to use the rooms for their function. right now, when we've tried to engage with them, they've not been open to that. so our concern if this is approved or not approved with any modification, we will not be able to function in that home as a bedroom. right now. that for us is extraordinary. even though fully acknowledged. it fits within the profile of what the city has approved. so for us, we're asking if you could consider that that is something that is important for homeowners and residents. they're not even showing up, whereas we are, because they don't. they've shown no interest in engaging on that. and my wife, can she speak as well, just briefly, of course. you have 2.5 minutes. thank you everyone. um sorry, i'm just a little bit emotional. i worked so hard. i worked two jobs, one in ucsf, one in stanford, and then to maintain

or to afford san francisco home. and then i enjoyed the peaceful. and sometimes i work at night for emergency surgeries that we save people life and death just like that. but i mean, like but my sleep was deprived. if they built a adjacent, uh, bedroom next to our bed, like my bedroom. so, i mean, like, i see we were here since noon and then i see everybody's hard work and sitting. listen to everybody, and we see miracle happen. and that people just kind of considerate. each one's comments. and this is really, really affect our home. and please, please, please, uh, deny that permit. they already built the rooms. they want. they just want to enlarge one of the like the rooms bigger. so i mean, this is not like like enlarge i

mean, addition to their home rooms, the third point that i forgot earlier is that the other thing that we were told by the architect is that they admit that the contractors have built things and constructed things without permits previously. so our concern is that they're not going to follow, actually, what you permit as well, because they've already acknowledged that they've done that. so again, thank you for your consideration. and then an additional is the current plan. their proposed is blocking the make a light rail. and we have no access to see our side wall. for now we can see the side wall. just kind of turning our head over the deck. and now they're completely blocked it. and then they build their own light wheel. so they, we have no way to, um, see like assess our wall damage. if there's anything we need to maintain or something we completely lost. thank you. okay. thank you. uh, project

sponsor, you have five minutes. hi uh, my name is doug. need to speak into the microphone. hi. my name is doug douglas mock. i represent the architects office, and here we have today, we had, uh, as we, uh, you mentioned earlier, we are building a extension to the house. uh adjacent to, uh, the south side neighbor house. uh, and the addition will be sharing a section of the blind wall. uh where there are no currently no windows on the neighbor side. and um, i'll show you a plan of it here. uh, am i allowed to use this? yes you are. so, uh. this

right here is where the, uh. speak into the mic, please. uh, this right here is where the blind wall is going to be. and inside this space is also a bedroom as well. uh, same as the neighbors. and um, and regarding the, uh, the part where the contractor built a things. not according to our previous drawings. we caught on to that. and the neighbors, uh, did not know the procedure to do the revision. so we have caught that in the drawings as well. and the part that's being addressed is, uh, actually the deck, uh, the stair orientation on the deck, which is actually moved even further away from the neighbor side, uh, in this revision, uh, and, and. we regarding the light issue there are currently no windows on that side, uh, of the blind wall. and there's also,

uh, we also leaving a portion of the light. uh, light. well, uh, in this part, uh, where where we remain, where it will remain open. if you're here on the site plan, you can see clearer, uh, the hatched part is where the light well, is going to be infilled and the black parts are where the, uh, light wells will remain open on adjacent to the neighbor's house. uh. i we, uh, we will like you to consider the application, uh, to be approved. thanks okay. thank you. um excuse me. public comment. if there is any any member of the

public wish to comment on this discretionary review, seeing none public comment is closed. request. do you have a two minute rebuttal? if you care to use it? uh, we don't have a rebuttal. we've tried to talk to them before previously about our concerns and is mentioned. they only acknowledge that they were doing things once they were caught doing them. so that is a concern that we have. and once this is constructed, there's nothing that we can do. we will not be able to sleep in that room. we already have this other issue. there's nothing we can do. we are homeowners. we intend to live there the rest of our lives. that is something that is going to impact us. the rest of our lives. if she can't sleep, it's going to impact her patients and the well-being and health of other people. as well. so that's a consideration. often we know that it might be in terms of, you know, the plans and the way that things are set up. it might be that it fits within that as an approval, but

there is an impact to people here to consider as part of this. and again, we thank you for your consideration. okay. project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal. uh, regarding the meetings, we have met twice. uh, one in person, once in person and once on video. and that was the last, uh, the last meeting was back in november. uh uh, and, yeah, we understand that the noise can be an issue, but, uh, given the situation with the lots in san francisco, most, most walls, uh, and this, these kinds of lot, uh, adjacent to each other on the blind wall side. so, um, we would like you to consider, uh, approving this permit. okay. with that, commissioner, this matter is now before you. i have a question.

commissioner moore. i just have a question for staff. um is the entire north wall of the adjoining neighbor windowless? i'm sorry. is the entire north wall wind of the adjoining neighbor windowless. there's one property line window that's being preserved with the portion of the light. well of the proposed project. so the addition now has a window into that light wall as well. actually two windows. correct the addition on no does not have it doesn't have any windows. uh, what do we typically do? i mean, we have many, many, many property line on property line conditions where basically buildings adjoin each other. i personally have never heard about the noise transfer from a fully built structure to another fully built structure. i've heard noise transmission and so windows and openings, but if

there is no such thing as window and openings, can there be extra insulating sound attenuating? uh measures applied to that wall? um, naturally, the insulation will provide some sound buffering and also the standard structural practices that would actually be separated by a few inches to allow for some lateral slight sway. so we'll be separated and have insulation. yeah uh, are you aware of what the doctor requester said regarding work without permits? that kind of a thing stands a little bit uncomfortable in the room. is that anything you are aware of? what could set us, uh, give us an answer to? um. i was not aware of that. i think those comments need to be done with a lot of caution. we are not here to check the truthfulness of that, but it stands as a critical comment when it comes to being in a situation and implied that the applicant whom

you obviously who's constructing you opposing has done work without permits. that's a tough one. uh, i personally find the addition of 47ft!s looking at te block pattern where i see lots of little pop outs throughout the block. not really a substantial enough issue to deny, uh, or to support the doctor. i'm inclined to support the project. it is as is and not take doctor. but i would be very curious to hear what my fellow commissioners have to say. otherwise i would make a motion. commissioner brian, uh, just one question. that kind of is along the same lines as commissioner moore's comment. um, you know, there was mention of a previous project at the site at that project, i'm curious to that project move any walls at the property lot line or was the condition of the location of the exterior wall retained in the same place? i'm just trying to wrap my mind around the idea

that noise transmission increased with the prior permit. prior permit did not increase. uh, would you mind speaking at the microphone? you need to come up to the microphone, speak into the microphone. thank you. the prior, uh, permit that was approved did not increase the length of the wall on that side of the property. okay so thank you for that. um, so i think my only concern is more about the construction of the construction quality of this, uh, addition, because as it should be, the one hour fire-rated wall, i believe. correct. which that level of construction should not be transmitting a lot of sound. and so i think that's, um, you know, and i've lived in many, as with commissioner moore, you know, i've lived in a lot of places where we have the buildings that are built directly against each other, except for that, that couple inch gap between them and, uh, you know, have never

encountered noise transmission even with fairly noisy next door neighbors through the wall itself. so, you know, i just the construction quality and approvals, that's down to department of building inspection. um, and i just, uh, do want to make sure that the, that this is built properly. but besides that, as far as the matter that's actually before us in terms of, uh, whether this is exceptional, extraordinary from a planning approvals perspective , i've, i don't see anything that's that would qualify here. uh, commissioner, may, uh, the drawings show a fully licensed architect in the state of california executing the drawings. so that gives it a certain amount of elevated confidence together with the fact that this individual be the one submitting it to dbe. so he would probably be very much amiss losing his license if he would not draw up something which indeed follows the guidelines. so and since it will be inspect it afterwards anyway, and with a new kind of critical

eye that we are expecting from dbe, i have to expect that this will be done in to the prevailing standards, uh, by which these projects are inspected more than once did you want to make a motion? yeah, i'm making a motion to, um, not take dr. and approve the project as submitted. second, there's nothing further. commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to not take dr. and approve the project as proposed on that motion. commissioner braun, i commissioner ruiz i commissioner imperial i commissioner coppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and concludes your hearing today .

sf gov tv san fran [music] san francisco developing programs specific low to increase the amount of affordable housing throughout the city. >> the affordable housing bonus program provides developers to include more housing for i have low, low, moderate and middle income households. this program does not rely on public subsidies but private developers who include it part of their project.

under california density bonus law. housing prejudices that include affordable on site may be request a density bonus. it is an increase in the number of housing units allowed under zoning laws and based on affordable units being provided. >> however, the state law does not address all of san francisco needs does not incentivize middle income housing. associating the city is proposing an affordable housing bonus program for higher levels of development including middle income u firsts providing a stream lined application review and approval process. >> how does the program work in it applies to mixed use corridors in san francisco. and offers incentives to developers who provide 30% of affordable in projects. to reach 30%, 12% of the units

must be affordable to low income household and 18% per minute nap to middle income households. >> in exchange developers will will build more and up to additional 2 stories beyond current zoning regulations. >> 1 huh human % affordable will be offered up to 3 additional stories beyond current regulations. each building will be required conform to guidelines ensuring meets with the character of the area and commercial corridors. this program is an opportunity to double the amount of affordable housing and directly address the goals established by twenty 14 hosing element and prospect k paddled by voters last year. pacificly, prop circumstance established a goal that 33% of all new housing permanent to low and moderate incomes this program will be the first to

prosecute void permanent affordable projects that include middle income households. to learn more about the program visit

okay. so the sfpuc commission is called to order for the for the, um, budget hearings that we are starting here today at 9:00. so can we have a roll call, please? president paulson, president, vice president rivera here. commissioner jaime, she'll be here shortly. commissioner maxwell. commissioner stacy here. and you have a quorum