the in-between that we proposed at a hearing a couple of weeks ago is that every two weeks you put it in a live link on your website. all it means that somebody who's reading through under director's announcements or director matters has a limpg on the dashboard and it takes you right to the site and folks can see it. in the meantime, visiblity of that information on a constant basis is valuable. otherwise, it's just data sitting somewhere buried in the electronic format or data guy's going to come here, or we data guys are going to tell you about it. so our recommendation, rather than burdening you with a threat earlier about complying with the law is to have a

practical middle ground is to simply have it available every week to the public and to the commission and to the board to everybody that's interested out there in this information, a live link in the 21st century agenda. that's our simple request. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm richard frisbee, a resident of san francisco. and i'd just like to say a few words about sb-287 -- >> president hillis: we actually have that on the agenda next. >> okay. i'll say it then. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, president hillis and commissioners. i'm david silverman. i'm working on the project at e

ureka street. we had a hearing on this project on january 18th where the draft eir was presented. at that hearing, the commission directed the staff and the sponsor to utilize the opportunity for a much higher density project. the commission further directed the sponsor to submit a plan to the staff for -- for a higher density. the project sponsor did submit a revised plan for 18 units at the site. the staff has now advised the project sponsor that it will not support any additional density at the site, so the project is in limbo with conflicting directions from the commission and the staff, and we request some direction from the commission as to how they would like to proceed with this project. we're happy to do either our original proposal or the higher density.

we simply need to have the dispute resolved. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. >> thank you. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is deanna torres. i might be speaking out of order. i'm not sure i'll make it through the whole hearing next, but i wanted to comment about item sb-827. >> president hillis: we're going to take that up next. >> i won't be able to stay. can i offer comments now? >> president hillis: you cannot. i apologize. you can submit written comments, so e-mails work to us, also. >> good afternoon, planning commissioners. my name is christine lun 2ked nbach, and i'm here to speak on

6364 street, which is part of the central soma plan, and i'm also a courier from steven veddel, and he's asked me to deliver letters that you'll be reading for your packet next week. i wanted to thank you very much for looking at the housing issues regarding central soma. when you read about spg property group, that really is a family, a family that has owned 636 fourth street since 1940. my grandfather owned a hardware store, and we've done everything in our power to keep the property in our family. we intend to build residential property at the site that is residential rental properties with two and three units dwelling spaces for families, as many as possible. unfortunately, one problem with the central soma plan is that there's a tower separation rule, which basically states that if our neighbor builds its office tower before -- and it's

titled before we are able to get our residential tower entitled, we will lose the ability to build more than 271 units of residential rental in san francisco. so mr. vettel has kindly explained the problem in a very succinct form to you, and we are looking to your brilliant minds and your expertise to somehow work out a resolution to this issue. perhaps the tower separation rule could be simply stricken or amended so that both projects could go forward or that height limits could be altered so that we would be able to build our residential tower. initially, when we began the odyssey of working on this has a family and not experienced real estate developers, and i don't have a fancy graph with

me, we proposed to build 350 seats, and that would have allowed san francisco to have 392 residential units at the site. by comparison, directly across the street, tishman spire got 400 feet. we're at 250 right now, but we know that our site can accommodate much, much more than 250 feet without an impact on the surrounding area, shadow, traffic, all those things. so we hope to come back at some point and show that to you. we would like to put as much housing as possible on this little property site and hope that you will give this much consideration and attention when you read this letter from mr. vettel. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank

you. any additional general public comment? seeing none, we'll close general public comment. commissioner richards? richa >> vice president richards: just a couple of things. first question i have for the director. i remember when we looked at the full house. we said we wanted to have a gate just on the front step, but hpc had to weigh in because the property was historic. can you tell us, did -- was there a hearing? >> i -- honestly, commissioner, i missed that particular hearing. i have to check with staff on the follow up. i'll have to get back with you. >> vice president richards: okay. great. because i think it was our intent -- people were going up the steps, looking at neighbor's windows. second, if you read the memo from mr. dide-santo in the packet, he has the -- heads the

technology for the organization. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar. >> commissioner melgar: so i'm very sorry that i'm late to the meeting and missed the public comment portion. i had planned on speaking, too, during the comment, and that was that there was a newspaper article this week that was written, accusing me of misconduct on this commission. during the public comment, i was accused of stepping over my boundaries and an ethical breach, so i want to state for the record what happened. which was that after the deliberation of this commission on the building on mission and 25th streets, the commission, as you will remember, bid for that project, and i voted against it. that -- after that building was approved, i found information about the potential historic

nation of that building, and passed it onto our director. that was the misconduct, that i passed on information before it was heard by the board of supervisors. and so the project was stopped until the planning staff could do some more digging around to see if, if the building is, in fact, historic. there was no rules that were broken, there was no ethical misconduct, there was absolutely nothing wrong with what i did. and if there is an allegation that this is potential -- something that can be appealed to the ethics commission, i actually welcome that with all transparency. i am, you know, absolutely sure that there was no breach of ethics nor of rules, and i've got to say, i know the rules pretty well. i've been, you know, in this

city for a while. i was a legislative aide. i worked for the mayor's office, and so, you know, i'm pretty sure that what happened is completely defensible. now, i think that the article and the subsequent accusation is a attempt to intimidate me, and i don't appreciate it. so i did not step over my boundary unless one thinks that the fact that a latina woman sitting on this commission is the transgression of that boundary. and i am going to say, i did what i was supposed to do. in fact, i think not passing on that information would have been unethical, so thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i just wanted to follow up on a couple of the comments that were made by mr. bus and mr. cohen, just ask director.

i know we had asked about looking into and analyzing the incoming applications, and just wanted to see if you wanted to comment on that, and then, mr. cohen's comments about linking to the quarterly dashboards. >> vice president richards: yeah. we've been in contact with mr. cohen about the best way to display this data. i believe the live link is something we can do pretty easily. the request by the other speaker for putting the ppa application, the digital form is actually much more complicated. and part of the reason i'm reluctantant reluctant to do that is ppa are preliminary applications. it is not an indication of what the final project will be, and ushl other, the projects usually change pretty substantially between that stage and the actual application stage. so we can look at some form of doing it. i just -- i would just caution that it's not as useful of information as some might think, but we'll look at it

more specifically. >> president hillis: and just if you give us a report on the full house or the zoning administrator house, that would be good just to get an update on. [ inaudible ] >> vice president richards: yeah. i think there's a distinction to be made between how the house is being used as an actual living space and what happens outside of it. we can't tell someone that they can't use the house as a residential space. >> president hillis: at this hearing, the property owner was open and kind of gave us the indication they would work with the neighbors and staff to try to dissuade tons of cyst. i get people are going to go by, but kind of walking up the stoop steps, just to get an update on that. >> vice president richards: yeah. >> president hillis: and the church demo -- >> vice president richards: yeah, there's a misunderstanding. >> president hillis: we can get a date certain. that can come back to us.

w if there's a difference of opinion if that should just come back to us with a staff recommendation, but i think the problem is the zoning only allows for a certain amount of housing, so going above that would require a completely different project. >> i think it would -- >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> vice president richards: i don't want to create cross talk, but there's a will there in the neighborhood to try to make something work. >> president hillis: all right. >> clerk: commissioners, that places you on the regular calendar. item number ten, california state sen arrest bill 827 a and -- senate bill 827 and informational presentation.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is paloiq azzoy, and today i'm going to give you an informational presentation on senate bill 827. see if this works. so the presentation will mirror the memo that we sent last week. i'll give a brief summary of the bill as it currently exists, including amendments made on march 1st. then, i'll summarize our preliminary analysis on the bill's potential effects here in san francisco as well as some outstanding questions we have where the bill is maybe a little bit unclear. please note that this analysis is our best guess at what could potentially happen if this bill were to pass. it's likely that there will be further amendments to this bill, and so we will update our analysis as those happen.

just broadly, the bill's intent is to increase the amount of housing built statewide near transit stations and stops. it proposes to do that by allowing residential projects within specified distances of transit across the state to receive a transit rich bonus, allowing projects to build up to minimum height and f.a.r. limits and removing density and parking controls. it does not appear to alter local approval processes or take away control over things like demolition or inclusionary requirements. amendments palsed earlier this month states that other amendments could be layered on top of this statewide proposed zoning. those march amendments make it clear that parcels containing rent control units would not be eligible for the bonus also a municipality passed something authorizing such demolitions.

here's what sb-827 proposes. within a quarter mile of a major transit stop as defined here, or a stop on a bus that runs at least every 15 minutes during the peak hour, the bill would set the following minimum height limits: 85 feet if the parcel faces a right-of-way of 75 feet or higher, and 55 feet if it faces a right-of-way narrower than 75 feet. for parcels within a radius within a half mile, the height limits would be 55 feet on a parcel facing a right-of-way of 75 feet or more, and 45 feet on a parcel facing a narrower. a developer could choose to

utilize the state density bonus law to go even higher. here's what that would look like in san francisco. the majority of our muni lines meet the threshold for high quality transit, so almost all of our city is covered under that higher height tier, which is 85 feet. this would mean that any qualifying project within the orange area of this map could be allowed up to 85 feet in height located on a right-of-way wider than 70 feet. unfortunately, we do not have complete, accurate g.i.s. data on the right-of-way width on our city so we can't say which parcels would get the 85 foot height limit and which would get the 55 foot height limit, but we will be coordinating with our other city agencies to update this and get the preliminary analysis

accordingly. on any parcel in the orlanguage or yellow area on that map, a developer would be entitled to request a transit rich bonus, exempting that from any density limits or parking requirements. the city would be prohibited from enforcing a height limit lower than the 45, 55 or 85 feet height limits specificitied in the bill. cities could still enforce zoning and respective building standards so long as they did not restrict the property below the f.a.r. limits listed here. we just got a typical 85 by 125 foot lot to look at what the law allows.

this example shows an rh-1 lot which is probably the most substantial difference between what exists and what could exist under this bill. it is the most dramatic difference, but this is also a fairly common condition. almost 75% of our city is zoned rh-1 or rh-2. under current zoning someone would be allowed on that typical lot to build one unit or two with an adu, and that building would be allowed to go up to 5 feet in height. the actual f.a.r. would be dependent on design guidelines where we ask our guidelines to meet general design guidelines. one parking space would be required. under sb-# 27, on that same lot, we estimate between 10 and 16 units could be built in a building of up to 85 feet in height. we would likely retain the

ability to ask for sculpting and massing reduction. no car parking would be required. i should note this is obviously the dramatic case, but there are many areas of our city, especially downtown and our area plans where zoning is more permissive than 827, so if those areas, the bill would essentially be no change. as i mentioned earlier, the bill doesn't mandate changes to the local approval process, so transit rich projects would still be subject to our local inclusionary irmt kwoos. they would be required to go through our standard design review and entitlement process, and including conditional use authorizations. our section 317 controls on the loss or demolition of units would remain in place. as mentioned earlier, the

project's requesti projects requesting a transit rich bonus would be able to compound that bonus with the state density bonus law. [please stand by for captioner switch]

>> we have questions about the bill where it isn't clear. the bill doesn't change local approval process. it is unclear which discretion the city and commission retain with respect to approving projects or not. our plans and home assessments took years of study to figure out the appropriate mitigation measures, including increase on site affordability. this bill wouldn't preclude us from doing a similar study, should it pass, but it provides

no resources and has no provision allowing cities the time to adopt those measures concurrently with the up zoning that happens. speaking of home assess, this would likely reduce interest in our programs because we typically -- coul-sb-827 would y offer that extra capacity without any corresponding increase in affordability. however, as we note in the memo, it's possible that sb-827 could result in more affordable housing overall as it would spur more units that our current zoning would. and all of those projects would be subject to 415 inclusionary requirements. the amendments made in march clarified that sb-827 would not

apply to zoning districts that don't allow housing. however, the bill would also prohibit cities from rezoning areas of their city that allow housing as of january 2018 to zones that do not allow housing. this would mean we wouldn't be able to rezone properties to pdr if they are not pdr as we are in process of doing m1 and m2 industrial zone parcels throughout the city. while we agree that the highest density land uses should be near transit, we have some questions about what the bill defines as high quality transit. our general plan and i think best planning practice agrees that transit has to be frequent at all times throughout the day to be useful, not just during the peak hour. there's also the issue that tie zoning directly to transit introduces uncertainty because you can change service levels or the streets that transit runs on

relatively frequently compared to the -- up up zoning. small changes like adding an additional bus run during the peak hour could change local zoning overnight. and then tied to that are concerned that the bill could require transit projects large and small to analyze the major changes in land use that they previously were not required to study under ceqa. in summary, sb-827 proposes a broad statewide up zoning around transit lines. it's ambitious and scope and breadth because it tries to deal with a housing shortage. i was at the housing confidential conference and there's pretty broad agreement at the state level that california has underbuilt housing for decades and that has had disastrous effects for low, moderate, and middle income households. all of our candidates -- all of

the major candidates for governor are proposing statewide production targets between 300 and 500,000 new units per year. those are big numbers that our state has never really produced before in history. so we'll continue to monitor amendments to the bill and all the other housing bills moving through the state legislature and provide analysis and updates as they come. as mentioned in the board report, our board of supervisors is considering taking an official position on sb-827 and introduced a resolution at land use committee this past monday. so he's here, if we have questions about that. did you want to -- i guess he'll actually tell you what happened and josh and i will be available for any questions that you have. >> good afternoon commissioners. so as mentioned, supervisor peskin's resolution was before

the land use committee on monday. it was originally titled opposing california state senate bill 827. this obviously was a resolution opposing the state senate bill and also committing the board of supervisors to work with the state designation to amend this state bill. after, as you can imagine, a few hours of public comment, the land use committee began their deliberations. supervisor tang proposed to amend the resolution. the a mannedment would use language urging amendment and not opposition to the state senate bill. the focus would be to ensure the value of the additional height and density is recaptured and that san francisco's existing affordable housing programs be preserved. supervisor peskin was amendable to that amendment. proposed an april 3rd hearing on the amended resolution before the full board of supervisors and committed to monitoring the progress of this state senate

bill as well as providing comment as it makes its way through the state committees. so that is in a nutshell is what happened on monday. >> thank you very much. so we'll open this item up for public cent. -- comment. i have a bunch of speaker cards. [ reading speaker cards ] paragrapwelcome.go ahead. >> i appreciate it. i appreciate that. so, again, i'm here on behalf of the street community services. we have the privilege of serving low income and poor residents in the mission district. we also have a program that seeks preservation of affordable housing primarily sros in the city. i want to give thoughts around sb-827. we understand that as the

planning department just shared is being seen as a solution to housing problem to the housing crisis that we have in the state. however, this only addresses one part of the solution, which is to build, build, build. as i've mentioned before, one of the solutions that is actually being challenged by this proposal is the protection of deeply affordable housing stock. so just wanted to list a couple things. we know in areas in l.a., for example, this proposal will definitely be seen as a way to open up the frontier of what's possible in terms of the developing. so we know that it might benefit parts of the state, we want to up lift some of the challenges to it locally. so as you mentioned, in some areas, the way that the bill is written right now, it would eliminate our local controls. it also would impact neighborhoods like chinatown and mission district that have been able to preserve their community because of the advocacy that is

centered around community development. we also know that mayors in local jurisdictions have even says this bill would only dissuade more people now living in rent control units. we want to up lift that. also, understand that a lotted of local governing laws that you oversee will be threatened by these policies. as the amendments talking about the right of return and that has been something that's been introduced, we understand that the changes to affordability in the city is what is in danger for us. just wanted to share with you also the sb-827 in l.a. just to say even folks in the past who have said we need to build, build, build are opposing this bill and there's real reasons to that, mostly because it will encourage and exacerbate the communities of color. i want to pass this to the commission and thank you again for hearing us out. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, rose hillson, delegate -- i have copies for you here. i also will turn in the resolution passed by the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods opposing 827, but of course, this is all in flux, so all these things may or may not matter. i know that your advisory to the board of supervisors. so whatever they decide, i guess, is going to go. i do have a copy overhead, please. this is the resolution at the board of supervisors land use committee urging amendments. and because, as has been presented, we don't know exactly what the uncertainties and unintended consequences of this will be. i just want to read what i did read to the board of supervisors land use commission only because we really don't know what's going to happen.

on the overhead, i have sb827. this is an arbitrary up zoning scheme relying on street widths and other factors for huge height and density -- under san francisco's general plan in parts bonus land value, increases to create real estate pricing unattainable by the majority at the expense of reality in san francisco. trump-like sb-827 kills local control and does not consult and consider the communities and decision makers. it doesn't include complete economic and other national sees of impacts from increased density which are reserved today only for san francisco's non-residential zones. remember that from the expansion threshold program. so it doesn't solve inaccurate infrastructure support to move this forward. it doesn't create new units to solve the housing crisis. so oppose sb827 that adds more

ambiguities for informed decision and should not be tolerated. please enter this into the minutes of your planning commission record for today under sunshine section 67.16. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. , please. >> hi. i have these handouts for you, ms. silva, if you could give those. i'm sorry to make you get up again. i didn't go to the hearing on monday, but -- i didn't know that until the end. i think this commission should oppose 827. here's why. you along with the staff and the people know what the city needs. you can best make the land use decisions. a flawed proposal like this cannot be fixed by amendments. it's too broad. it's too overarching and too much like a redevelopment plan than a housing plan. especially with no repeal of the ellis act or hawkins.

fars are a blunt tool and not currently used at all to define housing size in san francisco. they should not be used. there's a major problem within one of the reasons the ret was withdrawn. i mean, i think that's kind of what killed it. but any way, i gave you a real estate map that i got -- i got it monday evening until the mail. it was sort of appalling to me because this is the mission. first of all, this is the mission that we know. this is from your map 2020. that's the mission that we all know. but this is what i got from a real estate company. it's sort of the segmenting and the development of the mission as they see fit. they've got a bunch of projects that there are errors with. one of them has lost two units and others were -- were live work and i could go on and on. just look at these names,

this -- cesar chavez parkway? this is what sb827 wants to do. that paper is 11 did by 17 -- 1y 17. that's the largest sheet of paper you can bring into the building. that's the sheriff's rule. it's funny, but it's the sheriff's rule. any way, the area below is all blank. think what's there. the excelsior, the outer mission, ocean view, crocker amazon, portola, silver terrace, mission terrace, the bayview. those are all neighborhoods that are vulnerable. you look at this map again, this one from the real estate guy. think of the bus that's are there besides the train. there's the 12, there's the 10, there's the 27. there's the 48. there's the 33.

there's the 22. there's the 67. there's the 55. there's the 36 that goes partway down valencia? they're all those buses there beyond the train. the 9. then there's the rapid buses. so please, write a motion, whatever you write to ask the board to oppose this measure. it's really bad. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. edward mason. this is a one fits all situation where we're going to rezone san francisco and we're going to take the brunt of the housing issues. if you extend this down the peninsula, it really means it's going to go down the el camino all the way through mountain view, santa clara, and through san jose along alameda to east ridge shopping is ite is it -- g

center. those are the areas that are going to fit the criteria of the transit. then the blunt here in san francisco. considering that the increased base of the land use with the rights. if everything is escalated up to *6, 7, 8 stories, that pad is inflated in costa effecting everyone. and if this is going to lead to gentrification, you're going to have people with disposal income where time is a premium and of course they're going to disregard the environment in their decision making and they're going to tap the app for ride shares. you're not going to reduce any population for automobiles. again, growth is going to fail to fund growth infrastructure. currently, the transportation sustainability fee was reduced by 75% from the nexus study. then you have the exclusion

that's involved in the transportation sustainability fee. who are we going to build for? are we going to have an increase in the amount of commuter buses that are going to be commuting the residents to office space in mountain view and menlo park? and also, when we make the assumption about transit availability, we're assuming that your destination is on transit. there's on the one place that i know of in the bay area that's on transit. that's at the san leandro bart station where there's about a 6 or 7 story building in there. there's a companion building being built. that's an office space at the san leandro bart station. the tod is they're going to put the housing there. if your destination is not for work site, that becomes meaningless in your whole decision making process is then going to be reversed. so -- and also, if any new

business, they should be required to build the company town. go build a 40-story building and put the first 20 stories for your residential and then you want to build it up as high as you want. that eliminates any commute then. the commute is up the elevator. so those are, i think, the things that need to be considered before we go forthwith this misguided effect of trying to go in a silo type of environment. you need to look at the big picture. we're only addressing the tip of the iceberg. there are other things that go into this. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm james bark, i live in the sunset. my kids are about the 6th generation in california, and i'm here to stand up for san francisco. and to speak up and give you my support as you wrestle with

sb-827 to decide whether the one size fits all or you are better for planning for the city. i hope you keep your charter responsibilities that have created this city. the number one tourist destination in the world. if we're to keep our hearts and n. san francisco, the city on the hill, don't allow this bill to turn it into the city on an ant hill. sb-827 gives self determination and gifts it to the state. one size does not fit all. we are not turlock or sack represent or los angeles. has that reduced their housing prices? the highest in the world? you have crafted a beautiful, livable community of diverse distinct neighborhoods that together form san francisco.

sb-827 demands you see 96% of that to real estate interests, foreign speculators and landlords. they and sacramento will only san francisco, nor you or we who live here who are fighting for real affordable housing. sb-827 does not accomplish that goal. it is in every particular unworkable. indexing housing density to fluctuating bus schedules, and you can see the result in an example. allowing monstrous single family mega homes up to 8 stories. no provision for parking for residents. no provision for infrastructure. water, sewer, power, roads, no provision for transit or explosion or the congestion of uber fleets. no provision for displaced small businesses and local merchants priced out. no real demolition restraint.

one wall will make a renovation. not a rebuild. no real provision for displaced renters. landlords evicted before the application. sb 27 is not a billion that can be amended -- a bill that can be amended. you have shown by your analysis and the realities of the real estate industry's history a gentrification to contain trap doors and defeat any intent. why does san francisco need to be co-opted by this bill? with 143,000 units in the pipeline e more than new york city per capita, with san francisco leading all other california cities in meeting our rhna goals, we are highly capable planning commission, using your new legislative tools we've pushed through, we don't need and san francisco's residents and voters do not want any part of this sb-827. this is our city. a fundamental irreversible transfer to the state is not

what we need. reject sb827. the endless amendments to camouflage how wrong it is for california and worse for san francisco. you have done a great service for this city. you don't need sb-827's help. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. you know, i a en -- i attended e meeting on monday and i couldn't help but thinking after listening to all the pre-planned canned speeches by people supporting this measure that we were somehow being thrust in facts. we haven't produced already 116% of our housing goals -- produced or entitled 116% of our housing goals through 2022. five years early, we're already at the point where we're

exceeding the goals that are put on us. when you talk about above market rate housing, we've approved 212%, already five years early. so we're doing the job that we're supposed to be doing under the requirements that we're meeting. where we haven't met the requirements is in the low market rate. so, you know, this legislation is unnecessary and completely ridiculous when it comes to san francisco. not to mention, you know, there's also, as we recall, there was a study commissioned by the city done by kaiser marston that concluded that for every market rate housing development, there is an additional demand -- creates an additional demand for below market rated housing.

if you take the zoning requirements that we have put in place, it's still below the amount of additional demand that's created by market rate housing. so there's a sense in which we're actually going backwards. for every market rate housing we development, we're actually worsening the affordability crisis. i have to say, as a former planning commissioner, that, you know, you guys -- if this passes, you might as well pack up your bags and go home because there's no function for a planning commission anymore. it may even be true of the planning department. what functions would the planning department have that couldn't be performed by the building department? we might as well do away with most of the planning department. there's no -- there can't be much of a need for it. so i ask you to please consider the overall impact of this especially in light of what we've already accomplished as a city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon commissioners. thanks for giving us this opportunity to speak in public on this matter. we oppose 827. the bill provides potentially very large increases in zoning and density without time or resources for cities to concurrently adopt measures to mitigate any impacts. as your department has noted. we have watched the state legislature grapple with housing affordability issues for years. nothing they have done to increase density, remove local authority or change the roles or rights of landlords or tenants has stopped the insane inflation and cost of living in our state or solve the affordability or homeless crisis. why would we consider giving local control over land use to the state government and purely

profit motivated developers? what is the benefit to our communities? why are our state representatives spending their time and energy creating bills that have enormous negative impacts on our communities and environment. this is a state bill. we're talking about how it affects san francisco. this is going to affect every city and community in the state. so that's another matter that needs to be brought forward here. as we know, sb-827 is not the end of it. if a city is building enough to meet its quotas, sb828 is still -- will raise them so no community will be able to balance growth for dealing with the needs of higher populations. if sb-827 passes, the developers will double down and go after the amendments one by one. you must have seen the list of bills in the works in

sacramento. we certainly have. there are physical limitations that go beyond the scope of the lot effects. ignoring the absence of competent labor and quality materials will result in more disasters like the ones they had in miami where a brand new fast track pedestrian bridge just collapsed. the day it opened, it collapsed. if we continue to build without taking proper time and ensuring the quality of work and materials going into the projects we are building, we're headed for a huge disaster. [ stand by ]

is the hallmark of the banana republic.

there's nothing to amend or approve on. if you have cancer you don't negotiate with it, you kill it. if you are offered a poison pill you don't try and amend it you reject it. the scheer arrogance of the bill's prentice is an fran and other communities will accept being neutered by sacramento is astonishing. the only thing more is the people in san francisco that are talking about accepting it. whatever useful points are included in sb8-27 with respect to the real housing issues we have. pale in light to the mall fees an taking away a community's right of self-determination on land-use issues. we're open to honest, open democratic discussions about our very real housing problem. sb-827 was not intended to foster those middle ground. reject it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good day. thank you for this opportunity to express our concerns. commissioner president and fellow commissioners i hope you do the same. it's time to stand up for san francisco and oppose the proposed ill-conceived senate bill 827. a resolution headed to the board of supervisor on april 3rd is an agreement with the analysis by the planning department that says this bill provides potentially huge additional values to property owners throughout the state without concurring value capture. it if 827 is passed it will give speculators cart blanch relimitting san francisco's ability to recapture critical value city wide and overriding our local planning processes. area plans would be thrown out

the window. the scale of buildings will be taller than what our city like to invest it when it comes to affordable house. we'll get a number of more expensive units and little in-laws ary below-market rate rates. the opportunities for building housing for low income residents will dwindle. sb-827 insentavises more evictions. even before permits are applied for. land values would increase, rents would be higher and existing rent-controlled housing stock with decrease. the bill is not in keeping with san francisco's housing policies. sb-827 falls on false presumption that residents in new luxury units, would actually rely on public transit to get around. a letter from 37 los angeles

group says l.a.'s core transit riders are its poorest residents in minorities. low income people of color in l.a. who depend on transit and live along the transit-rich corridors would be further displaced in this additional low income housing units would not be able to built there if sb-827 is passed and their plan for all right. scott wiener had no answer to the question i put to him at a town hall. where will we go when the wrecking ball comes? if sb-827 is passed and my charming four-room flat on 24th street transit rich corridor could be demolished, i would be uprooted from my home, my community, and face an insurmountable obstacle of finding interim replacement housing. the so-called guarantees in this bill are not enforcement. commissioners, amendments won't save this bill. it just doesn't fly.

>> thank you, next speaker, please. good afternoon commissioners, an advocate for u.s. m. i can see sort of the lure to having this bill passed. i've been here many thursdays with you guys until 6:00, 7:00, 8:00 at night. it would be nice to take the bill and go out at 5:00 if not sooner every thursday. that part might be nice. but what is easy is not always what is right. and this bill is not right. it's not right to take away a tenant's right to remain and live in this city. it's not right to separate families. it's not right to separate a community. this bill takes away all of those rights. and more than anything it takes away your right to determine what is equitable and fair for this city and what this city deserves. so i would say we already have a bogey man in the closet and

additional law like this would ensure that there is no equity in the housing that's getting built. it would be a pure free market ideology. it comes with no affordability package. and added on with the state density bonus, we could look at buildings 85 to 100 feet in height with as little as 13% affordability. we're in a housing crisis and this crisis can be solved with building. but building without equity means that we're going to have tremendous suffering for hard-working families that work early in the morning and go to bed late at night to provide the services needed to keep this city funging and a roof over the heads of their children. so this easy solution is not the right solution. and i ask you support not supporting sb-827. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, laura clark. i think the planning department

did a great job addressing a lot of the recent amendments that have been added and addressed a lot of the concerns that were brought up here. they did a very thorough job talking about the excellent right to return. also, they did a great job talking about how our inclusionary will apply. a lot of the concerns that people had have been thoroughly addressed in the bill. and that doesment mean there there's nowhere opportunity for amendments. i have submitted some. there's a great opportunity to make this bill fantastic. i want to address something that was brought up a lot. who are we building for? who are those people going to be coming into our community? they are going to be using our roads. they are going to be using our sewers. they're going to be sending their kids to our schools. who is the they?

who is the us? we have created a an exclusion y city where people cannot join this community and people are being displaced every day. they need to come back to our city. they need to come join us in our most exclusionary neighborhoods. they need to live in apartments next to that single-family home. they need to be welcomed back with open arms and need to send their kids to our schools. there is opportunity here. we have added eight jobs for every one unit of housing. we are about to pass the central selma plan, they might be working in those office buildings. they are out there right now on craigslist bidding up the cost of housing. and they could become our growing tax base. they might be contributing

members to our society. they are potential residents of san francisco. they are our children. they are people who have jobs and opportunities here. they are people graduating from city college. they are people who are living in their cars struggling to get by in the city. we are talking about a bill that builds missing middle. the middle is getting lost. how do we build it? how do we build it and who are we building it for? i think that we can do a lot better. i think that i do not value all of the legislation that we have passed here in san francisco that has created a an a an a anx exclusionary committee. >> thank you, next speaker,

please. hi. steven boss with mission again. briefly in response to the guy who complained about my shirt, i would be happy to do this topless if the commissioner would prefer. [laughter] don't ask the commissioner that. can i have the projector, please. so i am big into data analysis and so i produced, well i didn't pro this map but i produced the subsequent maps. this is volunteer who did an analysis to the existing zoning in san francisco. the red areas are all r.h. 1 densities where apartments are illegal. it's somewhere between 70 and 80% of residential area in san francisco where apartments are building where an apartment is

deemed as rh3 or above. you can see the mission, the tenderloin, china town, all are zoned densely. places like the sunset, richmond, west portal, glen park, the marina, are all zoned very, very sparsely and don't allow apartments. i'm excited about sb-827 because it will correct a historical injustice. so this is a map that i produced based on the parcel data that is available through sf open data. i've outlined the tenderloin, china town and the mission on this map. first i want to draw attention to chinatown and