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 the tenderloin.

of course, those two at the top. this map shows what is the delta between the current zoning and what will be permitted under s b-827. chinatown is uneffected. it will have no change to those neighborhoods. so the previous speaker was worried about impact of those neighborhood, well there's no change. i want to focus on the mission. so these colors are the light is one-storey, green is like four-storeys. so we get an additional height along the main thoroughfairs and most of the mission gets one floor add. it's not a big difference. where we do see big differences are in potero hill which is much

more dense which is great. and to echo what staff said, the north south and east west boulevard get up zoned 85 feet. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, bruce bowen. we oppose sb-827 and we ask your help to stop this bill. it's difficult to know where to start so i'll mention a couple of things. the bill is based bon a lot of bad assumptions just like trickle down economics. with respect to development around transit, there's been a lot of studies that have shown that development has displaced those who use transit as we've heard so without adequate protection to keep low income tenants in their homes, transit oriented development would be transit rider displacement or the bill is just a dressed up version of a 20th century evil

called redevelopment. will is lead to more a fort able housing is the open question? the department's report has this statement. the bill would result in the more affordable housing due to greater housing production. but wait a couple of paragraphs later it says given the broad scope of up zoning under sb-827. study would be needed on local land values. it's hard to know without economic analysis what the impact will be. even today, on the forum, senator wiener appeared and those discussion about the bill a spokesperson for the bill in support of the bill law professor when asked about whether or not any studies have been done increasing and housing supplies lead to more affordable housing and he says basically no, i'm not aware of anything. it's a big experiment to under respect to this bill and what the impacts might be and the

impact will be permanent and i remember revers able and when the towers are here they're stay and planning and it will never get it back so we'd like you to help ask you to help us stop this bill and do whatever you can to help us do that. it can't be amended. it has to be sent back from where it came. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. good afternoon, commissioners. loraine petty. member of senior and disability action. a voter of district 5. i'm here today to tell you that i view sb-827 as a complete state over reach of our local planning process. particularly as we've heard density and height decisions as such it should be rejected in its entirety. i view sb-827 as totally

unnecessary as the city is meeting its responsibilities with on going housing programs and opportunities. think 100% affordable programs, think home sf, think n.c.d.s, nctds, not to mention, sb35. sb-827 is an attempt to throw our city open to lawless profit taking. there is no other reason to me, to have a plan to over throw local planning control in the city already making great progress. so in your deliberations, please keep in minds we need to keep focusing on the needs of the present before we try to

accommodate uncertain fickle future. in other words, let's not sacrifice the present for that fickle future. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is lori leaderman. i urge you to reject sb-827 in its tire tee. amendments covered by scott wiener are window dressing at best. they do nothing to moderate the wholesale rezoning of san francisco and other urban areas. without any commence rat value recapture. on their face, the amendments presume displacement of current residents up to and beyond 50 miles. they impose means testing for displaced residents in order to receive a financial assistance. they do not define a com rable unit and they provide no agency or funds for enforcing the rights of the displaced. they do not increase affordable

unit requirements. sb-827 will not compel density anywhere but in transit rich areas. the i am balanced housing burden on on cities will increase excessively while suburbs will remain exempt. even the definition of transit rich is a ruse as noted in the department analysis. spotty service outside of commute hours is not a consideration in the bill. sb-827, along with companion measure 828 wipe out planning department work to accommodate growth within a framework that values and protects a diverse community historical resources, green space, walkable neighborhoods, and preserving small businesses. sb-827 eliminates community input and supersedes all planning guidelines. it's so favors unrestrained development as to silence all other voices. disproving any alleged concern for the environment and it fosters an ex sell rated feeding frenzy of speculators driving

upland costs more than they have already. it further has illegal demolitions, such as the one you wrestled with here earlier today. it is a loud message to us all that developer profit shall be enhanced at the expensive san francisco's residents, neighborhoods, infrastructure, small businesses and democratic processes. please, provide strong leadership and oppose this toxic legislation in its entirety. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. san francisco information clearing out. i believe it is within your purview to recommend to the board of supervisors a position on this legislation. you are guaranteed by the charter and by the planning code to review all planning matters. this is clearly a planning matter of the first order of

magnitude. i take exception to your staff's analysis from the first sentence spoken by the presenter today. which is this is a measure that will develop or that will cause to be built x number of units of housing. no, nothing in sb-827 requires a developer to build. nothing. as you are struggling with the fact that you are dealing with 40,000 approved units in san francisco that have not been built. and cannot compel a private developer to go forward with a project that you approve. what s b-627 is about is con firing value on private developers that then allows them to buy and sell that value

without developing one unit of housing. all of the arguments that have been made about displacement occurring before the sale is guaranteed by the fact that sb-827, unlike sb-35 of last year, does not require the developer to proceed and complete within three years. or a fixed period of time. this is a boondoggle. the maps of development. the lectures about your terrible past and the incredible incongruities o of yourselfishns is all b.s. because not one unit of housing will necessarily be built just as if we pass sb-827.

this is about speculation. this is about value of a public wheel of private individuals and allowing the unrestricted speculation in san francisco real estate. we went through this before. we went through this in the 60s and 70s. and we came up with a different approach. it's called balanced development. it's called the development that prides to balance the needs of the develop community with the needs of the residential community and the needs for a urban infrastructure and the needs for on going vital economic investment. all of that is thrown out the window for speculative purposes. not one unit of housing is guaranteed to be built. don't be fooled. reject this speculateive effort by scott wiener.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon, my name is kathy. thank you for this opportunity to speak today. even with the bells and whistles amendments that scott wiener has added to sb-827, there are still basic underlying problems. for example, the so-called right to return section assumes that there is some bonified city agency that knows about the numbers of vacancies and an area that would be available for rent. we have no rental registry in this city. we don't know how many rent control units there really are. and we do know how many vacancies there really are. imagine the chaos and impact where sb-827 to seize upon several apartment buildings in the same timeframe in a particular neighborhood. for example, the building that has 36 units and houses about 70 people, it has two and three

bedroom apartments, as well as one bedroom. would in deed be the victim of where are we supposed to go where this proposal to develop it. it would be impossible to house people nearby. by the way, in one place the amendments this bill speaks to, replacement housing nearby and in another section it says in the area. which area? the bay area? now, today i learn for the first time, within the 50-mile radius, the replacement would be allowed. so we can say good-bye to our house of worship, our schools, and our community. we have to remember what urban renewal did to most people in this country, they never returned to their former neighborhoods. additionally, why wouldn't developers get people out of buildings before any permits applied for? if the old fashioned way, buying

them out or evicting them in the 15 reasons that are allowed. less costly and problematic than finding them a similar apartment and supplementing their rent for three and a half years. lastly, why is there no mention of what happened to merchants, apparently no mention, i hadn't seen t. displaced by sb-827. a big oversight in deed. from what i heard today, senator wiener should stick to issues like net neutrality. please oppose. >> commissioners, tony roles. i'd like to see you all remain as any threat of loosing any -- i don't want to see you on the street corner selling pencils from a cup. we don't want that. but, that being said, sb-827 our organization is opposed to it. it is a undemocratic proposal

with radically diminish our city's ability to address the housing affordability crisis. as your department has determined, sb-827 will up zone 96% of all the developing sites in the city overriding many, many decades of community dialogue and planning intended to strengthen communities and address critical needs resulting from that, this bill would weaken affordable housing mandates, for example, the bill will significantly undermine the city's recently adopted home sf program that created incentives to cree ought housing in which 30% of the units would be affordable to lower and middle income families. just speaking on a personal note, all of these things are really an attack to take out as much of our city from people that have been here for a long time. i know, i have 53 years here. i was born and raised here.

i'm still here by the grace of god i'm still here. i would like to remain here. but developers and real estate speculators do not value that. the people that you see back here, we value that. we value community, we value our human equity our experience and the time that we've spent here. the time that we've spent here lovingly building our community into a livable community, not just for one type of person but for a wide range of people that make up the san francisco community. so that being said, we are in opposition of sb-827 and we urge as a planning commission to do likewise. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon commissioners. peter papadopoulos. i wanted to share a letter from a number of community groups.

so, i want to make you few key points that me or much the letter which is in opposition to sb-827. i want to pick out a couple of key particularrers that are some of the core weaknesses over all with this bill. to start with, this obviously bill has no equity provisions in it. and we believe strongly that we need to be working from an equity-first position given where we are in this city at this point and at this level of our displacement crisis. this one size fits all we feel is going to, as we have seen, historically disproportionately effect our vulnerable communities like the mission. we don't see anything here that

yes, we can -- there are other prescriptions in this as part of its goals but i think that again, we keep hearing this no, no, this time the free market solution is going to provide equity somehow in the free market and we haven't seen it in the past and we don't expect to see it in this bill. in particularly there's curious absence of value recapture for the providing of such an enormous amount of value. in terms of increase floors much of the mission, from what i have seen, will have several extra floors. when you add the state density bonus on top of that you are added four floors and a lot of the areas. with no value recapture, no value recapture to improve the transit, no value recapture to a improve the affordability. so essentially it would be an enormous missed opportunity across the board. it seems designed right now as something of a straight-out give

away. similarly, when we see these kind that have been mixed and frankly at times extremely poor results in these other cities of up zoning. for example, brooklyn. we would worry we were going to have a comparative result here when we try this experiment. i want to talk about something that you interact with that the community comes here and it has its local voice and i would venture to say that we've seen a lot of projects in this room together where the community voice, working with the developers and the commissioner, changed the project to be stronger by the time it left this room and there would be major components that would not fall under that purview and i want to touch that there is no provision that we study as we go forward without us and this would be an equity last scenario

where we would be struggle to go catch up. >> thank you. >> welcome, there was a two and a half hearing at the board of supervisors on monday sour getting a lint of repeat and it's good to hear these things and there's more time than they gave us, one minute there. didn't think about that. thank you. as i said there, i don't think that the issue here is transit oriented development. i mean, there are folks --[ please stand by for captioner switch ]

. >> we have many examples of, if you will, doing it right and 2340ei 234 knowing how to do it locally, and i think your planning department memo indicates that. i remember rincon hill, and

rincon hill was in its final adoption stage, and the planner was up here talking about how fantastic the upzoning and the zoning was going to be, and debra stein who's now passed away, came up and said, you know, it takes more than a plan and a twinkle in a developer's eye to get things planned. we know how to do it locally. we know how to do the right incentives in the right place for the right public benefits. and there is no affordable capture for public housing, transit or otherwise. another thing to look at is whether this actually helps affordable housing developments or not. there's a sweet spot from construction costs and sizing that works best for affordable housing. you can overshoot that, with state density bonus, your own staff says these will be 85 to 110 foot sites. that's an expensive affordable housing project. lastly, there should be some

type of expiration on an entitlement that goes with this. two years, three years, and lastly, lastly, this isn't our talking point, per se, but i'm really curious. there's nothing about labor in this bill. sb-35 has something this doesn't. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. catherine howard, sierra club. sierra club california opposed sb-827. while in-fill development near transit is desirable, the sierra club thinks this is a heavy handed approach that will result in less transit being offered and more pollution being generated among other unintended consequences. we are also concerned about the possible loss of environmental review under ceqa if sb-827 is implemented. the 1970 california

environmental quality act is one of the foundational environmental laws in california, and it is often misunderstood. here is why we must uphold this vital environmental legislation. ceqa sets up an orderly, manageable tract that project proponents and residents can follow as projects are developed. ceqa protects public health. the ceqa process has been used to help cut climate pollution, reduce air and water pollution, protect open space, wildlife habitat and farm lands. ceqa ensures that environmental justice and equity are part of the decision making process. ceqa is about transparency. ceqa gives all californians the opportunity to know what is planned in their communities and then weigh in to help reduce health and environmental impacts. ceqa ensures that public agencies and private proponents comply with air and water

standards. ceqa minimizes court challenges. ceqa allows concerns to be addressed early in the development process. as a result, ceqa litigation occurs for only about 1% of all projects that must comply with ceqa. ceqa supports california's economic growth. since its enactment in 1970, ceqa has not prevented california from building and thriving. ceqa is working to protect california's environment and communities. certainly, in the current political climate, we should be supporting as much environmental protection in california as we can, and as part of that, we should be supporting ceqa and opposing sb-827. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. name john munsen.

i am from the inner richmond, and we oppose the bill -- or i oppose the bill. we have not taken he neighborhood vote, because it complete discounts the importance in planning and creating good cities, and i have an example. the city recently approved a 12 story building in our neighborhood, and we looked at it, and we concluded that the location made sense and we didn't oppose that. had that building been proposed one block further south, it would have been put in the midst of three buildings with 25 story lots. what this bill does is take away any ability for planning to look at things like this and say no, no this context, this building doesn't make sense, it will be ugly, or to put in mitigations that they set the building back and have windows on all sides, so that it doesn't present blank walls. these are important planning

decisions that you guys need to make with input from neighborhoods, but it isn't all nubeism. we didn't oppose the building because it made sense. i do hope that you put in your words against the bill. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> wow. three minutes. i don't know what i'm going to do with that hi. >> president hillis: you don't need to use it all, mr. hall. >> okay. in your advisory role to the supervisors and the city on these issues, i strongly urge you to encourage san francisco to oppose 827. as i said before, it's a gentrification machine on

steroids. we meant to -- on sb-35, we went to sacramento to try to get protections for gentrifying neighborhoods of color. we had no -- we had an opportunity to be listened to, but not to get anything accepted that could make it better. at least a formal opposition of 827 by the city of san francisco could provide leverage to improve the bill, but i must say, i don't think this bill can be amended to be acceptable. it's an outlandishly broad, and its very basis is completely unsound. it's a one size fits all

approach that impacts thousands -- thousands of cities and counties and neighborhoods across california. it's just impractical, and it's wrong. also, its fundamental basis of bus service is an unsound shifting sand that can be manipulated, and as i -- some people already said, they wants a picture of a bus that says, i'm your city bus, not your city planner. also, we must stop this precedent of the state taking away power that belongs to cities and counties. taking your power -- or taking the power of even our supervisors and the power of our planning commission because i trust you guys in using your discretion and your knowledge -- local knowledge of

the city to make proper decisions for all of us. so this bill not only takes away city's power, it takes away power from your constituents. okay. i also sort of noticed that the special interest groups who actually likely drafted this legislation and scott wiener are all sort of funded by real estate developers, financiers, big tech, their lawyers and their lobbyists. you know, there's a lot of folks out there sort of green washing astroturfing special interests green. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is dennis moscovian,

and while i'm not speaking for my organization, i'm part of a group called inner sunset housing community, and have been involved with affordable housing issues for a while. i wanted to correct something because i continually hear it from folks -- they have a name for themselves, yimby's. i live in the inner sunset, but i'm a native san franciscan, but they keep talking about illegal apartments. i guess the 100 apartments on my own block are all illegal. i don't know how the heck they got there, but they did. and then, the thousands of the apartments in the inner sunset must be ones that also somehow got there without any awareness by authorities, i guess, but in any case, there are lots of apartment as, and one of the things that 827 will do in

itseits place is to displace those apartment buildings. i had a conversation on monday with one of the strong yimby speakers at the land use authority, and he told me look, all those buildings out there in the sunset, the richmond, and he named a few other areas, those are all -- they should all be gone. those people need to sell those houses, take that money, move wherever they want to build, so we can build tall buildings. and he said look, 100 foot buildings would be appropriate. if you can go taller, that's better. he was disappointed in the balboa units because it was only going to have 1,000 units, not 1500 units. when i said there was community input, he said that amounted to segregation, so this is the kind of ideology that is behind some of the yimby chatter. but let me just make a few points. i think wiener's legislation

took a lot of vicious antidemocratic people to create it. i think wiener's 827 legislation is so eager to kill local planning and license widespread displacement of both apartment house dwellers as well as apartment owners in rh-1 and rh-2 zones that it sets transit rich as much as possible, namely, four bus stops an hour during major commute time, which there's nothing lower or lesser than that. and 827 doesn't mandate housing in with large employers where there's sparse transit. finally, it will dramatically increase profitablity of land and following approval increase land use speculations, so i urge you to do everything you

can to change this and reject it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. misse miss hester. >> sue hester. i will go back to 1979 to 19 # wi# -- 1985, when she was mayor. we spent about five years in a planning process that the planning department led, talking about how to expand jobs downtown. what is the need associated for transportation, what is the need associated for housing? and there were two papers that had full-time people at the planning commission covering it every week, and we had the progress, which was weekly. and we had a very livly, put it

mildly, planning discussion from the public forcing the planning commission to do more than they were doing. and out of that came an expansion that was substantial of office corps and commission development south of market, and over the opposition of the may yosh, a housing fee, child care fee, and a transit fee, all of which came from the committee on this side of the aisle. some of the planning commissioners went along with it. but they couldn't expand the demand for housing and for transit and accommodate only the developers. they had to do both, and that eventually resulted in prop m on the november 1986 ballot. that was a huge struggle, and

there was a lively discussion over a long time. and what was the genesis of this in the past ten years? what discussion have we had in the planning department, and the planning commission proapproximateli propelled by the same senator that is doing this legislation. what did he propose in san francisco and have that conversation while he's a supervisor? instead he's a senator and going to sacramento and saying he'll wreck everything in the city. there's been no discussion of how -- we really need to expand transit, we really do. and some of us really dug in on the eastern neighborhoods plan, and it hasn't been

commensurately expanded. we're the victims of silicon valley, santa clara and san mateo. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner richards? richards richar >> vice president richards: i'm the only name on the roster, so if i take an hour, don't be mad. you can see my papers up here. oh, there's other people behind me. we should let you go first. where do i start? so reading the resolution that was handed to us at the board of supervisors land use committee, one of the items in here -- and i want to ask the city attorney this, is the board of supervisors of the city and county of san francisco's committed to working with the state

legislative to draft the necessary amendments to sb-827 in order to protect san francisco's sovereign charter authority. what sovereign charter authority do we have here? do we have sovereign -- are we in sovereign charter territory questionability here? >> commissioners, indicate stacey from the city attorney's office. i can't give you complete legal advice on that question at this time. typically, there are issues that are clearly within local control and interest, things like how our government is setup within a certain framework, what our internal or what our city procedures are. there are issues that are clearly state interests. the state has long declared that housing and affordable

housing are state interests. there are -- there are definitely gradations of what is a uniquely local charter -- or local city interests under our charter. there are issues that are clearly state-level interests, so we operate within the framework of the state law, most of which i couldn't even give you a ratio, actually, applies to us as a charter city. but some of it doesn't. there are provisions of general plans, zoning and planning law that specifically do not apply to charter cities. there are many provisions of planning and zoning law that do apply to charter cities, so there -- i can't give you an exhaustive list of what is or is not. >> vice president richards:

sure, but the extent of these proposed changes in terms of their impacts, the height, the allowances, etcetera, etcetera, the parking, everything all added up, is it something that normally would be a local jurisdiction ease option to be having direct responsibility for or is it something that the state can step in and say we're taking over, kind of like what they're doing in. >> again, indicakate stacey in city attorney's office. it really will depend in many cases on the detailed look at what the issue is. >> vice president richards: okay. >> generally, transportation, housing types of issues have been declared to be state interests by the state, and we are guided by, in part, state law, in part state constitutional law, and also our charter. >> vice president richards: okay. thank you. i just saw that line and it piqued my interest.

as i read the resolution, it says we will as a city keep conferring and adding amendments and sending them to our legislative delegations on what the value of additional height and density recapture is, how to kind of leverage our existing affordable housing programs, and then this very nebulous existing character preserve. i think that's something when we have these kind of informationals, knowing april 3rd is what, about three weeks away, we can come up with some amendments or suggestions that we forward to the board that they can consider when they finally vote on this, and i think that is what the duty of this board is. i'm all for weighing in on this because it is planning, and it is big. question i have. i sat this down this morning, and this is one of the things

that kind of worries me. i started drawing sb-827 in the middle here, and all the different housing bills that have been passed. i really want to understand the relationship here. i have sb-827. then, i have sb-35 as of writing off and being the targets. and then i have this thing called sb-828 which actually moves the goal line. how does that all affect 827? then, i have up here, and i'm going to ask miss rogers, if you could comment on that, this thing called housing accountability act. we have something that we don't want to do, but it proposed more houses than are on a single-family lot. how does that relate to this? had you take ha -- housing accountability, and you put it with 827, it's over.

there's nothing we can do as long as somebody's proposing additional units. we can go to court, but we'll lose. then there's housing -- street level housing accountability. you see what i'm saying? full frontal offensive on housing control? how does this all work? what do we have left to decide? starbucks coffee houses? pot houses are gone. >> to answer this definitively in a question, it's pretty not clear, and it would take sometime for these bills to become effective and to see final language and for us to really study how the interactions with our local laws would do. at a high concept, what it looks like to me, let's take them one at a time. with sb-35, that one in san francisco stream lines only housing that is at least 50%

affordable. and what we've seen to date in san francisco is there haven't been projects put forward, you know, in any numbers -- in san francisco that only means we're seeing streamlining of 100% affordable housing. the way that sb-35 works is that would not change until 2020, and when there's new -- a real look at how we're doing with muna, then there would be the possibility that we could be under performing for market rate housing, and then there's a possibility that things might change as far as streamlining for market rate housing. but if rena stays the same and doesn't change, we think it's unlikely that we would be under performing at that time. however, i did mention another bill, sb-828, and that one is not specific about explaining or enacting immediate changes to rena.

instead, it asks the state agency, hcd to begin a state process and to look at rena and to make some substantial changes to it so that it is apar phrased, less political and more of a quan at thistive assessment. -- quantitative assessment. so how that would change rena -- >> i expect targets would go up. you wouldn't want to put changes in place to make them go down. >> if the goals of the author were achieved, so if senator wiener's goals were achieved in the final drafting of that bill, it's likely rena accommodations would go up across the state. we've been in many conversations both recently on what mr. moss sis a mo is a -.

we've been meeting the rena target and not the true housing need. the other question, the housing accountability act. >> commissioner johns: -- >> vice president richards: how does that work? >> if your zoning controls permits something to happen, then our planning commission or planning staff can't arbitrarily reduce the amount of housing that would be provided unless there's some kind of public welfare or very high bar on safety that would be at threat. >> vice president richards: so basically 827 would rezone the entire city to these new maximum minimums, right? >> so i believe, and i'm not sure because the language isn't finalized, but it seems that a reasonable interpretation would say the housing accountability would be the policemminimum zo and that we in our discretion

would be limit index that we cou -- limited in that we could not reduce the amount of housing. a reasonable guess, but completely uncertain at this time richard richards ok time. >> vice president richards: got it, and with the state density bonus that goes on top. >> that seems to me to be more clear in the language that's currently drafted, and things could change, but the language seems pretty clear that the intent is for the highest site ranges, currently, 85 feet to allow the state dennis bonus on top of that. so a 30% bonus, we've estimated that could be around 105 feet. >> vice president richards: we're still able to charge for the affordable housing. >> all our local processes that we could review that, how that would come before the commission, including the fee amount, those would all. [ inaudible ] >> vice president richards: so housing sf would possibly fade

into the sunset. >> it's always been an option for developers, but why would you do that if you would build to the specifications of 827 with our standard currently about 20% inclusionary housing requirements. >> and then, we have the adu -- we basically. [ inaudible ] that was a 100% upzoning, i think, but thags he still out there, too. then, there's this other one that's out there. it's a ballot initiative that's qualifying for the ballot that's called costa hawkins repeal. it's got many facets on which we could spend hours on, but one of them is single-family homes are now under rent control. that's part of costa hawkins, and if we repeal that, the city could see, a single-family house is now under rent

control, a condo is now under rent control. is that right, city attorney? that's how i understand costa hawkins as a layman, but that could be coming, too. >> kate stacey, city attorney's office. generally, that restricts the ability of local entities to kboes rent control on buildings built after a certain date. our local ordinance currently generally applies rent control to buildings built before i think it's 1979. i'm not sure of the date. so even if costa hawkins went away -- or if costa hawkins went away, the city could look at changing its local rent ordinance to apply more broadly or the city could certainly consider imposing rent control. there are, you know, certainly many issues to consider. >> vice president richards: sure. one question i have is on

costa -- i lost my train of thought. i apologize. let me -- let me take the next step. so we have -- and i'll come back to that. i've just got so much going on here in my head. so we know existing capacity of development in the city. the team did this, and i've thought of these numbers, total pipeline, 60,000 aof propprove units, 35,000 are in master plans, probably awaiting infrastructure. there's applications for 7200. i want to do this for the viewing public because a lot of people may not have heard this. the existing zoning housing capacity adu's, we have 16,450. existing 41,600, that to me is 10% of the parcel. gas station on a lot would be good example. density bonus, 9500.

that may go away with sb-827, and then, we've got down here on the next page, and i'll come to the punch line here soon. 15,575 proposed new united through rezoning, pier 70 mission rock, central soma -- actually 5800 units, hopefully it's going to be 7500 units, 8,000, add it all up, it's 145,000 and change. it's a lot of units existing capacity. so i'm not subscribing to the notion that oh, my god, we are just busted at the seams. we have to add more capacity. we have a lot of capacity. we're just not realizing it. and i think whatever we come up with here on sb-827, amendments, like, whatever, we need to also include some type of how do we harness the

existing capacity? it's there, and i'm going to keep beating that drum over and over because it's a false narrative to say that we're busting at the seams, and we just have to keep creating more capacity because it's already there. ceqa, so -- so we have 145,000 capacity now. if we implement 827 as is, and i saw some examples in the write up, how many more hundreds of thousands of units we're going to be adding? i know when we did the affordable housing density bonus program, we had 30,000 parcels, and you had these layers, and layers and layers and layers kept going all the way down to the parking lots. there were 214 sites, and they were going to give us -- how many are we looking at. >> that's an easy question. we don't know. we haven't done -- >> vice president richards: so we hire mr. bus? >> as paolo said, we need to

get a layer of the city so we can layer both the transit map and a street level map so we can get a parcel level sense of how these changes would be i eve ever -- implemented, because it would still be convoluted there we hope to -- assuming this bill stays alive, we would keep moving down the line to try to do this analysis richard richar -- >> vice president richards: hopefully before the bill gets voted on? it's unimaginable to me that we don't understand the magnitude other than 96% of the city's covered and the capacity to go from 145,500 to go to 1.7 million? what are we looking at here? it just boggles my mind that --

i'm not singling you out. we're going to be able to find that out in time, right? >> right. we are definitely trying to figure that out. we are going to keep moving forward on trying to deliver some information. >> vice president richards: so let me -- before i get to more of the capacity, ceqa, so ceqa's out of the window here -- no. so we're going to upzone the city to a magnitude of what we currently have available on parcels. do we have to do an eir? >> so the -- the bill doesn't affect ceqa, per se. it implements the rezoning by state fiat, but individual buildings would not necessarily be exempt from ceqa. i don't know if the city attorney wants to opine further, but one thing to think about in terms of this bill versus sb-35, 35 dealts wit wi

processes, and this bill affects zoning but doesn't change the prosper say. >> vice president richards: we did plan eir -- >> when we do upzonings as a city, that is subject to ceqa. >> vice president richards: would it make sense to recommend to the board, for the board to recommend to the state that they should follow the ceqa law here? >> not sure. >> vice president richards: just like the legislature has to follow some of the rules that everybody else has to follow. okay. single-family house, 25 by 100-foot lot. currently, the buildable envelope is, by right to 55% of the lot? 75 with a variance, right? oh, on a single-family house, single-family. so the number of units that could be put into that as of right now, i think you said it was between ten and 16?

that's what was in the report. >> right. so right now, it would be one unit. yeah, we could put the -- the slide on the overhead. >> vice president richards: i think for people to get their head wrapped around this. i think i was at the men's room when you went over there, so could you go through this again? i apologize. >> currently in rh-1, the rear yard requirement is 25%. so you could in theory cover 5 75% of the lot. there's a density restriction of one unit. because of our adu rules now, you can add an adu, so really, you could fit two units on that lot under our density restriction. >> vice president richards: okay. >> our height limit is -- the height limit is generally 40 feet, but for single-family homes, it's actually 35 feet. so you can build, in theory, up to 35 feet. in reality, what happens is we

have design review, and so any new building proposed in an rh-1 has to meet or design guidelines, and so that involves a lot of sculpting. there's a theory envelope and what actually ends up happening. >> vice president richards: on f.a.r. 4.5, that's a 25,000 square foot building. >> if you took that same parcel, put a 25% rear yard, and then, you built eight stories up, we -- then, we estimate it sort of at an average unit size of 1,000 square feet, you could fit between ten and 16 units in that envelope. >> vice president richards: okay. but the build -- the building code minimum is what, 375 -- we have a minimum. >> yeah. i believe it's 200 something.

>> vice president richards: so if we really wanted to do microunits, it could be 32 units, 40 units. >> this is true. i believe there is in the bill, it specifically says a city can enforce unit mix requirements like we have in our eastern neighborho neighborhood. >> vice president richards: so when we did the residential expansion threshold, we were talking about farsa 1.4, 1.2, 1.8, and we're talking about 2.5 to 4.5, so magnitudes of what we were talking about under r.a.t. >> right, and it's flipped. r.a.t., we were talking about a maximum f.a.r. >> vice president richards: i like living large. my 25 by 100 foot lot, i want to build 11,250 square feet.

under that, could i do that? >> there doesn't -- >> vice president richards: why would you get a density bonus for building a mansion? if we're trying to densify, and this is some of the things we talk about week in and week out, there is a recipe for beverly hills in the sunset, isn't it? >> i'm not going to -- >> vice president richards: i think one of the recommendations that you should have is if you're going to go max, you've got to go units, you can't build a mansion. that's just basic common sense. that's something i want to put out there on the table. i kind of didn't -- couldn't find where i couldn't build a single-family house, and that's definitely an issue for me. i went to north hollywood recently, my old neighborhood where i used to live. it was all single-family homes, and in an apartment building on a corner lot, and i went back

after many, many years, and i saw castro theaters everywhere. single-family house, castro theater. think of castro theater. it's a big building. there's buildings jammed in, and parking, and literally, it's six buildings across. i saw single-family houses, and castro theaters in with single-family houses. so could we put a ferry building out in the sunset if i wanted to? if i bought up every lot on the block? i want to prove how much money i have, could i buy up the block and bring the ferry building down? >> commissioners, there doesn't appear to be any limit on the city for lot merger limitations, so presumably whatever our underlining zoning restraints are in the city. this bill doesn't seem to