>> good afternoon, work to the san francisco planning commission hearing for march 14, 2019. please silence any mobile devices. and when speaking, please state your name fort record. before i take roll, i would ask those members of the public standing in front of the entry and exit doors, you're causing a fire hazard. please find a seat. i see available seats in the audience. take roll.

president melgar? >> here. vice president koppel? here. commissioner hillis? here. we do expect commissioner richards. consideration of items for continuance, 1a and b, dnx for 5 third street, the hurts building and conditional use authorization at the time of issuance were proposed for continuance. staff is proposing may 2, 2019. item 2, 2018-006127cua, to march 21, 2019. cause number 3, for 555-575 market street, downtown project

authorization and conditional use proposed for continuance. item 4, mangels avenue, discretionary review, may 23, 2019. 5a and b, 1513a-f york street. indefinite continuance. i do have one speaker card. >> so i have a card here from david bancroft. anyone else who would like to make a public comment on the continuance items, please come up now. >> president melgar: okay, with that, public comment is closed. >> move to continue the items to the dates proposed? >> second.

>> thank you, commissioners, commissioner hillis? johnson? koppel? moore? president melgar? so moved. that motion passes familiar unanimously, 5-0. if we could continue item 5b, indefinitely. >> so continued. commissioners that place us on the consent calendar. all matters 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 the staff requests. in which event it shall be removed interest the consent calendar. item 6, 906 broadway and 2498

lombard street. conditional use authorization. i have a number of speaker cards for item 6. so we will pull that off consent. and shall we hear that at the beginning of the calendar? >> president melgar: yes, the beginning of the calendar. >> very good. item 7 is the only matter left. >> president melgar: does anyone have -- would like item 7 pulled from consent in --? okay. this is to item 7? okay. >> so you're just requesting it be pulled off of consent? >> i'm requesting that it be studied further. >> clerk: we'll have to pull it off of consent. >> but my comment is also the fact that, you know, i'm involved in planning as well and i'd like to offer the fact that it is the most perfect time for those listening to know that we are -- >> sir, we'll have to pull it

off of consent for you to submit your public testimony on the matter. >> well, then don't pull it off. let me finish what i'm saying. >> president melgar: we can't do that, sir. >> what i'm here to share, it's time for. >> clerk: this is a general comment. >> -- stop paying our mortgages and rents -- >> president melgar: sir, we have to pull it off consent, hear it and then you can do public comment on the item. right now. right now. however, you cannot have general public comment on something that is already on the agenda. so we will hear it in order. and you can comment on that item when we hear it. >> clerk: this is not general public comment. that will come up in a short manner. 10 minutes maybe? okay. >> president melgar: thank you.

so i think this was general public comment. not item 7. so we can have -- >> clerk: i think so. i don't think he wanted to speak to item 7, it didn't sound like. >> president melgar: comment on the consent calendar is closed. >> move to approve item on 7. >> clerk: on that motion to approve item 7? [roll call] so moved. commissioners that passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, i'll place this under commission matters. >> president melgar: commissioner -- i'm sorry. comment on the draft minutes. okay, with that comment is

closed. move to approve draft minutes? >> second. >> clerk: thank you, on the motion to adopt the minutes -- [roll calling] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. item 9, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: "new york times" two days ago lawmakers approve -- support tax on multimillion dollar second homes. the movement is to look at homes over $5 million, second homes and tax them. if anybody wants to read the article, i'll pass it around. >> president melgar: thank you. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: two things. interesting enough, the court of appeals actually affirmed santa monica's right to regulate short-term rentals which is a win for local decision-making. hopefully, it will with stand

challenge in the future or onslaught by sacramento. we had the legislator analyst office report on the housing crisis, i think it was 2015. one of the bills we're going to hear today, last night, someone forwarded a report on ceqa and its impact on housing production. so look for a slew of bills changing ceqa in the future, folks. >> president melgar: thank you can commissioner. commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: last week, we had a troubling case come before us in the discretionary review, 120, which was the unfortunate case of a family, a long-term family that was illegally displaced in an effort -- that came before us in an effort to develop property. i think, unfortunately, it is not rare that we hear those cases. and fortunately, we have

partners like chinatown community development corporation that brought to us the long tenant history and created a paper trail of what actually happened to the family that was not there because of illegal things that were done on that property. i think as we -- i think about the future, whether it's sb50 or other things, what is clear and what always happens, what we bring up is the need for stronger capacity to uphold tenant protection. and during the budget discussion, we had talked about the idea of setting aside budget for a dedicated person within the planning department to focus on tenant protection. and i want to renew that call knowing that we want all planners to have all the capacity that they need to really understand what is happening to tenants. and knowing that we are going to need to begin to track where people and how people are renting property, especially if sb50 passes.

i think a good first step would be dedicating staff to develop that arm of work for the department. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: to that end, i believe that two years ago we asked for that position. we didn't want to be prescriptive about it and it ended up being cut. i'm going to renew commissioner johnson's push for that position. to that end, commissioner johnson and i were planning on meeting with supervisor fewer who chairs the budget committee at the board, to ask for that give, as well as additional fte for city-wide survey, because we need to make sure the other 75% of the city is surveyed and identified for developers so they can streamline the pre-entitlement process, as well as protect historic resources. >> president melgar: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: to help in the effort, there are groups in the city discussing rental registration that is done in other cities, fiat just the united states -- not just the united states, but across the

world. it's a healthy tool to put to record who is renting and make it a broader accessible database, which has perpetuity. >> clerk: no further comments, we can move on to department matters. item 10, director's announcements. >> thank you very much, i'm anne-marie rogers, on behalf of john ram who is out of the office. there was a tragic death that resulted in the death of a cyclist. we wanted to confirm our deep commitment to increasing cyclist and pedestrian safety. i wanted to update the commission and the public on some of the permanent improvements we're working on. you should know this is in light of there were immediate actions that mta took to remove parking

along this stretch. as far as the long-term process, these are flowing out of both our south of downtown design and activation plan and would implement some of the components of the central soma plan. the planning department is working with the mta and public works to create a two-way bikeway on the stretch, reduce vehicle traffic lanes and redesign intersections along howard between the water front and 4th street. this is called soda. and we'll be presenting these concepts to the public in mid may with a goal to go out to bid in 2021. and construction would immediately follow. thank you. >> clerk: seeing no questions, item 11. review of past events at the board of supervisors. there is no report from the board of appeals or the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, manager of legislative affairs.

this week, the community heard supervisor peskin's ordinance to remove the grandfathering exceptions for additional housing fee. the planning commission heard the ordinance on january 31 and february 14 and voted to recommend disapproval. the land use hearing committee members asked the planning staff for more information on the project that would be affected and supervisor peskin stated his intention was in the to single out the project, though he acknowledged it would have that effect in practice. did not take the planning recommendation and advanced to the full board with the recommendation of approval. next, the land use committee heard mayor breed's ordinance to prevent homeless shelters during a shelter crisis. the planning commission heard this ordinance on february 28 and voted to recommend approval. at the land use committee, the supervisor asked questions of

hsh regarding supportive services offered onsite and the difference between a safe center and navigation center. supervisor haney recommended making a commitment to new navigation or safe centers with greater diversity. the committee then voted to advance for recommendation of approval. at the full board, there were only two items related to planning and that was the rezoning and general plan amendment for 175 golden gate avenue that passed second reading. that's all i have for you today. >> i have a question. >> president melgar: commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: mr. star, which project was singled out by the legislation? what is the address? >> i don't have that on top, but i'll get that. >> commissioner richards: thank you. >> commissioners, unfortunately i don't see staff present for

item 6 -- excuse me, we have general public comment. so at this time, members of the public may address items that are within the jurisdiction of the commission, except for agenda items. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have no speaker cards, but, sir, this is your opportunity to speak on general matters. >> thank you. i am peter and i'm here speaking truth to power free of all fear. i've heard the concerns about high prices, high rents, high mortgages, and i kind of wonder why that is. i believe it has a lot to do with poor groups of people that really never work.

bankers, bar association lawyers, telecom and the silicon valley people. i'm sorry, they do work, to steal from us and make things high. the gentleman just talked about the homeless situation. and i got there at the end of the 5150 meeting across the way and i said, who is the real 5150? the homeless man on the street that is talking to god? or those of us pretending to do things in a positive way in the very same system that has leonard peltier in prison and has done what they have done to the native americans all that time from then to this day? the power we have as individuals -- i'm going to talk to you about three-year-olds, when our hearts are pure and

op open. we don't like bullies and i'm not here on this planet to be a slave, and honor bankers and lawyers. are there good lawyers? yeah, about 4%. thank you, tony sarah. the power we have as individuals is to operate as a group. it's time to be standing on granite as of this next cycle, get off the fence, pay no mortgages, pay no rents. who is that going to hurt besides the bankers? no one. you will have this discussion between all of us one and all. california and a nation mentally ill, if one man is wrongfully incarcerated so are we all. i am all things the great spirit

does sing. our -- [bell ringing] -- i am peter, i am the brother with the keys, so to the almighty command that by the 40-day freedom strike, leonard peltier and the u.s. constitution, but people have mocked the prophecy, so comes around to the iron rod for all to see, for now comes the earthquakes on this full moon. and the fires and the explosions. it is time for us to be one together to -- [bell ringing] -- shut down this corruption and open the promised land which is truly beneath our feet as one of my nicknames is cactus pete, sometimes bitter, sometimes sweet. >> president melgar: thank you, sir. >> i command this, last thing through the goddess temple that resides in the kingdom of heaven. release the power that the -- >> clerk: thank you for your time, sir.

>> i say it, it is done. >> president melgar: thank you. any other public comment? okay, public comment is now closed. [interjections] >> want to wait for staff for item 6 or move on? >> president melgar: i think we need to move on. i'm sorry for folks that are waiting for item 6. we're going to take the next item which is item 12. >> senate bill 50 planning and zoning housing development, equitable communities incentive 2019. information presentation. >> we have a new staff member that is not new to us, but it's her first hearing before you today. her name is alison ricci, she is

staff architect and urban designer for us. she draws on global insight, problem solving to address the challenges in her work. her recent project is the indian basin and the shipyard d for d. notably, she was recognized by the aia with a national award last year as the young architect for her significant contributions to the profession. prior to joining the planning department she was an associate at skid more and merrill and earned a masters degree from m.i.t. she holds a masters from tulane and post graduate diploma in urban design from oxford brooks university. she is a registered architect and a key member of the department design team. as we move into the staff presentation, i just wanted to note kind of the rarity of the commissioner's request to review

the state legislation. this is not something we do often. the only other time it happened was last year 827. and in such, for the public's understanding, there are difficulties as we try to understand what local impacts would be from state legislation. these bills are not written specifically to apply to san francisco, but instead are trying to address the conditions across hundreds of cities. and that means for local planning and trying to figure out how it interacts with our ordinances, it can be complicated. here locally, we have the zoning administrator to help us interpret the local bills, but for state bills, interpreting this authority is given to the state attorney general and they won't offer clarity until after the bill is enacted. for that reason, it's important to know there is a good deal of uncertainty in our presentation and we try to let you know about that. it's appropriate for us to be uncertain at this time.

the bill can still change as it moves through the process and we expect it will continue to change. i'd be happy to tell you about the process after the hearing, too. with that in mind, i just wanted to let you know that staff is going to share with the commission our understanding of the bill as drafted today. and we're doing so with two key goals in mind. first, trying it offer a transparent explanation that is both complete and clear. and second, we're trying to also provide an interpretation based upon our professional experience what would be the likely outcome. with that in mind, i turn it over. >> before we begin, unfortunately, those persons standing or sitting on the floors, if you cannot find a seat, you can't remain in the room. i think there might be one or two seats available. unfortunately, those of you who cannot find a seat, will need to view this hearing in the north light court on the first floor. we've arranged for an overflow

room where you'll be able to watch and listen to the proceedings. when your name is called for public comment, you're more than welcome to return to the room. for those persons who might be here for a later item, you may be generous enough to give up your seat until this item concludes. so, we can't proceed until those persons who cannot find a seat in this room, unfortunately, must leave the room. and you can make your way down to the north light court where, again, you can watch and listen to these proceedings. your name will be called. i'm announce item 13 being next and you can then reenter the room. thank you very much.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. the planning department, city-wide staff. so today i'm here to give you a brief presentation describing the memo on senate bill 50 which we released last week, as well as the amendments made earlier this week. i'll start with a summary of the bill in its present form. then go into some of our

preliminary analysis on how sb50 could apply in san francisco should it pass. i'll touch on the key questions we have about the bill as well as the thoughts about the potential regional and statewide effects it could have. i think emery said, this analysis is sort of our best guess as what could potentially happen if the bill were to pass. it's likely there will be further amendments to the bill and announcements will evolve as that happens. the power point on the screen. so senate bill 50, was introduced by senator scott wiener in december of last year and amended in the senate just a couple of days ago. the memo we prepared was before it came out. we have printed summaries released by the senator's office here. we anticipate the bill will be amended further and heard in committee in the senate in the

next month or so. so in many ways, sb50 is similar to 827. like 827, it's to increase the amount of housing built near transit stations and stops. however, sb50 adds a job rich geography which would expand where the bill might apply. the actual areas that will be considered jobs-rich have not been fully defined yet. recent amendments to the bill do define that jobs-rich areas will be in places across the state with high access to jobs and positive educational and economic outcomes. so, basically what the bill, what it proposes, near frequent bus lines and jobs rich areas, qualifying projects would be exempted and parking requirements higher than .5 spaces per unit. near rail and ferry station, qualifying projects would be

exempted from density controls and parking requirements, as well as certain height and controls i'll describe in a minute. the proposed height standards are lower than what 827 originally proposed. the project statewide would be required to meet a minimum requirement. the recent amendments seem to indicate that projects in san francisco would likely be required to comply with our inclusionary ordinance to qualify for a bonus. the legislation allows what is called -- so the bonus is called equitable communities incentive. and the legislation allows the project to layer that incentive with a state density bonus and other state laws like sb35. it does not appear to otherwise alter the local municipality process, including design review and controls. we have several outstanding questions about how our local laws and procedures might

interact with sb50 and other state laws, including the housing accountability act. so here's what sb50 proposes. i'll go from bottom to top. in areas of quarter mile of a stop on a high quality bus corridor or area jobs rich, they would be able to waive density controls and any minimum parking requirements. outside of a quarter mile, but within a half mile of a rail or ferry station, qualifying projects are allowed to waive density and parking requirements and city would not be able to enforce existing height limit lower than 45 feet. or other standards that would be a floor ratio below 2.5. i'll going into that later. within a quarter mile of a rail or ferry station, a qualifying project would again be able to

waive local density, control or parking minimum requirements. and the city would not be able to enforce height limit lower than 55 feet or any standards that would operate below floor ratio of 3.25. it would qualify for three concessions. incentives and concessions are loosely defined, but essentially anything that reduces the cost of a project. common ones on density projects includes reduction in open space, exposure or rear yard requirements. this is a map of san francisco. and all the locations within our city that meet the transit service thresholds that are defined in sb50. you can see by the frequent transit network, almost all of the city is covered under one of the sb50 geographiegeographies.

while much of of the city appears covered under the bill, there are key exceptions. sb50 does not apply to land that does not allow residential uses. it would not apply to any property occupied by a tenant in the previous seven years or any property removed from the rental market due to the ellis act in the previous 15 years. the city does not maintain records on tenants, where they live, so that would be something that we would have to figure out should the bill pass. sb50 includes an initial exemption for sensitive communities. broadly, those are defined as tracks that have a high degree of poverty and racial segregation in the bill. the latest amendments clarify that here in the bay area, it's part of casa would serve as the

definition. cities containing sensitive would be able to opt out of sb50 and pursue a community-led plan that produces the same development that sb50 would otherwise create in that area. cities choosing that option would have until january 1, 2025 to produce a plan meeting those minimum standards. or sb50 would come into effect in those areas. so taking into account the exemptions i've just described. this map is a very rough estimate of where we might expect sb50 to apply in san francisco. so areas that don't allow housing on the map are grayed out. areas where local zoning allows higher heights and density are grayed out. the rough estimate of where existing rental units are grayed out in this map as well. here we overlay the sensitive

communities that are within san francisco as defined by casa. and so these are areas where presumably sb50 installation would be delayed. the pink, yellow and orange that you see left over is roughly the area where we think sb50 might really apply in the city. so while it's technically possible for sb50 to apply on a multiunit owner occupied building, it's not likely that those will be redeveloped under the law because of the difficulty of getting multiple owners to agree to sell the building or make additions to it. therefore, we do think that it's most likely to result in changes, either new construction or additions to property on vacant and nonresidential properties, as well as on owner

occupied single-family homes presuming that they have not had a renter in the past seven years. so we've produced graphics. so within those kind of pink, yellow and orange areas, we chose a typical lot and then we produced graphics to visualize what we think sb50 might result in. i'm going to give full credit and thanks to alison, who created these on a very short deadline. i also note that these drawings, in some cases show what might be technically possible under the proposed bill. and i'll try to add context as to what we think might actually happen. sorry, let me go back. so here we have a typical 25 by 100 lot zoned rh-2. we think the zones where sb50 would lead to the greatest

change of zoned capacity. this shows three adjacent lots and this is the typical zoning envelope. we do not control residential den density by f.a.r. we control the form of the building through a height limit which is generally 40 feet. and rear yard, front and some cases side setbacks as well. so this kind of shows that theoretical envelope. in reality, through the residential design guidelines end up affecting the shape of new buildings or major additions made in the district. so through design review, projects are sculpted to match the existing context, often setbacks on the upper stories in the front, matching light wells to adjacent properties, and so reduction of mass on protrusions

into the rear yard, just examples. so in the areas on the map that i showed previously in pink which are within the quarter mile of frequent buses and in jobs rich areas, there are no mandated changes to bulk or height. instead, density limits would be released. within the same envelope as what was allowable today, a project could fit up to maybe eight units instead of two. so the look of the building could be essentially no change from what we might see today, but the density would be different. sb50 doesn't appear to require a project to add densitdensity. so you have no -- there is no requirement that you actually add eight units even though eight units is possible in this envelope. so in the next year, within half mile of rail stops, the bill would mandate that we allow a

height up to 45 feet if a project sponsor requested it. the bill would request the city to prevent setbacks of the building below 2.5. rh-2, larger 45 rear yard requirement, if we were to enforce that, that would reduce the f.a.r. of the building below 2.5. under sb50, they'll be entitled to build back deeper into the lot. in reality, and in practice, we already allow averaging of rear yards in these districts. and many existing properties do not have the full 45% rear yard. a project would be likely allowed one story above the height limit, up to 55 feet. again, because of rh-2 larger 45% rear yard requirement, we

would presumably allow them to reduce the rear yard in order to not reduce the f.a.r. of the site below 2.5. so sb50 allows a state density bonus on top of the equitable communities incentive. the state density bonus allows 35% additional density: so we want to -- we are showing you something, we want to be fully transparent about what is possible when you add 35% more square footage onto the base of the projects we've shown you. but i want to note that there are several factors that might make the scenarios unlikely. here we're showing 35% more as additional height. on this lot, probably you would not -- a developer would not

want to go higher than four or five stories, because it becomes more expensive and the expense could cancel out any benefit of getting the 35% additional density. someone could choose to go further back onto the lot. again, we think this is probably the more likely scenario. but again, i think there are costs involved with getting that close to a property line and also it starts to affect the livability of the units and someone might not want to build this because it makes the unit inefficient and harder to sell. so as i mentioned earlier, the bill does not mandate changes to the local approval processes. so projects would be able to -- would go through regular design review. including our controls on demolition of existing housing

units. we may see more cases. on projects that propose demolition of an existing unit to build a replacement project that is code complying under the standards. as i messaged earlier -- mentioned earlier, the transit rich bonus would compound the bonus with the state density dough news law. the state density bonus law is only projects. the density bonus law is flexible and introduces a certain amount of uncertainty as to the scale and shape of building proposals we might see. in places where sb50 and our local home sf tt program apply, it's unclear what takes precedence.

sb50 would offer the same zoning cavity, but without home sf rates. so thus, undercutting the appeal of home sf. finally, we think the bill needs further clarification about how local inclusionary ordinance would apply. as drafted it is unclear whether the project would comply with our ordinance by paying a fee and still qualify for a bonus without doing the onsite. those are clarifications we'd like to see. in summary, sb50 as passed would represent a fairly significant change to our lowest density neighborhood. so due to exemptions, the renter exemptions, we again help that sb50 would mostly result in new development or additions to existing buildings, on via -- vacant lots. i think many of the plans do what sb50 proposes.

they control density in many areas rather than a hard numerical limit. this could result in significant net new housing production in many places where we currently tend to see only building expansions and renovations. we do not have a -- there is not a lot of precedent of the scale and breadth of up-zoning that sb50 proposes. it's hard to predict where the development would take place. or how much would take place. statewide, i would say is very ambitious in scope. it is ambitious because it addresses a major statewide housing shortage. the governor proposed that we have 3.5 million units across the state. not only to meet the needs of the growing population, but to

address the backlog of underproduction. the jobs rich geography is significant. the details of which areas exactly qualify are yet to be determined, but if the hcd opportunity map for the bay area shown here is any indication, it would allow housing in large swaths with good access to jobs and high quality public services. we cite a study that shows that 827 would have increased the capacity for housing six fold, while inclusionary housing seven fold. sb50 could be even more effective from a housing production perspective. we will continue to monitor amendments to this and all the other housing bills moving through the state legislature. and provide analysis and updates as necessary. and with that, i'm happy to take

questions after public comment. thank you. >> thank you. and for those members of the public standing in the room, unfortunately, you cannot remain unless you can find a seat. there is an overflow room that has been set up in the north light court on the first floor where you can watch and listen to the proceedings. when your name is called for public testimony, you're more than welcome to re-enter the room and submit your testimony. >> president melgar: we'll now take public comment on this item. public comment will be two minutes. we have many, many public commenters. i'm going to read off a few names. please line up on the left side of the room. that way, you're not blocking the exit. and you can come up in no particular order. i have georgia, david, roger, calvin, jim, caroline, lori,

ashley, and christopher. please come up. >> good afternoon. sb50 makes no mention of speculation which has hit san francisco very hard in so many ways. housing has become monetized and sb50 will unleash more speculation. state representatives imposing this should put it off due to the following things the city is doing and things the city can do. the city needs an occupancy study to understand the ruse of the high rise developments built in the city within the past decade. are these primary residences or something else? the city has entitled buildings and you need to see what is in the pipeline. the city is already densifying per this commission, just as you did two years ago and many other

projects that followed. the city is promoting a policy of adus that should be allowed to play out because it is so extensive and in compliance with state law. the city can encourage them to return to the market with residential tax relief or rebates. the city can protect the typical 45% rear yard residential units from not being excavated and mitigate greenhouse gases as the trees and even just the soil in this percentage of the 25 by 114 lot can capture carbon. the city has ability to design small units -- [bell ringing] -- that include hallways, functioning kitchens and bedrooms suitable for families. the city is promoting a policy for sound housing while working

to expand the small sites program. san francisco is unique residential city. i don't have to tell you that you will. it's a very urban residential city and therefore needs special consideration. the citizens and decision-makers can do things that sacramento cannot. here's a copy. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, my name is dave, i'm president of the westwood high lands association. i was president of the west peak council and president of the improve club. san francisco real estate as you know is valuable. we're a crowded city, we still have controls on, among other things, density, setbacks, height, use and parking. in all the years i've been involved in neighborhood issues, i haven't met anyone who doesn't like the qualities. with the secondary units and

short-term rentals, r1 zoning means nothing. we have to hire lawyers to defend and we no longer have help from bbi. but sb50 will finish us off because these qualities that make san francisco desirable will have been given away or sold in one shot. no more need for the 100-year-old planning department or decisions. and there won't be need for debates like this that create a unique fabric of san francisco. those qualities that give real estate its value like height density, use and parking will have been sold to developers who will build high rise developments with little or no parring. families that want to raise kids here will have to continue to move somewhere else. our cool city will be gone forever. sb50 is a scam. [bell ringing] it's the biggest scam i've ever heard of and how

could any city consider this? san francisco is a very special place. please don't give it away. protect the sovereignty that san francisco has over its own planning. please send a message to the mayor, board of supervisors, and scott wiener and his group that this planning commission won't have anything to do with this. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you. please refrain from clapping. you can do anything that doesn't have a sound. it will get through easier. >> good afternoon. thank you for this hearing and big thank you to staff for analysis. in san francisco, we have an affordable housing crisis. we do not have enough housing for our moderate and lower income community. this includes many of our teachers, firefighters, families and seniors. we need to do much more to maintain our existing housing

and to encourage new affordable development. sb50 has been proposed by scott wiener in sacramento to address this issue. unfortunately, it is not the solution. instead, sb50 incentivizes developers to make profit by demolishing housing and making luxury apartment blocks. it doesn't present a higher amount of affordable housing than what the city laws mandate. and sb50 takes away the current residential zoning. they can build up to 85 feet high, or higher, on any resume dengsz parcel. -- residential parcel. and yesterday's changes allow development up to 55 feet high with no affordable units required. the revised sb50 intent is clear, politicians in sacramento want to open up san francisco to more luxury development.

it will have less use of public transit -- [bell ringing] -- it's a bad deal for san francisco and yesterday's changes make it worse, but it will make developers very wealthy. to the sacramento politicians, keep your hands off san francisco. if you want to help, send us funds for affordable housing. i'm here today to stand up for san francisco and i call upon you, our planning commissioners, to oppose sb50 and ask our board of supervisors and our mayor to oppose this destructive bill. this does not address our housing problem. >> next speaker, please. >> i ask myself, what is it that sb50 supporters want and does

this bill deliver it? no. the answer is a resounding no. there is a shortage of affordable housing and rentals and i can sympathize with folks who vent their frustration that prices are out of reach. my own children feel the same pain. they want affordable housing rather they're low, moderate or higher income levels. there is a problem, but sb50 is not the solution. this encourages luxury condos which will only exacerbate housing prices and make them further out of reach. the planning department's analysis -- and thank you for your hard work on that -- is a really good start, but to fully understand the real impact of the bill, we need a deep analysis as you are clearly starting to do on the combined bills when you pull together the state density bonus and the housing accountability act. those are the trap doors in

sb50. when you read it up front, it looks pretty and 55 feet is as high as we go. and then you see the links to other legislation and you realize it's just the beginning. so, i wanted to bring up something else. i think that the planning department should analyze -- [bell ringing] -- another significant impact. this legislation is based on proximity to corridors. and the definition is absurdly broad. this puts sfmta as the new zoning authority. a bus route and its frequency will be the new political bargaining chip. sfmta will hold the power to control san francisco's land use and they are not accountable to the supervisors. there will be no predictable zoning for areas. [bell ringing] >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> my name is jim and i'm representing spur, the san francisco bay planning, the good planning and good government nonprofit founded 112 years as the san francisco housing association. the homes act is the right environmental choice to allow more housing capacity near robust federally funded light rail. it establishes statewide inclusionary housing so that obligation does not fall just on responsible cities like san francisco. it is the appropriate and fair choice to allow more capacity for housing near jobs and good schools. it incorporates protection, respects demolition controls and local inclusionary requirements. it provides for communities at risk of gentrification. it will result in missing smaller scale housing.

today, you're going to hear from many that it removes local control. it does not. all housing projects will still be under ceqa implemented by our planning department. san francisco's design review remains. san francisco strict demolition control remains. san francisco strict tenant protection remains. san francisco's high inclusionary housing remains. no property owner is forced to sell, give up or develop their land. there is no imminent domain associated with the bill. developers would still be able to develop smaller projects if they choose. city zoning could simply not be more limiting than the bill. in many ways, it takes us back to how san francisco developed the wonderful diverse mixed

neighborhoods we all love before this fear of restrictions were enacted in the 1970s. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, overhead, please. >> president melgar: if you could pull the mic. >> i'm speaking today as member of the transportation 2045 task force which issued its report in january of 2018 and it's astounding to me that your staff dhoez -- chose to analyze what is essentially a transit oriented development proposal, sb50, without looking at the transit side. if you look at your committee's -- your staff's report, on page 8, they pretty much demonstrate the point that i'm going to try to make here.

we have an extraordinary transit deficit, not only in san francisco, but in the region. it's about $210 billion. that's a b. that's billion dollars. we're about $20 billion short to meeting the transit needs of san francisco alone. that doesn't count the additional $6 billion to bring caltrains to a nonfunctional caltrains station. we have a difficulty in dealing with major transit development projects. yet we're proposing -- or supervisor now senator wiener is moving development to the least transit sound areas of the city. [bell ringing] page 8 shows that it's going to be basically aimed at western san francisco. western san francisco has the

biggest problem, the least amount of transit, the highest car ownership possible. this is a problem waiting to occur that your staff needs to place before you. this report has not one word of analysis on the transit impacts that this will have [bell ringing] -- especially given the deficit we face. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is roger dawson. i'm a victim of scott wieners' legislation with a warning. let's look at scott's previous piece of legislation when he was supervisor. i live a quiet semi-retired life in a small rent controlled apartment, but scott winer's

accessory dwelling unit unleashed an orange county speculator to buy my building five months ago and make plans to stuff it with extra units at the expense of 30 residents losing their laundry and parking which is crucial for seniors with disabilities. these newport beach millionaires have been trying to evict me for four months now because i oppose them turning our charming building into a ten tament. i am not alone, the adu activity is a plague ruining the quality of life here in san francisco. i've instigated a movement to reform the adu, but this should not have been approved in the first place. now he wants to spread the misery with sb50. having lived here well over half a century, i've seen this housing frenzy at the top of every economic boom cycle, more

construction, more carbon, more crime, permanent loss of neighborhood character, a miserable place to live. these shortsighted politicians fail to realize, this will lose the san francisco neighborhood charm and when the economy cools back down, our neighborhoods will be dotted with partially filled tenements. everybody thinks these booming companies will last forever. they don't. airbnb, consist of kids programming away for 12 hours a day. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> president melgar: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is christopher. i am here today to talk about sb50 from a climate change

perspective. last fall, the california air resources board issued a report stating that the state does not have the hope of reaching its climate change goals unless it does something serious to reduce the vehicle miles traveled, electrifying vehicles will not do the trick. so in order do that, it's imperative on a statewide basis to be increasing the amount of housing that is provided close to transit and close to major employment centers. unfortunately, local governments across the state have made it crystal clear they have no intention of doing that on their own. therefore, state action is imperative and sb50 is an important step in that direction. we need to stop treating single-family residential neighborhoods as some kind of holy of holys that need to be protected from defilement by apartment buildings. we need to increase the supply of housing andhe